[F32]

Originally Posted by Nate4641

Fuck this guy and everyone like him. The look on his face when they break his window is priceless lol.

You drive up, roll window down, flash ID and go on your way. Is it really THAT freakin hard? Is YOUR time so important that these people have to deal with your attitude? They're not strip searching you, they're not destroying any of your property, they're doing their jobs. It pisses me off when this foil hat wearing assholes demonize everyone in a law enforcement uniform and just make a simple situation into an ordeal.

This guy clearly set out and made it his mission to "prove a point" or whatever on this day. I highly doubt he bought all those GoPros for anything else. Someone should have throat punched him. Upon looking at his youtube channel, yes all this guy does is set out to harass border patrol, he's an asshole.

This.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by Devious21

I understand what you're saying but because of his religious views is his 4th amendment less important than yours or mine or anyone's?

I didn't show his video because he's religious or intolerant of gays. I showed it because he was assaulted and arrested for exercising his 4th amendment rights and was found to be correct in a court of law. His position (on this subject) WAS CORRECT. LEGALLY.

Some of the founding fathers were slave owners. I don't dismiss all of their contributions or other beliefs because of that fact. I simply don't condone the fact that they had slaves just as I don't condone or believe any of this guy's views on religion or gay rights.

I think any reasonable person should be able to identify the difference there and have the capacity to accept one is correct and not the other.

EDIT: I just read your last post and you and I agree that this guy is a hypocrite and I understand your position there. I guess where I disagree is that showing this video is supporting him in a major or meaningful way, or even that he shouldn't be supported in this instance.

All I can do is point to the extreme. If the Westboro baptists (who I personally despise) made a logical and reasonable point about the infringement of their 1st amendment rights, I would support them. Not because I like them or agree with them on religion or social issues but in spite of it. Emotionally, I may not even want to but logically, I know it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't want to live in a country where they didn't have their first amendment rights, just as I wouldn't want to live somewhere that this guy didn't have his 4th amendment rights.

So support wise, he may gain a few dozen views on his youtube channel. I understand not wanting to support him. But his view on this I do support. And he is currently the best example I know of, of someone being assaulted and arrested over this and later exonerated, legally.

All I said is that he is an asshole and shouldn't be followed. I didn't say he was incorrect, legally or otherwise, in this video.

Implied in my posts was that he'd be more likely to find a good amount of support if he were a respectful person, rather than acting the way he does in other areas of his life. It's a matter of opinion (my opinion is that he should not be followed) that has no bearing on if he was correct or not in this video. I guess I could have clarified my opinion on the overall issue.

How can you preach about the defending the constitution, while simultaneously wanting to exterminate a group of people, thereby denying their God given right to life? Seems like he is fine with things that actually go AGAINST human rights, as long as it supports his religious agenda... To me, this would shake ANY FORM of support I'd be willing to give this guy. Taking his video at face value, you don't get the whole picture of the man. The reason I pointed out the other side of him is so people can make their own choice to support him if they want to, based on all the information available. Although if you want to support him on this issue alone, that is fine. I certainly agree with him on this. I won't support him as a whole though. Agreeing with his views on this issue is one thing, supporting him as an advocate for our rights is entirely different.

I wonder what his agenda for fighting this so hard is, when he's willing to violate other inalienable rights in support of his religious agenda...

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by Templar

How can you preach about the defending the constitution, while simultaneously wanting to exterminate a group of people, thereby denying their God given right to life? Seems like he is fine with things that actually go AGAINST human rights, as long as it supports his religious agenda...
I wonder what his agenda for fighting this so hard is, when he's willing to violate other inalienable rights in support of his religious agenda...

I'm sure it's not very difficult for him to rationalize if he believes there is a power greater than everything else that also dictates absolute morality. If you can believe absurdities, you can commit atrocities.

Originally Posted by Templar

To me, this would shake ANY FORM of support I'd be willing to give this guy. Taking his video at face value, you don't get the whole picture of the man. The reason I pointed out the other side of him is so people can make their own choice to support him if they want to, based on all the information available. Although if you want to support him on this issue alone, that is fine. I certainly agree with him on this.

