Border Patrol Violates Fourth Amendment of Military Officer

Status
Not open for further replies.
All interesting stuff about the pastor, Gc. And completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You shouldn't need to agree with a person's religious or political viewpoint to support their Constitutional right to have that viewpoint and be free from government abuse.
 
Pastor Anderson can believe whatever he wants. When those beliefs are contrary to the law and land him in trouble, he may warrant no sympathy.

Pastor Anderson: "I get stopped at the checkpoint and they started asking me questions; I refused to answer the questions."

Supreme Court - UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE: "In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment and need not be authorized by warrant."
 
Nice. Can you now show me the law that says you have to answer questions at the checkpoint?

The courts have held, as far as I know so please correct me if I'm wrong, that the Fifth Amendment covers a person's right to be silent and not answer questions even if they are not charged with a crime. Miranda rights are a reminder of this right.

Personally I see no problem with answering questions concerning immigration status at a checkpoint because, as you've shown, the Courts have upheld those checkpoints as Constitutional for the purpose of determining immigration status in a brief way. So I'm with you there. BUT, I'm not sure I can fault an American who believes differently...as far as I know, they have the right to remain silent when questioned by LEO.
 
BUT, I'm not sure I can fault an American who believes differently...as far as I know, they have the right to remain silent when questioned by LEO.
Click to expand...

While I can admire a person with the conviction to test (and possibly expand) the limits of the law, I have less sympathy for someone who resists arrest, even passively, to generate sensationalism. The Pastor would have had the same Fourth Amendment court case without resisting arrest, but the video would not have been nearly as interesting.
 
After a person has been arrested ("you are under arrest"), failure to comply with an officer's orders ("get out of the vehicle") typically constitutes resisting arrest.
 
Because the BP told the guy that he was under arrest and he refused to get out of the car. Since they were placing him under arrest, they had every right to break his window, and use a taser. They even paused and told him that they were going to do it, but he wanted to make a video. If you get pulled over, and they said get out of the car, the dog sensed drugs, and you don't get out of the car, they would do the same thing, not just in the case of the BP. They had reasonable suspicion with the drug dog, but again you dont see that in the video. And, when I was in Iraq we had MPs with drug and bomb sniffing dogs, none of which made any noise when they suspected drugs or explosives, they simply sat down. So the argument that the dog did not make any noises means nothing because the dog may have been trained to sit instead of bark. In which case he was denying the police officers their right to search the car without a warrant but with reasonable suspicion. Any LEO on this forum will tell you all they need is reasonable suspicion and just because you say it was not good enough does not mean you can deny their suspicion. Its the same if an LEO says he smells pot in your car, you can not deny his suspicion by jumping up his nose and say that there is no pot odor there.

This pastor guy is a freaking joke. If he is trying to preserve our rights, he is doing it all the wrong way, he is in no way corroborating with LEOs and should not be taken seriously. He compares a simple immigration check point to Nazi Germany. Illegal aliens are not just at the borders, but they are deeper in the country as well, so the distance from the border should mean nothing. I would have no problem with every state conducting immigration checks, even states nowhere near a border.
 
Interesting. So I assume you guys believe the judicial system messed up when it dismissed all charges against the Pastor WITH PREJUDICE? Seems the courts disagree with your claims about resisting arrest.
 
It should be noted that the Pastor didn't see the dog behave out of the ordinary and he requested the dog be brought back to see if it alerted. The DHS guy who broke his window when he showed up asked the BP to bring the dog back out...and the BP refused.

Sounds like the BP conjured up a dog alert that wasn't there and the Court agreed.

The Pastor refuses to answer questions and refuses to go to secondary and refuses to exit his vehicle. No different in principle than the military officer (although the officer was much more cooperative). The BP agents lied about the drug sniffing dog just as the BP agents lied to the officer about not answering questions on citizenship in primary.

Not convinced the drug sniffing dog didn't alert? Not convinced by the Court dismissing all charges with prejudice? How about being convinced by the fact that the dog found nothing?

Or do you think the dog made a mistake and it's just coincidence that the BP agents refused to bring it back to see if it would alert on camera? If you think it's just a mistake, are using such mistake-prone dogs as reason to beat, taze, and assault an American citizen a good idea?

You may not like the Pastor but he did nothing wrong and the Court agreed.

And do you think that American citizens don't have the right to refuse to lend themselves to unlawful arrest? He didn't resist arrest...he simply didn't facilitate it. Do you think anytime the government says "here, put these cuffs on, you're under arrest" that a citizen MUST do so even though the act is unlawful?
 
I see both sides as crossing the line of stupidity.

The guy was baiting them and showing passive resistance, e.g. window, stepping out, etc. can all be considered reasonable requests.

