Border Patrol Violates Fourth Amendment of Military Officer

Status
Not open for further replies.
This may be true, but the video also shows a citizen who set out to bait law enforcement.
Click to expand...
And they took the bait, and made quite a number of mistakes, and detained the gentleman way beyond what was necessary to determine citizenship, which is their only lawful purpose to detain. This should be costly to the BP. If the goal was to highlight unconstitutional practices, this was nearly perfectly played. 3 government IDs, including a military IDm hardly leaves any room for doubt about citizenship.

The BP crossed the line. With that kind of TD, it doesn't take 30 minutes to verify identity. I have been cleared to buy a gun in less than 10 minutes.

He baited them, but can anyone suggest a better way to expose an unconstitutional detention?
 
Maestro, what do you mean by "bait?" Are you suggesting he was hoping to induce a violation by the BP? If so, what leads you to believe this?
 
I do not know the laws about personal property in your own car, while on public property... If that makes any sense.. What I'm wondering about is the posts about the wire tapping/video being produced. It would make sense to me that you have the right to video/audio record anything that is happening inside of your own property. People have security cameras in their houses and on their property to protect them from burglars without their permission, so why would you have to have the BP's permission to tape them when everything is in your car?
EDIT: The camera was not facing outside, it was put under the rear view mirror, facing the back seat.

Seriously, I have no idea about the law and am curious if any of you LEOs can lend a hand with that. It is not like he is planting a 'bug' in another person's property that would require a warrant, it is in his own car.

I have to admit, I'm not one big for youtube, but after watching this video, its obvious that there are a bunch of these kinds of videos on the web. All of them (well most of them that I watched) all had to do with the person in the car not complying with the BP, which is their fault. But I do not see anything wrong with what this officer did besides not rolling down the window as far as the BPs wanted it rolled down.

I'm in the military, and I do not know about officers and citizenship, but I know for a fact that you DO NOT have to be an American citizen to be ENLISTED in the US military. I served with a guy who was legally allowed to be in the country from Mexico and joined the Marines so that his paperwork would get pushed through quicker (he soon became a citizen shortly after we returned from Iraq).

What I find disturbing is how they had two forms of ID, the officer asked if the BP wanted a passport, and the BP said no. The BP said something to the effect of 'the military ID and driver's license were not immigration papers'. Well you don't have immigration papers if you are not an immigrant! You have a SSN which is on the back of the Military ID!

It could have all been resolved when the supervisor came over, checked 4 identifications. He should have just said 'Move Along, sorry for the inconvience' and that is it. Going on further to call his CO and write emails is unnecessary and should be filed for harassment. IMO
 
Last edited:
What does "baiting" or not have to do with the issue? Aren't these BP agents supposed to be professionals?

Their job was to check whether the occupant of the vehicle was a legal resident. The occupant complied. End of story - or should have been. But, no. They have to come unglued because the citizen wasn't sufficiently servile enough to please them. So, they hassle him for 30 minutes then take retaliatory measures by calling his employer and lodging a complaint about his lack of servility.

Cops are PUBLIC SERVANTS. If they forget that fact, then they are bad cops.
 
Those are my thoughts exactly Kodiak. I would hope that responsible LEO who expect to be held accountable for their actions, just as they hold the citizens who pay them accountable, would be offended at this claim of "baiting" like they are three year olds instead of professionals.
 
Last edited:
Military or not,He was acting suspicious and rude from the start.

An officer asks him to roll down the window and he gets rude and flat refuses to more than an inch,thats just cause for him to be detained and see why and what he is trying to hide.Then he goes and gets mouthy with the agent is only making it worse.The guys an idiot and makes the miltary look bad by pulling a dumb *** stunt.

I wonder who put boy wonder up to it,cause he wasn't to bright.

i've been pulled over so many times it aint funny but i remember a few rules,don't get mouthy,don't be be cute or funny and say as little as possible.
 
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.
Click to expand...
In large swaths of the SW border you can walk across the border at any point and there are in most places a highway running parallel to the border within a dozen miles. Once you are across you pretty much need to come across a vehicle and start moving on that highway or you are going to have major water problems trying to walk out. It does make sense to have check points internally on these parallel highways. You have to spend some time in the area to understand this.

