Posted on 04/23/2009 7:04:49 PM PDT by chevydude26
First they talk about actual border stops (all emphasis mine):
Border Searches .--''That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.'' 87 Authorized by the First Congress, 88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops. 89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis, 90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply. 91
Then they talk about inland stops, broken down by roving patrols vs. fixed checkpoints.
Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant's automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent. 93 On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are ''aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion'' that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is ''modest'' and the law enforcement interests served are significant. 94 Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. 95
So, it's not that you don't have any 4th Amendment rights at the border, but that the 4th Amendment's requirements for "reasonableness" of the search are met by virtue of you coming into the country. This is why you will meet Customs & Border Protection officers if you were to fly into any international airport, regardless of how far it is to a "border," like Denver, Atlanta, or Salt Lake City. It's still a port of entry into the US.
US Supreme Court, Decided July 6, 1976:
UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
HOWEVER, that does NOT mean it is RIGHT! IMO, some tell-tale indications of this (i.e., that the SCOTUS is turning a blind eye to the 4th Amendment) is WITHIN this SCOTUS Opinion:
There also was a grave danger that such unreviewable discretion would be abused by some officers in the field.As we have noted earlier, one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. [and if I pull up to a Checkpoint in my RV that I'm living out of, what then?]
It is agreed that checkpoint stops are "seizures" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning [note: "stops," NOT search and seizure] routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment and need not be authorized by warrant.
Police have the right to reel in wrongdoers BUT not to go on fishing expeditions.
If you are willing to give up your Rights, then you are subject to (AND deserving of) whatever new Law or Judicial ruling that ANY public official is willing to "modify" from the Bill of Rights -- all in the name of the "public good".
We have enough of this sh*t from the acting-POTUS -- neither he nor ANY other Public Official need help in "re-interpreting" YOUR Bill of Rights! Please do not enable them!!
The Bill of Rights is about INDIVIDUAL rights -- not that of the "collective".
Are you yelling at us or agreeing with this gentlemen who took a stand? You just never know these days..:)
Opps sorry it took me to your post, question answered. Thumbs up to you BP2...there are alot of people on FR believe it or not that don’t get this!! Thank you.
Right now I’m freaking over the BRAND NEW strain of Swine Flu and how this crisis will be used or abused and blown up to take more away from us. My brain hurts and is not functioning properly...LOL.
Thank you for taking the time to post such an easy-to-read explanation. That explains a lot and was most helpuful.
Finally, I’d be wary of any “pastor” who wasn’t familiar with 1 Peter 2:13-17 :
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.”
******
GO BACK TO ENGLAND!! If that is what our Fore Fathers had done we would STILL be under British law. WHEN does just defense come into play. Will you submit to the Anti-Christ when he is put in power??? Will you take his number, he will after all be the authority instituted by men. YOU are in big trouble!!
Having never been to England, it will be difficult for me to go back.
However, to answer your question, I'll quote a bit by James Patrick Holding, that you can find here:
The Bible quite often tells us to respect and obey the laws of men. So what, say the critics, about this:
Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men."
This is almost a qualifier for a Golden Duh Award, but not quite. Note well: in Acts, the "law" being set down countermanded God's requirements. The Jews told Peter and Co. to shut up and stop spreading the Gospel; that was opposite to Jesus' command to spread it. The other verses do not say, "unless they countermand God's commands" - but we are given credit for having the intelligence to realize that God's orders should not be overruled by any human intervention!
Indeed, the citation of the other verses as contradictory reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of when and why each was written -- truly enough, context is key, but here it is again a case of more than merely textual context.
Consider the social context of the verses from Romans usually cited in this regard (Rom. 13: 1, 7). When Paul penned this letter, Nero was emperor, but he was still in the realm of sanity and was a fairly good ruler; Christians were not being persecuted by Rome. Paul is not here concerned with the hypothetical possibility which eventually became reality: That the government would turn against the Christian faith. Had these words been penned ten years later, the instructions would assuredly have been tempered quite differently, and be more along the lines of Acts 5:29, where a choice did indeed have to be made between obeying God and man -- because as of the time when this passage was written, there was no human law which was in contradiction to the will of God. Paul could truly say "obey the law" without qualification, because there was no law on the books at the time that was objectionable from a Christian perspective: Christians weren't being persecuted or told to give up or compromise their faith; they were under the protective classification of being a Jewish sect. (This also applies to Matthew 22:21, Titus 3:1 and 1 Pet. 2:13.) As is often the case, skeptics are taking a general principle with a specific historical context and turning it into a timeless universal in order to find contradiction.
You're welcome, my FRiend.
1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 556-564.I'll comment upon the parts I underlined.(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well-disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 556-557.
(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving-patrol stops. Pp. 557-560.
(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 560-562.
It would be nice to see the law that authorizes these stops. Not to be flippant but he decision only says that they may question you and not that you have to answer, and not that you are required to provide identification.
Whoever wrote this decision isn't a very good writer. The first paragraph says these stops are "consistent" with the fourth Amendment. The third paragraph calls them an "intrusion on the fourth Amendment, and then the fourth paragraph effectively says the fourth Amendment is irrelevant if some public interest outweighs it. These statements are not mutually consistent.
The decision clearly states that the only purpose of the stops is to look for illegal aliens, plural. No search is authorized. The BP guys could clearly see that he was the only one in the car, and their dog undoubted is or could be trained to detect whether people are hidden in the trunk or not, so I would say that this decision gave the BP no cause to stop him longer than to look in and at his car.
ML/NJ
I'm agreeing with this gentleman asserting his rights.
He didn't evade. He stopped his vehicle per their request. He didn't open his window because that could have been seen as an invitation for further entry. Is it risky? Hell yes. We're conditioned (rightfully so) to follow law enforcement.
However, sometimes their actions are based upon faulty laws, and we sometimes have to fight back, to "push the boundary" to get noticed. That's something most Conservatives are hesitant to do by nature -- be Activist.
I am against the steady loss and re-definition of our liberties, even though it may be a two-edged sword for the republic as a whole.
I have great respect for Border Patrol agents and ALL LEOs. I do not envy their job -- they have to deal with drug runners, felons as well as honest American citizens, and have no idea which one is going to pull into their Checkpoint.
But "conditioning" Americans that they must open their vehicle without reasonable suspicion and submit to a random inspection is as ludicrous as the anal probes we all get by the TSA at the airport. Such "policy" is done without the application of "common sense" that LEOs are empowered to use every day on their job.
Do you own a mirror?
Go to the station at Laramie Wyoming, right off of I-80 @ 3rd street and check out the parking lot sometime about 6:00 AM. If there aren't a car or two full of illegals everyday gassing up and loading up on junk food then I'll buy you lunch.
If that doesn't change your mind, consider that Denver is a "sanctuary city" and one of the first destinations north of Arizona for carloads of illegals.
Well, I don't know how you know about some gas station in Laramie. You act as if you are a regular there. I have to tell you that it's not especially convenient for me to get to Laramie to observe your gas station.
And then what would it mean. There are gas stations here where illegals fill up too. They live here. Only a few have cars, so whenever you see a car with these wetbacks in it, the car is usually full. BFD. Maybe you want to advocate a new internal checkpoint on the way to your gas station in Laramie?
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.