| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
HE WASN'T CROSSING THE BORDER!!!!!!!! HE WASN'T CROSSING THE BORDER!!!!!!!! HE WASN'T CROSSING THE BORDER!!!!!!!! The checkpoint was on I-8 INSIDE the United States. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Fatty, he is not being illegally detained. He's lucky he wasn't in a customs inspection, they'd have torn the ass out of his car. There is no warrant requirement for a border inspection. He is not only an ass, he is flat wrong. So if a terrorist is a total ass at the border and refuses to cooperate, we can let him pass even though he has a trunkload of nukes. Puuuuhhhlease! I think this guy needs a psychiatrist. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Didn't Ft just say HE WASN'T AT THE BORDER | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Google this term. "Functional Equivalent of the Border" | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If I am stopped by ANY officer, local, state, federal, I do NOT have to allow them to search the car AND they are prohibited from conducting a search unless there is probable cause. Border crossings are different. This was NOT a border crossing. There was NOT probable cause beyond someone telling the officers that they did not have permission to search the car. Me saying "no" is not probable cause. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf Not trying to ba a smart ass, but please read, and we can discuss as gentlemen. I respect your opinion, Fatty. | ||
| Aeholton |
OK I googled "Functional Equivalent of the Border". I still think they would have a hard time justifying the search. "A search occurs at the border’s functional equivalent when: (1) a reasonable certainty exists that the person or thing crossed the border; (2) a reasonable certainty exists that there was no change in the object of the search since it crossed the border; and (3) the search was conducted as soon as practicable after the border crossing." | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I was just about to post the same definition. #1 doesn't apply because there is no reasonable certainty that the person crossed the border. #2 doesn't apply because #1 doesn't apply #3 doesn't apply because #1 doesn't apply I agree with you that there are searches that are conducted in "equivalent" border locations. If this guy was in fact traveling along I-8 and didn't cross the border, the search must be conducted under the auspices of the 4th Amendment since the limited scope exemptions to the 4th Amendment do no apply. Close to the border doesn't mean AT the border in this case. I believe that the courts will prove this out. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Let me reevaluate. What year did this take place? The US Border Patrol (under INS) does not have the authority to search the car without probable cause that an immigration law was being broken, but they do have the authority to determine alienage (we can't just let anyone in the country right?). Under DHS after 9/11 the Border Patrol and Customs Inspection are somewhat intertwined, and a customs search as it alway has since the formation of the US requires none or mere suspicion. If this was a pre-9/11 INS search( before Customs and INS were merged), then the officers probably did not have the authority to search his car. Legally they could have pulled the guy out of his car and once alienage was determined they'd have to let him go or arrest him. I'm not an expert on immigration authority so please do not crucify me. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I agree. I would say though that as "white bread" as this guy was, his "alienage" was not in question. Force would make sense if they were a few miles south. The threshold for application of the type of force they used is different for WHERE they applied it. Again, the guy was spoiling for a fight. That fact doesn't absolve these officers from being required to comply with constitutional law. "He started it." won't fly. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
Who's to say the pastor didn't beat himself up and then make the video... Point is this is one side of the story, without ALL the information that occurred. I deal with the 3 sides of the story on a daily basis. The 3 sides being side A, side B and the truth. While side A and Side B will provide factual elements of the story, the truth is actually only some of what each side said and a lot of what each side left out! Edited to add; I am not a big fan of the Patriot Act. (Message edited by Paint shaker on April 16, 2009) | ||
| Chellem |
Aren't ALL checkpoints essentially violations of the illegal search and seizure rule, regardless of what they're checking for? A strict interpretation would prevent drunk driving checkpoints, inspection sticker checkpoints, all of them. Are they "searching" randomly? No. But they could be construed as "illegally detaining" perfectly law-abiding citizens with no real probable cause. We, as good little citizens, accept these checkpoints because they allegedly prevent death, accidents, and of course, that all-important driving-with-expired-plates maniac. It seems to follow that "border patrol" checkpoints - located WELL within the border - are just extensions of what we gave up a long time ago. The natural progression is "helpful" safety officers randomly knocking on your door and ensuring that your house is safe enough. Could save children's lives if only SOMEONE would check the little latches under the sink! I can't believe we're allowing crazy mothers to let their kids potentially drink poisonous cleaning supplies from the cabinet! And then, whatever else they may find, well, who knows? I mean, probable cause could be the fact that you HAVE children. I know, it's unrealistic, right? Wait. ->ChelleM Right-wing maniac, probably being monitored as the highest threat to the safety of Americans. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Again, the guy was spoiling for a fight. That fact doesn't absolve these officers from being required to comply with constitutional law. "He started it." won't fly. Correct! They ultimately let the guy go. They have better things to do than have a pissing contest with this guy in court. On another note, this did not seem to be a random checkpoint. This looked like a border crossing station, with stoplights and buildings. This wasn't a couple of BP guys hanging willy nilly on the interstate in their olive drab dodge ram chargers. I don't think we are getting the full story here. | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
I would say though that as "white bread" as this guy was, his "alienage" was not in question. What if he was one of those damned Canadians? You know they walk amongst us daily undetected.  | ||
| Swampy |
