Border Patrol Violates Fourth Amendment of Military Officer
- Thread starter VAPA
- Start date
- Status
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Gc70, I think you need to reconsider who drank the kool aid. He obviously went to the checkpoint with an agenda. That agenda was to document LEOs breaking the law. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, legally or morally.
He probably should have rolled down his window, but I doubt he had a legal obligation to do so. It seems he may have had legitimate concerns about being dragged out of the vehicle or tased since it has obviously happened before.
LEO don't have the right to just push citizens around at their convenience and just because most people put up with it does not mean it is legal or right.
I just watched the entire video. By the end both sides seem to have realized they lost.
He probably should have rolled down his window, but I doubt he had a legal obligation to do so. It seems he may have had legitimate concerns about being dragged out of the vehicle or tased since it has obviously happened before.
LEO don't have the right to just push citizens around at their convenience and just because most people put up with it does not mean it is legal or right.
I just watched the entire video. By the end both sides seem to have realized they lost.
Last edited:
maestro pistolero
New member
That was a ploy to get him to open the window more. The window was open plenty and he was directing his voice out of pretty consistently. They could hear him, as they responded to his statements and questions repeatedly.
I installed video in the truck and car when cameras got small enough to not be prominent. Also, I turn my cell phone to "record" when I go thru a roadcheck. Before digital, I carried an Olympus micro recorder. I've been through the "He said, she said" crap before. Guess who the court believed? Next time I'll have proof!
Squad car video also seems to not be very reliable in my area.
Note to self: Install PA system!
Squad car video also seems to not be very reliable in my area.
Note to self: Install PA system!
johnwilliamson062
Excuse my frustration and disgust with agenda-driven posters who deny the obvious and claim their position to be absolutely, incontestably right. This is a discussion forum, not a propaganda concurrence forum. I will happily discuss the merits of what transpired with anyone who is open to rationale debate.
Which points to a valid question raised by this incident. The Supreme Court has clearly approved interior immigration checkpoints as not violating the Fourth Amendment. It appears highly doubtful than an individual can unilaterally 'opt out' of law enforcement functions ("Sorry, but I don't care to be arrested today."). So, what IS the legal authority to compel compliance with a perfectly legal law enforcement function and what are the consequences to the individual for failure to comply?
Excuse my frustration and disgust with agenda-driven posters who deny the obvious and claim their position to be absolutely, incontestably right. This is a discussion forum, not a propaganda concurrence forum. I will happily discuss the merits of what transpired with anyone who is open to rationale debate.
Which points to a valid question raised by this incident. The Supreme Court has clearly approved interior immigration checkpoints as not violating the Fourth Amendment. It appears highly doubtful than an individual can unilaterally 'opt out' of law enforcement functions ("Sorry, but I don't care to be arrested today."). So, what IS the legal authority to compel compliance with a perfectly legal law enforcement function and what are the consequences to the individual for failure to comply?
Did the fellow on the video fail to comply with an interior immigration checkpoint? Seems that such a checkpoint would involve a quick check of citizenship, or likely citizenship, in order to retain its constitutionally permissable character. Does the fellow refuse to provide ID?
I've never had my citizenship questioned, and I am not sure I could prove it conclusively roadside. Short of a birth certificate, I can't say how I would prove that I am not canadian (short of not wearing plaid flannel).
I am not an immigration expert, but it seems that a checkpoint at which this question isn't asked very early on isn't really an immigration checkpoint.
If it is a checkpoint for nebulous police interrogation, the concept itself may be problemmatic.
EDIT
I did watch almost half the video by Andersen. It doesn't strike me as especially smart to respond to police overstepping their bounds by letting matters get to the point of having them seize you by force. You can make your lack of consent loud and repeated, but your better remedy is to tell the judge after the fact, and pursue the department for civil damages for a false arrest, not to goad he and his friends into action.
Last edited:
Gc,
My apologies if I have offended you by disagreeing. I have a viewpoint, that is true. I also have an agenda, which is to provide this incident for discussion and debate. But me disagreeing with you and asking you to give examples for claims you have made (what statement did he make that wasn't heard) isn't an agenda, it's me asking you to show me how you reached your conclusion to better understand your viewpoint.
"With respect to the military officer, it appears it did not reach the point of the question (Of what country are you a citizen?) before the entire encounter spun into a dominance contest."
