Border Patrol Violates Fourth Amendment of Military Officer
- Thread starter VAPA
- Start date
- Status
Young.Gun.612
New member
Apparently no one read the info on the video.
He HAD NOT crossed any international borders. On his way from one U.S. city to another.
He HAD NOT crossed any international borders. On his way from one U.S. city to another.
kodiakbeer
Moderator
I just assumed he was heading down or back from the border. Still, no reason for the detention other than driving while ethnic.
If he hadn't crossed the border, his CO is a real jerk.
If he hadn't crossed the border, his CO is a real jerk.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
If you have ever been around the border they have these checkpoints everywhere. They stop everyone and give everyone ****. I have never been bothered this bad, but I am usually in a caravan with a trailer with a dozen or so Kayaks on it when I am near the border. I am always surprised they don't want to search in the kayaks for drugs.
The video claims this was taped due to multiple instances and we have no knowledge of what the total history is. Maybe this guy was totally unstable previously and got into it with them. Future stops b/c of that would not be professional, but it also wouldn't be inhumane. There is obviously some history here.
Conduct of BP is at least un-professional, but not rolling down the window seems a bit odd. Afraid they are going to pull him out of the vehicle? Wants to conserve the AC? Who knows.
I don't think they have any grounds to charge him on the wiretapping/taping deal. I don't see how they could expect privacy in this interaction. I am pretty sure there was a case about people following officers with cameras where that bit was shot down some time ago.
Last edited:
The background on this guy is not a part of this video and we don't have any proof of this, doubt the BP agents were aware of it either. I can't be sure it's even relevant. I somehow doubt there's an ethnic issue here as BP agents are quite often Hispanic, as are many of the inhabitants of border areas. My point is that despite many minutes of video, there's something we're not seeing here. Mistakes were made by both sides but I think there's a reason this incident happened and I didn't see it. The way I saw it the officer antagonized these agents and they went for the bait, no prizes for good judgement forthcoming from this incident.
YoungGun612, I couldn't agree more about giving up liberty for safety. It's wrong, but it seems to happen anyway. Fourth Amendment has seen a lot of challenges over the past 40 or so years and not all have had good outcomes. The most disturbing developments are usually the result of abuses by LE. Some folks believe that terrorism is just a convenient excuse for abridging our Fourth Amendment rights and they may be right.
This stop may seem on the surface to be a case of LE violating the rights of this military officer but I think there's more to it than this. I think the next few weeks or months will prove me right. JMHO, of course, and you're welcome to disagree with me.
YoungGun612, I couldn't agree more about giving up liberty for safety. It's wrong, but it seems to happen anyway. Fourth Amendment has seen a lot of challenges over the past 40 or so years and not all have had good outcomes. The most disturbing developments are usually the result of abuses by LE. Some folks believe that terrorism is just a convenient excuse for abridging our Fourth Amendment rights and they may be right.
This stop may seem on the surface to be a case of LE violating the rights of this military officer but I think there's more to it than this. I think the next few weeks or months will prove me right. JMHO, of course, and you're welcome to disagree with me.
__________________
Actually, my buddy did cite a specific statute regarding this. Next time I talk with him I'll get it again. As I said, he is retired from Customs and Immigaration and worked many busts and investigations, mostly drug stuff.
I'll try to find out more for you about this. I was never involved with LE.
I'll be interested to see that citation, too.
From my understanding, (which PNAC has also reinforced) both Federal and Texas state law are one consent states. So as long as the driver consented, he's good.
My guess is even without these laws on a public highway with public servants he would be well within his rights to record audio/video as there is no expectation of privacy. Same rule would apply to a person recording on public sidewalk.
From my understanding, (which PNAC has also reinforced) both Federal and Texas state law are one consent states. So as long as the driver consented, he's good.
My guess is even without these laws on a public highway with public servants he would be well within his rights to record audio/video as there is no expectation of privacy. Same rule would apply to a person recording on public sidewalk.
Last edited:
riverwalker76
New member
I still can't figure out why this guy wasn't fully cooperative with the Border Patrol!
I mean ... being confrontational, and not rolling your window down? I can understand why they were holding him. That kid was a pain in the tail!
I mean ... being confrontational, and not rolling your window down? I can understand why they were holding him. That kid was a pain in the tail!
Mike Irwin
Staff
"We complain about our borders, drugs, illegals, etc. and now we are complaining because the customs folks are doing their job."
That's the rub, isn't it?
