Found this elsewhere. Thoughts?
[ll]133_1210305250[/ll]
Rejecting Authority at Police State Checkpoint
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
This isn't that far away from "papers, please?" however, this video was a set-up. The woman who was subjected to this was very professional. In fact, I'm suprised they were just moved along the way they were. This would seem to indicate profiling of some course.
Firstly, I would like to commend a victory for common sense on the part of the officer. If she had acted any way other than she did she would have been utterly in the wrong (given my understanding of the rights of American citizens in their own country). That would've made this another case of the violation of the Constitution; a document which your government is seemingly increasingly impatient with.
I saw another video a couple of years ago now in which a woman was stopped for no given reason and ended up being dragged from her car and arrested because she refused to cow to non-legal pressure.
No matter how much I disagree with what America is up to in the world at present, that shocked me because, as I controversially alluded to a few days ago in another thread, it is a pre-requisite for the birth of a totalitarian state that those entrusted with the security and safety of the citizenry acede to using their authority in either a fashion not in accord with the Constitution or, worse still, begin to treat a (non-criminal) segment of the society in a different manner.
Secondly, I am happy to see that there are still American's prepared to suffer the risks of publicising the increasing curtailment of freedom in the almost ironically named Land of the Free. What good it will do is yet to be seen.
A third point, on which I am just speculating, is that the check point might have a logical reason for existing. Those that breach the border illegally may have let their guard down somewhat after travelling a ways into America. An unexpected check-point may well catch some 'illegals' that otherwise would filter through.
I know we have at least one Border-Patrolman here at MT - hopefully he'll be able to give us an 'inside track' on this.
EDIT: I'm not sure I understand you fully, Upnorth. Could you re-phrase or elaborate a little on what you mean by it being a set-up and profiling being involved.
I saw another video a couple of years ago now in which a woman was stopped for no given reason and ended up being dragged from her car and arrested because she refused to cow to non-legal pressure.
No matter how much I disagree with what America is up to in the world at present, that shocked me because, as I controversially alluded to a few days ago in another thread, it is a pre-requisite for the birth of a totalitarian state that those entrusted with the security and safety of the citizenry acede to using their authority in either a fashion not in accord with the Constitution or, worse still, begin to treat a (non-criminal) segment of the society in a different manner.
Secondly, I am happy to see that there are still American's prepared to suffer the risks of publicising the increasing curtailment of freedom in the almost ironically named Land of the Free. What good it will do is yet to be seen.
A third point, on which I am just speculating, is that the check point might have a logical reason for existing. Those that breach the border illegally may have let their guard down somewhat after travelling a ways into America. An unexpected check-point may well catch some 'illegals' that otherwise would filter through.
I know we have at least one Border-Patrolman here at MT - hopefully he'll be able to give us an 'inside track' on this.
EDIT: I'm not sure I understand you fully, Upnorth. Could you re-phrase or elaborate a little on what you mean by it being a set-up and profiling being involved.
OP
OP
I've got it on good authority that if you tried that at the Peace Bridge crossing, you'll have a much less pleasant experience, ending in a large pile of car parts and a lighter wallet.
The allegation that a C&BP checkpoint is part of some sort of conspiracy to condition US citizens to checkpoints (I assume they'll be manned by Men In Black with black helicopters to transport themselves between the checkpoints...) is specious at best.
A checkpoint 40 or 50 miles from the border isn't at all questionable. That's a relatively easy distance for someone to travel, and in fact, often may be the best location to monitor traffic over a particularly porous section of the border which would otherwise be difficult to monitor because it may be at a natural chokepoint. Addtionally... illegal immigrants are a nationwide problem. In the DC area, I work closely with ICE. We have a tremendous number of illegal aliens in the area, ranging from Latino day laborers who are simply trying to make a buck or au pairs or college students who half-innocently overstayed their visa, and all the way to Nigerians, Russians, and others who are here as part of a deliberate, often organized, criminal effort.
The Supreme Court (and also state courts) have put pretty strict limits on the operation of any checkpoint. The detention must be brief (reasonable in terms of the scope of the particular checkpoint's purpose), and there are limited reasons why they can be set up. Simply detecting criminal activity is insufficient. Planning a checkpoint takes a lot of work and coordination, defining things like who is to be stopped, what they are to be asked about, and lots more.
In regard to this particular checkpoint, the driver actually extended the stop, and his actions interfered with those behind him. Nice of him, huh... Had he simply answered the questions, he'd have been on his way in moments. I think it's also rather noteworthy that despite being a pretty big *** about it -- I most definitely would have been looking for grounds to detain or cite him! -- he was not detained in the end.