I agree with this. But the OBJECT of that dominance was firmly the driver. Both the driver wanted to maintain dominance of himself, and the agents wanted to dominate the driver. This was not the driver trying to dominate the agents clearly. I think it's an American characteristic to want to maintain dominance of yourself and prevent unlawful government agents to dominate you (ie, get out of the car, get arrested and tazed or searched for no reason).
My apologies if I have offended you by disagreeing. I have a viewpoint, that is true. I also have an agenda, which is to provide this incident for discussion and debate. But me disagreeing with you and asking you to give examples for claims you have made (what statement did he make that wasn't heard) isn't an agenda, it's me asking you to show me how you reached your conclusion to better understand your viewpoint.
"With respect to the military officer, it appears it did not reach the point of the question (Of what country are you a citizen?) before the entire encounter spun into a dominance contest."
I agree with this. But the OBJECT of that dominance was firmly the driver. Both the driver wanted to maintain dominance of himself, and the agents wanted to dominate the driver. This was not the driver trying to dominate the agents clearly. I think it's an American characteristic to want to maintain dominance of yourself and prevent unlawful government agents to dominate you (ie, get out of the car, get arrested and tazed or searched for no reason).
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
As was previously pointed out in this thread and several others have responded to you, this checkpoint has a very narrow purpose and court cases have previously defined what the BP agents can do. I don't think very many at all would claim they stayed within their legal bounds on this video. They don't seem at all interested in whether he is a citizen or not but rather just making sure her is servile.
If his passport and .mil ID are not sufficient to prove citizenship, what is? Someone earlier asked if you need to be a citizen to be an officer. I know USMC, AF and Army do for sure. I am fairly certain all of the services require you to be a citizen in order to be commissioned, although BP agents with no military background can't be expected to know this. He still had his passport.
Last edited:
Pnac,
You're probably aware of this but just in case, an excellent tool for mobile phone is Qik.Com - it's free and transmits video/audio in real time to a server that you can keep private. It's a great tool and works well. I agree with you completely, it's imperative that you record any encounters with LEO to ensure you don't lose the "word against word" battle that is leveraged frequently. LEO in my area also are not reliable when it comes to providing dash camera video or audio...
You're probably aware of this but just in case, an excellent tool for mobile phone is Qik.Com - it's free and transmits video/audio in real time to a server that you can keep private. It's a great tool and works well. I agree with you completely, it's imperative that you record any encounters with LEO to ensure you don't lose the "word against word" battle that is leveraged frequently. LEO in my area also are not reliable when it comes to providing dash camera video or audio...
VAPA,
I was not offended by your disagreement - that is an integral part of debate. I was peeved by the unanswerable question you posed (Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear?), which only the BP agents could answer with certainty.
I do recognize that it is possible that the agents might not have heard everything the driver said, as explained by the BP supervisor in Video #4 @ 4:08: "I know you may be able to hear us just fine, but we have a lot of traffic out here, there is the highway noise, there is traffic behind you. If you could roll down your window - I can understand you may not want to roll it all the way down, but at least enough that we can communicate with you."
As to the basic premise of who was right and who was wrong, both the driver and the BP succeeded in being disastrously wrong.
Brief detention for questioning about citizenship status at a checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment violation.
The BP messed up grandly by not asking about citizenship status before sending the driver to secondary. (Video 1 @ 0:26)
The driver messed up by thinking he did not have to get out of his car when ordered to do so immediately upon being approached by the BP agents in secondary. (Video 1 @ 1:36: "For what? You haven't told me anything and now you're making me exit my vehicle.")
The BP agents also took a cheap shot at the driver by contacting his CO. Anyone who has been associated with the military knows that the military does not take kindly to officers becoming involved in political issues, and testing the limits of the law, or trying to establish a basis to contest a law, falls in that category.
Nevertheless, the driver invited repercussions by deliberately involving himself in actions that he knew were frowned on by the military.
I was glad to see that the driver's subsequent foray (April 10 video) through the checkpoint was without incident.
I was not offended by your disagreement - that is an integral part of debate. I was peeved by the unanswerable question you posed (Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear?), which only the BP agents could answer with certainty.
I do recognize that it is possible that the agents might not have heard everything the driver said, as explained by the BP supervisor in Video #4 @ 4:08: "I know you may be able to hear us just fine, but we have a lot of traffic out here, there is the highway noise, there is traffic behind you. If you could roll down your window - I can understand you may not want to roll it all the way down, but at least enough that we can communicate with you."