We expect 100% exclusion of illegals, illegal drugs, terrorists, etc.
But we scream bloody murder when they try to do the job we expect them to do.
That's the rub, isn't it?
We expect 100% exclusion of illegals, illegal drugs, terrorists, etc.
But we scream bloody murder when they try to do the job we expect them to do.
Riverwalker,
You don't understand why he wasn't full cooperative? The video shows he was fully cooperative with the exception of not exiting the vehicle, not rolling his window down in secondary (until later in the detention), and not giving the name of his CO.
So you would exit a vehicle upon order of your government at a checkpoint the Courts have said can only briefly detain for the limited purpose of determining immigration status even when knowing the agents weren't actually interested in your immigration status? Is there anything you wouldn't do when your government orders it? What if the government orders you to turn in your weapons?
You would roll down your window upon order of your government after they made it clear they were not interested in doing their job (determining immigration status) despite being able to communicate with the agents?
You would provide the name of your supervisor after government agents lied to you and harassed you so they could harass you some more?
On behalf of agents who abuse the Bill of Rights, thank you for your cooperation.
You don't understand why he wasn't full cooperative? The video shows he was fully cooperative with the exception of not exiting the vehicle, not rolling his window down in secondary (until later in the detention), and not giving the name of his CO.
So you would exit a vehicle upon order of your government at a checkpoint the Courts have said can only briefly detain for the limited purpose of determining immigration status even when knowing the agents weren't actually interested in your immigration status? Is there anything you wouldn't do when your government orders it? What if the government orders you to turn in your weapons?
You would roll down your window upon order of your government after they made it clear they were not interested in doing their job (determining immigration status) despite being able to communicate with the agents?
You would provide the name of your supervisor after government agents lied to you and harassed you so they could harass you some more?
On behalf of agents who abuse the Bill of Rights, thank you for your cooperation.
Mike,
They were not doing the job as "we expect them to do" as long as by "we" you mean our Judicial Branch and the Founders who wrote the Constitution and libertarian/Constitutionalists who values their rights.
The Courts have made it very clear that these internal suspicionless check points not located on the Border are only authorized for one purpose, to determine immigration status, and the detention to determine said immigration status must be very brief. According to the Courts, any questions that are not related to immigration status that extend the detention are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Are you really suggesting that the conduct of these agents was in any way useful or proper, despite being clearly illegal?
They were not doing the job as "we expect them to do" as long as by "we" you mean our Judicial Branch and the Founders who wrote the Constitution and libertarian/Constitutionalists who values their rights.
The Courts have made it very clear that these internal suspicionless check points not located on the Border are only authorized for one purpose, to determine immigration status, and the detention to determine said immigration status must be very brief. According to the Courts, any questions that are not related to immigration status that extend the detention are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Are you really suggesting that the conduct of these agents was in any way useful or proper, despite being clearly illegal?
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I will agree with others and say they don't seem at all concerned with whether he is a citizen or whether he has drugs on him. They just seem interested in making sure he knows who is in charge and if he doesn't do as they say things will turn out badly for him. The stop lasted thirty minutes and we have less than ten minutes of video and we lack any record at all of the previous situations, but from what we have the BP does not look good.
The border agents are talking into the gap in the window, but they are not putting their ear up to the gap in order to hear. Doing so would leae them vulnerable. The difference in location could result in a huge difference between who can hear who, so I also think it is very likely the BP agents really could not hear him..
Last edited:
Here is a link to Part One of the full 30+ minute video showing the interior and rear camera footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BId1f8WG2s
This may be true, but the video also shows a citizen who set out to bait law enforcement.
Here is something else to consider with respect to rights - people behind the individual in the video. If I had been in the car behind the guy, I would not have wanted to wait while he played out his dominance contest with the Border Patrol.
Last edited:
I look at internal checkpoints like this:
Suppose there's a factory dumping pollution in the water. OK, they dump it into a nearby stream, the stream carries it into the river, the river joins another river, together they form a lake, the water from the lake runs thru the dam, down the river, joins another river, etc., etc. and eventually the water and pollution runs into the sea. Whew!
Now, does it make more sense, assuming you really wanted to stop the pollution, to stop it at the source, or, ten miles out in the ocean?
The point I'm trying to make is that internal checkpoints are not for checking or controlling immigration or contraband. They are too far from the border for that.