That's understandable and I definitely agree. I haven't really followed this guy too much since his trial became news and wasn't aware of any of his other views (besides him being a pastor). If he's made hateful or intolerant comments (which I'm now assuming he has), I'm happy that they are also brought up as long as it's not done so in a way that attempts to somehow negate his other position (as Litos attempted to do to me). So I have no qualms with you for pointing that out. Thanks for letting me know.

[Endless619]

Wow, where do I even begin. There is so much misinformation here.

Here is a good read…

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-...tion-free-zone



Anyway, the US Border Patrol has the right to stop any vehicle they want to accomplish their objectives. It is considered an "Administrative" stop and the courts have allowed this. Plain and simple.

This guy was clearly in violation of a simple AND ROUTINE check, regardless.

The US Border Patrol along with the California Highway Patrol sets these checkpoints up to check the 18 wheelers (which we can credit the Border Patrol and CBP for catching illegal immigrants trying to come into this country illegally, seize contraband , etc.) CHP is there to in enforce the law as we all know the Border Patrol in the state of California are not recognized as fully sworn police officers. Not so in Arizona, and Texas. At the actual Borders they do hold jurisdiction over the CHP, not so much inland and at the checkpoint 60 miles up the highway. They also check the big rigs. The US has a 100 mile zone from the border inland. They can check and search vehicles legally in these zones.

Anyway I think what the Border Patrol was right on and I would have done the same thing.

We get tired of seeing guys/gals like this.

[Endless619]

Originally Posted by Dine

These cops only have a right to stop you when we as a people allow them that right. This isnt wwII germany and we are not required to present our "papers" to the government whenever they ask. For any American that has no problem with this I don't want to hear any complaining when the power trips grow even bigger (not that they arnt way to big now..)

You are incorrect. The courts allow the US Border Patrol to do routine checks on ANY American Citizen as an "Administrative" check.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by Endless619

Wow, where do I even begin. There is so much misinformation here.

Here is a good read…

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-...tion-free-zone

Bullet points 2-5 outline the concern the ACLU has with these checkpoints and their potential for abuse...

Originally Posted by Endless619

Anyway, the US Border Patrol has the right to stop any vehicle they want to accomplish their objectives. It is considered an "Administrative" stop and the courts have allowed this. Plain and simple.

At the "border" this is true. I assume you aren't implying you have jurisdiction to stop anyone, anywhere for an "administrative" stop with no probably cause.

Originally Posted by Endless619

We get tired of seeing guys/gals like this.

As annoying as they are, imagine how many people get tired of being stopped at checkpoints.

Right now, there is a carved out space where these interior checkpoints are allowed as they tip toe around the constitution. That is what triggers these games people play. If the government is going to figure out where they can game the system, the citizens can do the same. Now its one big game.

[Endless619]

Originally Posted by Devious21

Bullet points 2-5 outline the concern the ACLU has with these checkpoints and their potential for abuse...




At the "border" this is true. I assume you aren't implying you have jurisdiction to stop anyone, anywhere for an "administrative" stop with no probably cause.



As annoying as they are, imagine how many people get tired of being stopped at checkpoints.

Right now, there is a carved out space where these interior checkpoints are allowed as they tip toe around the constitution. That is what triggers these games people play. If the government is going to figure out where they can game the system, the citizens can do the same. Now its one big game.

There is the 100 mile rule that goes from the border out to 100 miles. This is the jurisdiction the Border Patrol has and can stop folks at anytime for an "Administrative" stop…No need for probable cause. I can see abuse from this. I agree with you but tell that to the Secretary of Homeland Security and he will disagree with you/us.

I don't like to get stopped but most of the time I get waved through. I haven't had to show my ID in 20 years. lol Knock on wood!!!!!

[Mr Tonka]

the 100 mile rule pretty much makes all of FL a legal stop zone. Of course that is if the coast line is considered the boarder.

