Posted on 04/16/2009 12:43:26 PM PDT by the_Watchman
I told them I was a US citizen. I told them I was on a business trip. I told them I had no drugs or humans in the car. That wasn't enough. They wanted to search the car, and I invoked my 4th am...
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Believe it or not, not all smugglers of people and drugs queue up at the actual border for inspection. Nope, those devious rascals try to avoid the check points and get on US roadways headed north to their destinations.
Luckily the border patrol knows this and has the responsibility for ensuring that the border is secure, even NORTH of the border.
So my question, which so far has gone unanswered, is this...
Do you contend that there is no valid compelling state interest (a reason) in inspecting vehicles likely to have originated south of the border?
If you admit that there IS a valid and compelling state interest in stopping vehicles that may have avoided border check points actually on the border; then obviously the search wasn't “unreasonable” now was it?
So once a car from Mexico avoids the check points actually ON the border, you feel there is no valid reason for inspecting them north of the border?
The whole "We'll bring the dogs." thing usually gets a "Feel free, Officer" from me, not that I've been pulled over in ages.
"Oh, you don't have a Warrant? Then you'll be searching my vehicle without my permission or a Warrant. May I please have your names so I can make sure my Attorney spells them correctly?"
I've only had to use that one once.
Be polite, but firm.
And make sure you get their names.
According to the State of California, the daily traffic on I-8 is up to 258,000 vehicles a day according to 1992 data. So according to you there is a "high" likelihood that a car is trafficking humans on I-8. That would mean what 50% of them??? 40%?? 30%??? Even 1% would mean that daily there are 2,580 vehicles. I don't think so. Statistically, there is a minuscule chance that a car has crossed over the border and avoided checkpoints on the actual physical border.
>So once a car from Mexico avoids the check points actually ON the border, you feel there is no valid reason for inspecting them north of the border?
No, I said that there is a difference between reasonable and unreasonable, especially in conjunction with probable cause. I was in Iraq a while back, does that make me a terrorist?
(OIF 07-08)
PS — I said nothing about feelings.
It is not clear from the video whether he refused to provide identification or not. The SCOTUS has ruled that one has the right to privacy but not to anonymity.
Did everyone manage to hear the last names of all the border control, they all have a common thread don’t they!
The guy never crossed the border, he never left the U.S. I got stopped about 20 miles north of El Paso coming home from a vacation to Nevada. If what the guy says is true we have some bad days coming ahead.
Thus a high likelihood is measured against the general prevalence.
So far my question has gone unanswered.
Nobody is willing to stand behind the contention that searching vehicles near a border crossing zone is an example of unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure and insist that any car from south of the border that avoids the check points actually ON the border should be home free?
Mere suspicion is subjective. What are the guidelines?
That being said, I believe he should have showed his ID.
You also said nothing that answered my question.
If you don’t like the word “feel” than how about “is your view of the law”?
So the question again rephrased would be...
So once a car from Mexico avoids the check points actually ON the border, your view of the law is that there is no valid reason for inspecting them north of the border?
Exactly.
>You also said nothing that answered my question.
I DID. I said there is a difference between reasonable and unreasonable, especially in regards to probable cause.
>So once a car from Mexico avoids the check points actually ON the border, your view of the law is that there is no valid reason for inspecting them north of the border?
I patently did not say that, nor anything that could be so construed. I said that there should be probable cause, not that there is no reason for ever stopping a vehicle.
"What is your citizenship?"
"I'm a U.S. citizen."
"Thank you, have a nice day."
While you are in the checkpoint they will run dogs around the cars which is not legally considered a 4th amendment search. They can't use x-ray machines on every car, but they might have one available if the dog hits on something.
I think more people would question the veracity of this poor preacher's plight if they looked at some of his other videos. The first one is another 27 minute exchange with BP at another checkpoint where he refuses to answer any questions, or pull out of traffic, or even roll down his window. My other favorite is a sermon entitled "Judaism, the religion of the Antichrist."
Is “a**hole” a class of citizenship now? One that has no Constitutional rights, perhaps?
If you can check out some of his other postings on Youtube it may put your mind at ease. This guy looks like quite a nut. He has another video of himself stonewalling a BP checkpoint in NM and the topics of some of his sermons probably won't get him to heaven.
What are some of his sermon topics?
And I agree that the “reasonable” search north of the border would be ...
US license plate on the car, driver answers in English that they are an American citizen, nothing about the appearance of the vehicle or driver gives a compelling “reason” for anything more; and citizen drives on their way.
But refusing to pull aside, refusing to answer questions; that gives the authorities a compelling “reason” to search.
So you make an excellent point! The border patrol had no “reason” to do anything other than check his car, ask him his citizenship, and possibly run a K-9 around the vehicle; assuming he acted like a reasonable person to their reasonable requests.
BP can't legally inspect that vehicle. They can check the immigration status of the occupants, they can run a dog around the vehicle, they can use the facts from those activities to build probable cause. Suspicionless inspections can't be conducted without know border nexus.
If you walk down the street and 99.99% of the people you meet are not guilty of a violent crime, in no place except your distorted parallel universe is that a "HIGH" likelihood of anything other than there is a "high" likelihood of encountering honest law-abiding citizens entitled to all the protections of the U.S. Constitution that were paid for by the blood of our forefathers.
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.