The other side, once the Border Patrol knew the guy was legite they should have sent him on. They seemed to want to push the subject since he had done what he did, and pushed it further by calling the guy's CO and being jerks.

I think both sides were wrong and both probably deserved reprimands.
 
You may not like the Pastor but he did nothing wrong and the Court agreed.
Click to expand...

Has the Pastor posted a transcript of the trial or the court's decision on the case? Either would make very interesting reading.
 
Good point about the dog, and again I mentioned that you do not get to see the dog or anything since the video starts after the fact. I was simply stating that the dogs don't necessarily have to make a noise to say they think something is back there. AND those dogs are not always correct..

For example: In Iraq, we had a male in a large van pull up to a gas station and started filling (forgive me I forget the exact number) 4-5 55 gallon barrels of fuel. Suspicious indeed, so we brought the bomb sniffing dog out to make sure the male was not creating a bigger boom for a VBIED. The dog sat after sniffing at the rear driver side door, indicating the possibility of explosives. They pulled the dog away and allowed the dog to sniff around, again, it sat at the rear driver door. We called EOD and they came to take a look, it ended up being a car alarm that this guy installed himself, no explosives detected at all.. But the dog sat twice.

Now that is Iraq, not America, but the dogs are still trained the same way. I dont believe that we can argue over what the dog actually did since it was not in the video. No, a dog detecting drugs does not constitute for him to be treated that way, but it does constitute reasonable suspicion that does not require a warrant, and it fully constitutional.

In my opinion, once the police have reasonable suspicion, the "suspect" should have to follow what a LEO says, otherwise, what power to up hold the law do they have if we do not have to abide by their demands?

I do not like the guy as I made clear earlier, I think he is a joker. If you look on youtube, you will find the video of that incident where he cut out the part where he was arguing about allowing the police to arrest him. It is not your job to resist being arrested because you feel that they are wrong, otherwise there would be no criminals in prison. That is the courts job to determine whether the arrest was warranted or not, not yours. It sucks, but that is why we have the judicial branch.

And hey, good for him for getting the charges dropped. But we know that the media influences the courts (it sucks and it shouldn't but it does) and since these were such low charges I would not be surprised if they dropped them because of fear of what rumors would come out (not saying that that is why is was cleared). This guy publicly came out and stated that he wish the president would be killed amongst other things, the media would have a field day with this saying he was imprisoned for saying that about the president, blah blah blah, (I'm way off my point and am just playing Devil's Advocate now)... But at the end of the day, just because someone is cleared of charges does not mean they are not guilty of committing the crime. Everyday murderers and rapists are let free because of a flawed system.

But honestly everything we see on the web is speculative at best and we can not make full arguments over these without the court hearings (I'm guilty too). Those videos were cut to show what he wanted people to see and you could not see him on the ground during the security camera scene. For all we know he could have been biting or trying to fight the officers, but you can not tell from the video.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic, the pastor wasn't even the topic and now I'm ranting about it. The military officer is innocent, IMO
 
The only problem I saw was the boarder guard continuing to try and

have a dialog with the guy.

Once he refused to roll his window down and was off to the side I would have called and waited for a higher authority and let him sit there and stew.

It is obvious to me the folks out side could not hear everything the guy inside the car was saying....

Then again every time I've ever been pulled over by an LEO I've shown them respect even the one time the guy was a jerk and started to draw on me.

bottom line is my time is money and important to me.... in the end, they will win.. they got all day to sit there and wait for back up and such... after all they are getting paid by the hour regardless of whether they are watching you or chasing bad guys.
 
"It is obvious to me the folks out side could not hear everything the guy inside the car was saying...."

Like what? Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear?
 
Hmmm... Aren't the grounds for arrest "probable cause" and don't the officers still have to get a search warrant if the suspect refuses to give then permission? I seem to remember a CIA or NSA Director that didn't understand the reasonable suspicion vs probable cause restriction.
I realize you are relating your Irac experiences and there are probably differences, so no slight intended, just a question.

Cannonfire said:
In my opinion, once the police have reasonable suspicion, the "suspect" should have to follow what a LEO says, otherwise, what power to up hold the law do they have if we do not have to abide by their demands?
Click to expand...
 
Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that internal checkpoints are not for checking or controlling immigration or contraband.
Click to expand...

gyvel said:
That is exactly what they are for.
Click to expand...

That is a valid argument as a temporary, stopgap, measure, but there has been more than enough time to secure the border, if stopping illegal immigration or contraband was truly the goal.
 
"Can you quote what the driver said that the agents could hear?

LOL"

Everything he said could be heard by the agent. There were a couple of times the agent said, "what?" and he repeated himself and was heard. Your claim that they couldn't hear him is not supported by the video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top