Let me make it clear; I have no problem with people exercising their rights. If I ask for a consent search, and I lack grounds to search without consent, and you refuse... We're done. You have that right. (Incidentally, I rarely ASK if I've got grounds to search anyway; I think that it makes the search questionable. If I've got grounds to search or detain without a warrant... I'm doing it.)
Let me describe another recent stop I was involved in. We stopped three people who had been associating with an individual who's actions were highly suggestive of drug dealing. One was cooperative, and even consented to a search. (As an aside, he was in possession of three inexpensive cigars of a type often used with marijauna; the term is "blunts".) A second was cooperative, but didn't permit a consent search. Both of these two were released within a few minutes. The third? He was uncooperative, appeared deceptive about his name, and generally drew our attention. We finally determined that he was lying about his name because he was wanted. And he was also in possession of Schedule I narcotics... Yeah... I'd bet dollars to donuts that the guy who didn't consent to a search had weed on him, too. But we didn't have grounds to search or detain him any longer... so he went on his way.
A checkpoint 40 or 50 miles from the border isn't at all questionable. That's a relatively easy distance for someone to travel, and in fact, often may be the best location to monitor traffic over a particularly porous section of the border which would otherwise be difficult to monitor because it may be at a natural chokepoint. Addtionally... illegal immigrants are a nationwide problem. In the DC area, I work closely with ICE. We have a tremendous number of illegal aliens in the area, ranging from Latino day laborers who are simply trying to make a buck or au pairs or college students who half-innocently overstayed their visa, and all the way to Nigerians, Russians, and others who are here as part of a deliberate, often organized, criminal effort.
The Supreme Court (and also state courts) have put pretty strict limits on the operation of any checkpoint. The detention must be brief (reasonable in terms of the scope of the particular checkpoint's purpose), and there are limited reasons why they can be set up. Simply detecting criminal activity is insufficient. Planning a checkpoint takes a lot of work and coordination, defining things like who is to be stopped, what they are to be asked about, and lots more.
In regard to this particular checkpoint, the driver actually extended the stop, and his actions interfered with those behind him. Nice of him, huh... Had he simply answered the questions, he'd have been on his way in moments. I think it's also rather noteworthy that despite being a pretty big *** about it -- I most definitely would have been looking for grounds to detain or cite him! -- he was not detained in the end.
Let me make it clear; I have no problem with people exercising their rights. If I ask for a consent search, and I lack grounds to search without consent, and you refuse... We're done. You have that right. (Incidentally, I rarely ASK if I've got grounds to search anyway; I think that it makes the search questionable. If I've got grounds to search or detain without a warrant... I'm doing it.)
Let me describe another recent stop I was involved in. We stopped three people who had been associating with an individual who's actions were highly suggestive of drug dealing. One was cooperative, and even consented to a search. (As an aside, he was in possession of three inexpensive cigars of a type often used with marijauna; the term is "blunts".) A second was cooperative, but didn't permit a consent search. Both of these two were released within a few minutes. The third? He was uncooperative, appeared deceptive about his name, and generally drew our attention. We finally determined that he was lying about his name because he was wanted. And he was also in possession of Schedule I narcotics... Yeah... I'd bet dollars to donuts that the guy who didn't consent to a search had weed on him, too. But we didn't have grounds to search or detain him any longer... so he went on his way.
I found the officer to be very professional and controlled, and also very obviously following a prepared script (which makes perfect sense). I too was impressed by the way she maintained her composure in the face of the video taper's repeated comments and refusal to answer her question.
Living in Colorado, Border Patrol has never been an issue (although perhaps it should be) and therefore I have never been exposed to this particular situation. I find jks' explanation for the location of the checkpoint very reasonable, and have more issue with the taper's insistence on getting the answer he wanted at the expense of those behind rather more offensive than the checkpoint. I also disagree with the taper's interpretation of the location of the checkpoint:
Living in Colorado, Border Patrol has never been an issue (although perhaps it should be) and therefore I have never been exposed to this particular situation. I find jks' explanation for the location of the checkpoint very reasonable, and have more issue with the taper's insistence on getting the answer he wanted at the expense of those behind rather more offensive than the checkpoint. I also disagree with the taper's interpretation of the location of the checkpoint:
People cannot, rationally, complain simultaneously about illegal immigrants and checkpoints intended to reduce illegal immigration; nonetheless, they do so, to the point that all of us suffer for their "convictions". Had this checkpoint been asking more than "what is your country of origin" my response could well be different - but I wasn't there, and the taper's opinion was rather apparent. Also - he had to have known the checkpoint was there, to have come up to it taping as he did. No matter my opinion of his actions, I find his methods as questionable as his conclusions.