But, back to the case in question, if everyone just rolled over, excepted the "official explanation" at face value, no matter how ridiculous that explanation was, we would just lose more and more freedom. Washington said "Government is like fire, a faithful servant and a fearful master". I applaud his standing up and exposing the BS for what it really is...BS.
Suppose there's a factory dumping pollution in the water. OK, they dump it into a nearby stream, the stream carries it into the river, the river joins another river, together they form a lake, the water from the lake runs thru the dam, down the river, joins another river, etc., etc. and eventually the water and pollution runs into the sea. Whew!
Now, does it make more sense, assuming you really wanted to stop the pollution, to stop it at the source, or, ten miles out in the ocean?
The point I'm trying to make is that internal checkpoints are not for checking or controlling immigration or contraband. They are too far from the border for that.
But, back to the case in question, if everyone just rolled over, excepted the "official explanation" at face value, no matter how ridiculous that explanation was, we would just lose more and more freedom. Washington said "Government is like fire, a faithful servant and a fearful master". I applaud his standing up and exposing the BS for what it really is...BS.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I've not watched the video. For some reason my computer chokes on it.
I'm making a general comment.
And, for a reality check, VAPA, you should read about some of the actions and laws later taken by the very men who wrote the Constitution.
Actions that, on their very face, don't appear to be very Constitutional even working within the spirit of their own actions.
"clearly illegal?"
"very brief."
Have the courts defined "very brief"? Is it less than 20 minutes? Less than 0.0000000000125 seconds?
Lacking a defined value of what constitutes "very brief", one can't claim that something is clearly illegal.
One can only suggest that it violates the spirit of the court findings and is illegal based on a subjective standard.
I'm making a general comment.
And, for a reality check, VAPA, you should read about some of the actions and laws later taken by the very men who wrote the Constitution.
Actions that, on their very face, don't appear to be very Constitutional even working within the spirit of their own actions.
"clearly illegal?"
"very brief."
Have the courts defined "very brief"? Is it less than 20 minutes? Less than 0.0000000000125 seconds?
Lacking a defined value of what constitutes "very brief", one can't claim that something is clearly illegal.
One can only suggest that it violates the spirit of the court findings and is illegal based on a subjective standard.
GC,
What does that mean he baited? Does a person who has his house broken into two times who then installs a security camera system "bait" robbers? This claim of baiting is ridiculous and is insulting to professional LEO as though their professionalism crumbles at the site of a shiny object or something.
Also, have you watched the video? It's pretty clear within the first twenty seconds that he did not hold up traffic but rather went to secondary as ordered to do.
I gotta say, it's amazing what lengths some people will go to justify illegal government behavior.
What does that mean he baited? Does a person who has his house broken into two times who then installs a security camera system "bait" robbers? This claim of baiting is ridiculous and is insulting to professional LEO as though their professionalism crumbles at the site of a shiny object or something.
Also, have you watched the video? It's pretty clear within the first twenty seconds that he did not hold up traffic but rather went to secondary as ordered to do.
I gotta say, it's amazing what lengths some people will go to justify illegal government behavior.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"illegal government behavior"
Once again, YOUR interpretation.
An equally valid corollary could easily be "It's amazing the lengths to which some will go to claim repressive government."
Once again, YOUR interpretation.
An equally valid corollary could easily be "It's amazing the lengths to which some will go to claim repressive government."
Thanks Mike. Perhaps your comments will be better if and when you watch the video.
As for the Courts defining what they mean by "brief" - in fact they have clarified. They have stated that they have found that detentions which have last 3-5 minutes longer than what was reasonable have been found to be Fourth Amendment violations.
You can try to justify bad behavior if you wish and you can appeal to the flexibility of words in that attempt but...it's pretty common sense that 30+ minutes of detention is not a brief attempt to determine immigration status of a guy who is clearly American, who is very compliant, and who has two forms of ID and two passports on the window.
I suggest you watch the video so as not to be accused of justifying the actions of some very bad government actions...
As for the Courts defining what they mean by "brief" - in fact they have clarified. They have stated that they have found that detentions which have last 3-5 minutes longer than what was reasonable have been found to be Fourth Amendment violations.
You can try to justify bad behavior if you wish and you can appeal to the flexibility of words in that attempt but...it's pretty common sense that 30+ minutes of detention is not a brief attempt to determine immigration status of a guy who is clearly American, who is very compliant, and who has two forms of ID and two passports on the window.
I suggest you watch the video so as not to be accused of justifying the actions of some very bad government actions...
- Status