Don't ask me to comment, but I will anyways... MY ASS IS STILL SORE FROM THE LAST TIME I CROSSED THE BORDER! The ironic part about it was is they ask for the papers, you give them up, then they go ahead and jack you up anyways, it just doesn't make sense? The only thing I can imagine is that they don't want to be accused of "Profiling" so they mess with everybody, instead of putting the forces where they will be most effective. Secure the BORDERS! Don't mess with the old ladies! Wasting all the resources doing random checks when any dummy can go find what they are looking for. But when the dummies get in charge they look for nothing and the problem continues unmolested. Its sort of like building a motorcycle with four tires, it doesn't make any sense. So you can imagine how I feel about this subject.... | ||
| Mortarmanmike120 |
Awesome thread. Once again I couldn't agree more with FB: saying "no" is not probable cause. If they had decided to arrest and search him in the second video (and his video 'survived'), the case would have been thrown out in a heartbeat during the suppression hearing. Those agents need more training. They have a technique that allows them to be successful 95% of the time. When it didn't work here they weren't able to accept it and almost crossed the line. They allowed it to become personal and nearly resorted to intimidation. Either there's reasonable suspicion or there isn't. I feel for them. They have a rougher job then most realize. They have to deal with assholes, it's hot, the days can be long, violence could happen at any minute, etc. I sympathize. But they chose that profession. Either they can deal with it professionally or they shouldn't be there. It is not unreasonable to expect them to function professionally within the limits of the law. I'd bet my buell that if that camera hadn't been there that second incident would have ended VERY differently. (Message edited by mortarmanmike120 on April 17, 2009) | ||
| Mortarmanmike120 |
The only thing I can imagine is that they don't want to be accused of "Profiling" so they mess with everybody, instead of putting the forces where they will be most effective. Secure the BORDERS! Don't mess with the old ladies! Unfortunately, in the case of drug interdiction, that's not necessarily the case. Even if you have good profiles the runners soon adapt because they know the profile you're using. You'd be amazed at the contraband you find on the 'old lady' or the 'yuppy married couple' or the 'rabbi'. If you focus on the profile you miss ALOT. Kinda like the IED's in Iraq, as soon as we develop a countermeasure they adjust. Sorry you had such a rough time at the border Swampy. Of course the border should be far different then internal checkpoints | ||
| Thumper74 |
Also... What's a Border Patrol agent doing carrying nunchucks, wtf? | ||
| Aeholton |
On another note, this did not seem to be a random checkpoint. This looked like a border crossing station, with stoplights and buildings. This wasn't a couple of BP guys hanging willy nilly on the interstate in their olive drab dodge ram chargers. I believe it is a permanent checkpoint set up on I-8 that runs E-W across southern Arizona. Someone that knows better can correct me, but I don't believe that highway ever crosses the border. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Okay, my take... The pastor has a point, but I think the pudgy agent in the second video was correct. You don't have to answer any questions unless you're suspicious. I would argue that rolling up to a checkpoint with doors locked, windows up, refusing to provide any identification or cooperate in any way puts you in suspicion. In that regord, I fully support the patrol agents in the second video. However, as Fat said, it is not against the law to be an ass, and if the stop the preceeded the first video went the same as the second, excessive forced would most definately have been used. That said, I think you're all right - he was looking for a fight, and when you're looking for a fight, you'll do and say things to get it. Who knows what happened before that first video, but I highly doubt it was as clear cut as he made it out to be. On another note, I have crossed the border at least 26 times in the past couple years. The vast majority of stops involve me handing over my passport, answering a question or two of where I'm headed or where I'm coming from, MAYBE they'll ask me if I have any firearms in the car, and then I'm on my way in less than 15 seconds. Once or twice they opened my trunk. Not sure why, I had nothing to hide. If they routinely pulled me out of my car to frisk me and put me in an interrogation room, that would be different. The only border issue I've heard of from someone I personally know had to do with firearms - they were asked if they had any in the car, and the answer was "no". Then they asked if they owned any, and the answer was "yes". They were then asked to pull over for a complete vehicle search and more questioning. I didn't really agree with that. | ||
| Greenlantern |
What if he was one of those damned Canadians? You know they walk amongst us daily undetected.  They do indeed.... | ||
| Chellem |
Boy any excuse for THAT picture. | ||
| Benm2 |
Please, list the professions available where this is not the case, so I can prepare my resume. | ||
| Greenlantern |
Hey, you say Canada, I say Shatner (Besides, Neil Young's sideburns really creep me out!) | ||
| Liquorwhere |
Who's to say the pastor didn't beat himself up and then make the video... I saw a movie along the same lines about a West Point Graduate that was accused of beating himself half to death to get out of a D in philosophy...yeah...I am gonna say I don't think so....I guess some have a hard time believing that while cops may have to deal with assholes(don't like it pick another profession) many cops are just the same as those they deal with...Assholes. So there ya go. I have seen many on their power trip like those guys were, and some...so very few, that just did their jobs professionally....I don't think this guy beat himself up, I hope he sues, I hope each and every one of those lumps can't even be fake 5.0 watching gated communities or even patrolling a Mall...I hope they have to get off their fat asses and work like everyone else, I hope for them on a daily basis to run into a cop that treats them like dirt, steps on their rights, abuses authority and makes them suffer each and every day..I hope they break down and cry whenever they see their formal pals lined up at Dunkin Donuts, knocking back a few cream filled with sprinkles and a Double Decaf Mocha Latte and they remember the good old days in the trenches and cry...real tears...Karma.... | ||
| Swordsman |
I always thought Shatner had beady eyes and a flappy head! I should have known! ~SM | ||
| Xl1200r |
I don't understand the strong hatred towards LEOs... I've dealt with more than a few during my short time on this earth so far, and I can only recall one that I would have liked to kicked in the balls. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
Don't like the police? Next time call a crackhead! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I have zero hatred for LEO's (except for the local little bastard who hides on Royal Oaks and pops people for 1 over). I do have hatred for officers who act unprofessionally, abridge the rights of citizens, apply excessive force, and give GOOD LEO's bad names. | ||
| Baybueller |
Regarding respect for LEOs, riding a Harley around the US in the early 70s with long hair "explained" it to me. |