Imua Kuntao
Green Belt
being a Texan, I understand checking for illegals, the guy taping I believe is a dork trying to cuase trouble. If we do find ourselves in a police state, I have the greatest confidence in the American people to overcome.
tellner
Senior Master
Damn straight he's trying to cause trouble. People who insist that they have "rights" are trouble. They get in the way of the Authorities doing their job. They are messy. They are inefficient. And when people insist on their rights they start thinking that they're just as good as their Betters. If you let them get away with it they'll be disrespectful to people with badges and set up governments that are designed to insure their happiness and well being.
We can't have that. It would be *shudder* Revolutionary.
We can't have that. It would be *shudder* Revolutionary.
I think it was a set up. The guy was looking for a confrontation to get on tape. He's lucky they didn't haul his *** out of the car beat it, take the camera and toss him in jail for something.
At an immigration checkpoint, they probably aren't looking for people with light skin. I'm not sure about the people in the video, but from their accent, I'm assuming they were white. If that's the case, then we are probably looking at a little racial profiling here.
Incidentally, I think we need more people going out and reminding "the authorities" that the proles still have rights in this country.
For a little while.
.I give some props to the officer at that checkpoint. Very professional, didn't lose her cool. The driver on the other hand was an ***, plain and simple. I wouldn't think that a checkpoint, no matter what the distance from the boarder, would be wrong. Is there something written that says that it has to be a certain distance?
As for racial profiling...I used to work with a guy who was hispanic, yet he didn't have dark skin, nor did he speak with an accent. If you didn't know him, you would think he was white and non-Hispanic.
This IMO, is no different than a routine DUI set-up. Many times they check every so many cars, so tecnically someone who is drunk could pass while someone who isn't drunk gets stopped. Regardless, I could bet that if you were an *** to the cop, like the guy in this clip was, that you'd be arrested for interfering.
Bottom line is, the person at the checkpoint is conducting an investigation, and things will move a hell of alot faster if you just ask the questions.
As for racial profiling...I used to work with a guy who was hispanic, yet he didn't have dark skin, nor did he speak with an accent. If you didn't know him, you would think he was white and non-Hispanic.
This IMO, is no different than a routine DUI set-up. Many times they check every so many cars, so tecnically someone who is drunk could pass while someone who isn't drunk gets stopped. Regardless, I could bet that if you were an *** to the cop, like the guy in this clip was, that you'd be arrested for interfering.
Bottom line is, the person at the checkpoint is conducting an investigation, and things will move a hell of alot faster if you just ask the questions.
The officer did an excellent job of controlling herself and acted in a most professional manner.
I am not sure what the law says about not answering the question she asked but I know that if that had happened at at least one of the border crossings I have been to the car would have been pulled over and taken apart and the person being questioned would have been their a long time.
I see this stop and check no different than the ones where authorities are checking for drunk drivers or checking to see if people have a drivers license. If you do not cooperate you are detained as this driver most likely should have been.
Now on a personal note do I like being stopped and asked for an ID –no but I do understand why it sometimes happens
I am not sure what the law says about not answering the question she asked but I know that if that had happened at at least one of the border crossings I have been to the car would have been pulled over and taken apart and the person being questioned would have been their a long time.
I see this stop and check no different than the ones where authorities are checking for drunk drivers or checking to see if people have a drivers license. If you do not cooperate you are detained as this driver most likely should have been.
Now on a personal note do I like being stopped and asked for an ID –no but I do understand why it sometimes happens
punisher73
Senior Master
Wow, not even sure where to start with that. There is a HUGE difference between knowing your rights and making sure that they are not being violated, and being a jerk to an officer who is performing well within the scope/powers of their duty and not violating your rights.
The US Supreme Court has layed out VERY SPECIFIC guidelines for checkpoints so that they do not interfere with your rights as a citizen, from how/where the checkpoint is set up, to the questions asked, to what cars are stopped (every car, completely random, every 4th car, etc.)
I didn't realize ANY government ANYWHERE has been set up to insure someone's happiness. Tell me how that works out when an individual's happiness interferes with someone else's happiness? You mean I can illegally come into a country because it will make me happy? Even though by doing so, it will cause a burden on the other happy citizens that are here legally?
But keep in mind that asking the driver of a motor vehicle for a dreiver's license id NOT asking for ID. It is asking for proof that you are legally entitled to drive that vehicle. The passengers don't have to carry any form of ID.