[turbolag]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

the 100 mile rule pretty much makes all of FL a legal stop zone. Of course that is if the coast line is considered the boarder.

Is it?

If 100mile is border check zone, does that mean I could be stopped everyday on my commute? I live in Upstate/West New York, pretty close to the Canada border.

[kscarrol]

Originally Posted by turbolag

Is it?

If 100mile is border check zone, does that mean I could be stopped everyday on my commute? I live in Upstate/West New York, pretty close to the Canada border.

Yes comrade, you could be stopped...

[turbolag]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

Yes comrade, you could be stopped...

Aw shit.

[NemesisX]

Surprised he referred to his own actions as "suspicion-less." Everything about his behavior was highly suspicious, especially when he's messing around in his car pointing a big black camera at law enforcement.

I would've had more respect for his libertarian "cause" had he just sat in the driver seat and done nothing.

[f10inSD]

Originally Posted by Endless619

Wow, where do I even begin. There is so much misinformation here.

Here is a good read…

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-...tion-free-zone



Anyway, the US Border Patrol has the right to stop any vehicle they want to accomplish their objectives. It is considered an "Administrative" stop and the courts have allowed this. Plain and simple.

This guy was clearly in violation of a simple AND ROUTINE check, regardless.

The US Border Patrol along with the California Highway Patrol sets these checkpoints up to check the 18 wheelers (which we can credit the Border Patrol and CBP for catching illegal immigrants trying to come into this country illegally, seize contraband , etc.) CHP is there to in enforce the law as we all know the Border Patrol in the state of California are not recognized as fully sworn police officers. Not so in Arizona, and Texas. At the actual Borders they do hold jurisdiction over the CHP, not so much inland and at the checkpoint 60 miles up the highway. They also check the big rigs. The US has a 100 mile zone from the border inland. They can check and search vehicles legally in these zones.

Anyway I think what the Border Patrol was right on and I would have done the same thing.

We get tired of seeing guys/gals like this.

Endless is 100% correct.

Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have the right to conduct administrative checks to verify citizenship. As long as each agent has articulable facts to support such an inquiry. Agents spend enough time at the academy on 4th amendment to be familiar enough to know when they are crossing the line. Unfortunately, most people don’t realize the authority DHS agents have granted by the INA and USC. Truth be told if they were allowed to exercise the authority granted by federal law most people would be shocked.

Just my two cents…

[Templar]

It's funny... A couple people have said that they are totally legal in what they are doing.

Then why do most, if not all people who refuse to answer their questions get waved through after about 15 minutes of wasted time? If what they are doing is 100% legal and appropriate, then wouldn't refusing to comply be 100% ILLEGAL? Why can they not detain these people who refuse to answer?

Although, there is a huge difference between sitting there like a moron with a camera like in the original video, and simply saying, "I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer that question. Can I please go on my way?" I think that it's partially in how you present...

Maybe you all should read up on the right to freedom of movement within the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ted_States_law

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause).

[f10inSD]

The Supreme Court has also ruled that these checkpoints are legal. When someone refuses to answer and they are allowed to leave it is beacuse the agent has determined there is not enough reasonable suspicion to detain the individual.

A human smuggler, drug runner for a cartel, undocumented alien, aggravated felon can all refuse to answer. That doesn't mean they can just be on thier way. There's a difference between the legality of setting up a checkpoint and the legality of detaining a person.

Moreover, people complain about DHS, but as soon as an illegal immigrant gets drunk and runs over a us citizen people ask why they were even in the country. You can't have it both ways.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by f10inSD

The Supreme Court has also ruled that these checkpoints are legal. When someone refuses to answer and they are allowed to leave it is beacuse the agent has determined there is not enough reasonable suspicion to detain the individual.

A human smuggler, drug runner for a cartel, undocumented alien, aggravated felon can all refuse to answer. That doesn't mean they can just be on thier way. There's a difference between the legality of setting up a checkpoint and the legality of detaining a person.