It would make sense to me that you have the right to video/audio record anything that is happening inside of your own property.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter if it is his property or not.
There is a group which follows around police officers with abusive records and videotapes all their interactions. Very in your face and at least bordering on impolite about it also. The police officers usually tell them to get lost and often threaten them and have on several occasions detained the videographer. The group has gone to court several times and I believe it has at least gone to federal court and several state supreme courts, if not the SCOTUS. If my memory serves me correctly ALL of the higher courts have found it is entirely legal to videotape a uniformed LEO while he is overtly performing his duty without consent and even if he/she asks you to stop. Of course, if he enters private property, for say a domestic dispute you must get permission of the property owner. I do not believe the group has ever pushed it with something like a detective where they are at times being covert and the camera may unduly endanger their lives.
Furthermore, it has been decided in several court cases, that young children at public places such as water parks or beaches are afforded no protection from people videotaping them. The case I believe involved a beach with one of those rinse showers to wash off sand where someone set up a camera to tape children having the sand rinsed off of them by their parents. I doubt a BP agent is afforded more protection to privacy from a citizen than a small child from a pedophile.
Of course, I don't think either of this cases has gone to the supreme court, so it would not necessarily pertain to the entire US.
 
"An officer asks him to roll down the window and he gets rude and flat refuses to more than an inch"

Dab, how is he rude? I see him render a pretty polite verbal greeting to the officer when he first stops. When the agents asks him to roll down the window more, he rolls it down more. When the agent asks if that is as far as it goes, he tells him that the window can be rolled down more. He doesn't "flat refuse" to roll the window down more...the officer asks him to roll it down more and he does. So how far does it have to be rolled down? If you've watched the full video you'll see the agent says "I understand if you don't want to roll it down all the way" and asks him to roll it down enough that they can communicate. Seems pretty clear they could communicate with the window up and down from the video. So can you provide some quotes from the driver being rude and "flat refusing?"

"thats just cause for him to be detained and see why and what he is trying to hide."

Actually it's not. The only legally permissible reason for the brief detention at the checkpoint is to determine immigration status...not to see what somebody is "trying to hide" because they don't roll their window down to an arbitrary and unpublished, unadvertised level.

"Then he goes and gets mouthy with the agent"

How does he get mouthy? Again, do you have some quotes? I didn't see him mouthy at all.

"The guys an idiot and makes the miltary look bad"

I agree with others who have stated that he honored his oath to defend the Constitution and personally I think he makes the military look very good. But that's just my opinion.

"I wonder who put boy wonder up to it,cause he wasn't [too] bright."

What makes you think anybody put him up to anything?
 
An officer asks him to roll down the window and he gets rude and flat refuses to more than an inch,thats just cause for him to be detained and see why and what he is trying to hide
Click to expand...

So, his lack of servility is justifiable reason to detain, harass and put his employment in jeopardy? I don't think so. I think a couple of guys with badges had their egos bruised because a citizen refused to be slavish enough to suit their taste.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
how is he rude
Click to expand...
he was asked if he could roll his widow down and he said it could but refused to then startes to get mad about it.i don't think they were being harsh.

As the guy sits there he says he feels threatened,they have weapons and still he refused(afraid for his life).Now he says he is going to post it on youtube for the world to see.

if it had been me and some one asked me to step out of the car i would have complied and done as i was told,as would most of you.

point blank the guy just wants to be an ***.How many people would go out of the way just to make a scene like that unless they have an agenda.How much you want to bet he wins his lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
he was asked if he could roll his widow down and he said it could but refused to then startes to get mad about it.i don't think they were being harsh.They asked to please exit and he gets snotty about everything.
Click to expand...

Because they had no reason to ask him to exit the car. Refusal to cede your 4th amendment rights is not a crime, nor should that refusal be seen as "suspicious". Remember, this man was not being stopped for suspicion of a crime or even a traffic ticket.
When asked to slide his passport out for examination, he complied immediately. I suspect the only reason he wasn't dragged out and tased was because he informed them they were on the Internet - a bluff on his part, but one that worked.

if it had been me and some one asked me to step out of the car i would have complied and done as i was told,as would most of you.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly the problem. Police are used to seeing fear and slavish obedience, and when faced with something less, they are fully prepared to destroy you in any way they can.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did watch the video. The only reason the guy did not hold up traffic was because he was promptly sent to secondary when it became obvious that he was being uncooperative.