Judging by this as well as a few other posts you've made on the subject of LEOs, I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but, I get the impression you're anti police. So tell me...do you condone what this clown in the vehicle did? This guy was clearly being a rude, disrespectful jerk, who set out to do one thing and that was cause a scene. He goes to a check point and starts taking pictures, video...come on. This guy sounds like certain MMA clowns that always talk about video. Who runs around with a video camera?
What rights were violated? He came upon a check point, was asked questions, and gave the officer a rack of crap. It would be racial profiling if the cops only checked the people who clearly looked like they were not American. Do we know this guys race? Really doesnt matter. There was nothing wrong, that I could see, with what was taking place. The cop wasnt violating any rights, she was conducting a setup...setups that you see all the time. Are speedtraps a violation of rights?
OP
OP
My opinion is the guy was a jerk, the officer was professional and kept her cool. That said, the questions he asked her were legit, and she did not answer them all.
As to ID, it's not required that you carry it you are however required to present it when demanded or face an obstruction charge. It's only required when it's required has been deemed legal by the courts. We do live in a "Papers Please" society now.
Cops are supposed to keep the peace and enforce the law, but are too often ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce. That's why every cop I've asked for legal advice has clearly said to talk to a lawyer. I've asked questions about particular laws while holding a copy of the law and had them answer incorrectly, and when I handed them that law, bee told -I- was in error and there was no such law. Mind you, these were friendly conversations in friendly situations. If they had been a confrontation, I would have been detained, possibly arrested. Sure, after a lengthy and expensive legal battle I would be vindicated, but it shouldn't be that way.
In todays cyber society, it should be a simple matter of "check it online at an authorized source" while briefly detaining someone (10-15 minutes), which I would find more acceptable than a few weeks or months, and a few grand.
Again, if he tried that here, he'd have been detained for being an ***. His camera would have been 'damaged' or 'lost' or confiscated for a while, and there's a good chance his car would have been disassembled and he handed a toolbox with instructions to get it out of there in 10 minutes or be fined for littering. (true story)
As to ID, it's not required that you carry it you are however required to present it when demanded or face an obstruction charge. It's only required when it's required has been deemed legal by the courts. We do live in a "Papers Please" society now.
Cops are supposed to keep the peace and enforce the law, but are too often ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce. That's why every cop I've asked for legal advice has clearly said to talk to a lawyer. I've asked questions about particular laws while holding a copy of the law and had them answer incorrectly, and when I handed them that law, bee told -I- was in error and there was no such law. Mind you, these were friendly conversations in friendly situations. If they had been a confrontation, I would have been detained, possibly arrested. Sure, after a lengthy and expensive legal battle I would be vindicated, but it shouldn't be that way.
In todays cyber society, it should be a simple matter of "check it online at an authorized source" while briefly detaining someone (10-15 minutes), which I would find more acceptable than a few weeks or months, and a few grand.
Again, if he tried that here, he'd have been detained for being an ***. His camera would have been 'damaged' or 'lost' or confiscated for a while, and there's a good chance his car would have been disassembled and he handed a toolbox with instructions to get it out of there in 10 minutes or be fined for littering. (true story)
In a sense, yes, he was being detained, but he was making it sound like she was viewing him as a criminal. He would have been detained long enough for her to check to make sure everything was ok, and he'd have been on his way. He makes it sound like profiling. IMO, its profiling if you only stop people that appear to be illegal.
While I am *very* opposed to the continued and appalling loss of our rights in America, I frankly see little wrong with a border patrol checkpoint 50 miles in. Those of us on the west coast who have driven I-5 south to the border and dodged the illegals running ON FOOT on the freeway in the opposite direction of traffic farther in than 50 miles know that it's not an unreasonable distance from the border to check.
1. She asked a reasonable question - one within her authority to ask. Why not answer? There is reasonable patrol and unreasonable patrol and I think people need to be very careful about deciding what is and is not unreasonable.
2. I'm *very* surprised they let them by unless her #2 (who we only saw from a distance a couple of times) managed to check under the car while they were waiting.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
1. She asked a reasonable question - one within her authority to ask. Why not answer? There is reasonable patrol and unreasonable patrol and I think people need to be very careful about deciding what is and is not unreasonable.
2. I'm *very* surprised they let them by unless her #2 (who we only saw from a distance a couple of times) managed to check under the car while they were waiting.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Archangel M
Senior Master
"Solve the immigration problem but do it with ESP please."
Archangel M
Senior Master
I dont believe its a cops job to answer all questions. As long as their actions are legal.
Similar threads