Moreover, people complain about DHS, but as soon as an illegal immigrant gets drunk and runs over a us citizen people ask why they were even in the country. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, as was pointed out earlier in the thread. They have ruled both ways essentially.

However...

However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols [as opposed to permanent checkpoints]." 428 U.S. 543, 567 (1976).

That's where your other part comes in. They must still have probable cause to search/detain you at the check point. Which means legally, I don't have to answer a thing they ask me at their checkpoint.

[bosstones]

I would respectfully disagree with some folks as I think they had reasonable cause to conduct a search. Any @$$hat that does what he does is certainly provocative and can claim it is within his right but the 4th amendment warrants against unreasonable searches. In this case, I do not believe CBP was in the wrong. Realize their job and what they come across in their line of work. For him to just pull over and keep intentionally and repeatedly reach back, down, etc... in his car, take pictures of the agents and such just to provoke a reaction when they are wondering what he is reaching for is asinine. Looking at it from their shoes, why is he taking their pictures and taping them? To learn their movements, tactics, and procedures? To maybe ID the agents? It isn't like they disallowed him to do what he was doing for quite a while.

I-8 runs a long ways and goes along the Mexican border in SE CA and Western AZ. I recently drove it many time going between SD and Yuma and have been through the checkpoints numerous time this year and in the past without issue (even if I have to stop). 99% of the populous just moves through, whether they have to answer a couple quick questions or not. What's the big deal? Because they're just sheep obeying? It is along a border that we get large numbers of illegal immigrants from and, I don't know, maybe there is an issue with violent gangs and cartels coming up through that border. All I've ever been asked is where I was driving to and if I was a citizen. They judge response time and behavior and I'm sure try to look through into the back seat. I just roll down both drivers side windows answer their 2-3 questions and go on my way. It is not like they have these far inland and between states. Of course, there are those that would think these checkpoints are just the beginning...

[Mr Tonka]

i don't think they are the beginning so to speak. They aren't going to spur more check points.

What i think most who are against this are afraid of is that these check points will serve as a precedent which will allow any government entity to start random check points.

And while i, like you would comply and move on, i still am aware of the possibility that the American public being blindly compliant with these types of things often times can play into the old adage of give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Law makers aren't stupid when it comes to manipulating the system. They'll introduce a law that chips away at an issue, then another, then another. Before you know it they can introduce entirely new legislation that flies through because it's based on much smaller, incremental legislation that has been approved over the years.

[carve]

What administration were they taking care of if the person they stopped wasn't crossing a border? Even a cop needs probable cause to pull someone over (yes- I'm also against DUI checkpoints). Treating everyone as a suspect until they can show they're innocent is as un American as it gets. How does driving down the road make one a suspect of criminal activity? Of course some kangaroo court approved it. They basically admitted it was unconstitutional but said it was worth it- that doesn't make it right. Our governments job is first and foremost to protect our freedoms as outlined in the constitution.

. 2/3 of our population lives within 100 miles of the border. Do you see the problem of creating a special security force that can do things that would otherwise be unconstitutional? We can't rationalize away our protected liberties

If exercising your 4th and 5th amendment rights, as this guy was doing, is sufficient probable cause to violate them, then they aren't worth the parchment they're written on. This is unreasonable because driving down the road is insufficient reason to suspect someone of a crime unless over half the people doing so are illegal immigrants or drug smugglers

[Devious21]

If they ask you if you're a citizen and you exercise your 5th amendment, I'm not sure how they can go anywhere from there without violating your 4th amendment.

In the pastor's case, they attempted to bring a drug dog around and get him to bark but then refused to do it again once the state trooper had arrived.

At the end of the day, he was formally charged with two misdemeanors, “obstructing the highway” and “resisting an order directing, regulating, or controlling a motor vehicle”. I'm assuming both are basically his refusal to go to secondary. He was acquitted of both.

[carve]

Interesting Reason TV video on this subject...

[amanda hor$t]

pfffffft