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.
Click to expand...

I see. Lots of people run multiple video cameras in their cars just for the heck of it. And lots of people think that "roll down your window" means an inch. And lots of people argue when someone says they can't hear them.

The guy entered the checkpoint with the intention of trying to provoke the BP agents; that is baiting.
 
The guy entered the checkpoint with the intention of trying to provoke the BP agents; that is baiting
Click to expand...

Even if true - so what? These are public servants. What would you think if you were rude to your garbage man and so he threw your trash all over your yard, then called your employer and complained about your conduct?

I would expect a cop (of any variety) to be as professional as the average garbage man.
 
unless they have an agenda
Click to expand...
And that agenda may just be the desire to retain all of their civil rights in the cotus!

I know when I have been pulled over for doing something wrong, I comply fully with the nicest attitude and never miss a chance to say I apologize as well as yes sir and no sir... but if not for good reason, I am pulled... I show no politeness, good attitude and will not hesitate to call 'em "boy"... They don't like it but tough luck... If I am in the right, I don't care how they leave feeling...
Brent
 
Even if true - so what? These are public servants.
Click to expand...

Public servants are people like the rest of us, not public punching bags. Whether it's a LEO, a garbage collector, or the kid at McDonald's, treat a person with a little respect for what they do and you will probably get good service - treat them like crap and your service probably won't be as good.
 
Treat them with respect like they treated the driver? Funny how you have no words of criticism for the agents who lied and violated the Constitution they swore to uphold. Whether you like it or not, we are a nation of laws and the only individuals in that video who broke that law were public servants.

He absolutely will win his lawsuit, I have no doubt. The laws on the books right now make that clear. And the "he should have rolled his window down all the way, unbolted the door from its hinges, and stripped naked in order to show complete servitude before armed immigration status checkers" argument isn't going to win the day. Neither will "baiting," he wasn't nice enough, or his socks didn't match.

I hope those of you who find fault with the driver aren't guilty of claiming a Second Amendment right because if you do...you're a phony and have no concept of liberty.
 
Kodiak, I suspect you are right about the internet video keeping him from being tazed and beaten.

The presence of a video camera is certainly not sufficient to stop Border Patrol thugs from doing exactly that as shown in this video where a Baptist Pastor is tazed for nearly a minute and beaten to the point where he required eleven stitches for refusing to exit the vehicle and answer questions...no crime, the made up charges against him were dismissed with prejudice, and he also has a lawsuit against the BP.

Baptist Pastor Beaten By Border Patrol for 4th Amendment Rights
 
I see. Lots of people run multiple video cameras in their cars just for the heck of it. And lots of people think that "roll down your window" means an inch. And lots of people argue when someone says they can't hear them.
Click to expand...

This is why I asked about having a video camera taping your back seat. I do not believe its a crime. and you said it your self, the BP said to roll down his window, in which he did. They did not say roll down your window all the way. The BP obviously could hear him if they were having a conversation with him. And if you notice they keep going to the back of the car to try to talk and get further and further away from the officer. If it was such a problem that they couldn't hear him, then why didn't the BP walk up to the car? You say for the safety of the BP? What about when a LEO goes to give a citation, they walk up to the window. The BP were trying flex muscle with him.

This video shows a guy not complying with BP and they just let him go!!

EDIT: The Baptist Pastor video is a joke, he refuses to be arrested. All that is needed is suspicion.
 
Maestro, what do you mean by "bait?" Are you suggesting he was hoping to induce a violation by the BP? If so, what leads you to believe this?
Click to expand...
I was merely responding to post#35 where his actions were described as baiting. I personally don't think he baited them. Perhaps a better description of his behavior was that he was laying in wait for them, because he obviously had some reason to expect them to detain him. Past experience, perhaps.

No one comes armed with two video cams and a ready recitation of the law, without some prior expectation of their shenanigans.
I don't know why they were so interested in this guy, unless he has some kind of profile that drew them.

I don't think he was rude, and he didn't refuse to answer any questions until they ask the identity of his CO. The repeated questions like "Why did you refuse to identify yourself" were ridiculous, and amounted to the famous "did you stop beating your wife" question, to which there is no good answer, except, "I never beat her."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top