As to the basic premise of who was right and who was wrong, both the driver and the BP succeeded in being disastrously wrong.
Brief detention for questioning about citizenship status at a checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment violation.
The BP messed up grandly by not asking about citizenship status before sending the driver to secondary. (Video 1 @ 0:26)
The driver messed up by thinking he did not have to get out of his car when ordered to do so immediately upon being approached by the BP agents in secondary. (Video 1 @ 1:36: "For what? You haven't told me anything and now you're making me exit my vehicle.")
The BP agents also took a cheap shot at the driver by contacting his CO. Anyone who has been associated with the military knows that the military does not take kindly to officers becoming involved in political issues, and testing the limits of the law, or trying to establish a basis to contest a law, falls in that category.
Nevertheless, the driver invited repercussions by deliberately involving himself in actions that he knew were frowned on by the military.
I was glad to see that the driver's subsequent foray (April 10 video) through the checkpoint was without incident.
Good post. Just two thoughts.
First, the PA law doesn't apply to the driver as far as exiting the vehicle. The driver had no legal obligation to exit the vehicle because this was not a lawful stop for the purpose of immigration status but was a fourth amendment violation from the onset. He stopped, they asked if the car was his, he answered, he was sent to secondary and then told to "hop out of the vehicle." That's clearly not how a brief stop for the purpose of checking immigration status is supposed to work anymore than it would be if the driver stopped, was asked what his favorite color was, and then ordered out of the vehicle.
Second, the driver was not putting himself in that situation. He was driving to get a destination and this checkpoint was in the way. The agents thrust that situation upon him illegally and the driver was the victim of it. This isn't a case of both were wrong. This is a case of abuse and the driver was the victim. IMHO.
First, the PA law doesn't apply to the driver as far as exiting the vehicle. The driver had no legal obligation to exit the vehicle because this was not a lawful stop for the purpose of immigration status but was a fourth amendment violation from the onset. He stopped, they asked if the car was his, he answered, he was sent to secondary and then told to "hop out of the vehicle." That's clearly not how a brief stop for the purpose of checking immigration status is supposed to work anymore than it would be if the driver stopped, was asked what his favorite color was, and then ordered out of the vehicle.
Second, the driver was not putting himself in that situation. He was driving to get a destination and this checkpoint was in the way. The agents thrust that situation upon him illegally and the driver was the victim of it. This isn't a case of both were wrong. This is a case of abuse and the driver was the victim. IMHO.
dabigguns357
New member
A victim of what and how was he being abused.
It's not like they drug him out kicking and screaming or him on the ground saying "don't taze me bro"nor were they beating him like a 4 year old in walmart.Had the guy simply rolled down the window and handed him his license,more than likely none of this would have happend.
As i watched the video again,i still see it from the bp's point .Someone rolls up to a checkpoint and when asked if the window in his car could go down and he said yes but refused to roll it down more than an inch,i would at the least think he was hiding something he didn't want them to see or smell which is probably what they were acting on.
Now i do agree with someone who posted that they should have let him sit there and called for someone else,no since ruffling feathers cause someone doesn't want to (fully) comply.
So let's just say, hypothetically, that a cop pulls you over for no reason and says, "I just want you to sit in your car for thirty minutes and then you can go." That wouldn't be abuse? Sure it's not Rodney King but it's still abuse. Abuse of authority, illegal, and there would be a victim of that abuse. The driver.
As to your second point...not being full cooperative (which isn't supported by the agent at the end of the video who says he understands if the driver doesn't want to roll the window down all the way but just enough so they can communicate), then let me ask you this. If when the driver came up they asked him who owned the car and then the agent said, "can you pinch your nipples and stick out your tongue" and the driver instead only pinched one nipple and stuck out his tongue, and was sent to secondary, would you still have the same argument?
At the end of the day, pinching one or both nipples or rolling your window down a few inches or a few miles, has no impact on the mission of the BP to determine immigration status.
I think I understand your, and the BP, perspective though. It's summed up with "Obey Me." That contrasts with the American perspective, "Don't Tread on Me."
As to your second point...not being full cooperative (which isn't supported by the agent at the end of the video who says he understands if the driver doesn't want to roll the window down all the way but just enough so they can communicate), then let me ask you this. If when the driver came up they asked him who owned the car and then the agent said, "can you pinch your nipples and stick out your tongue" and the driver instead only pinched one nipple and stuck out his tongue, and was sent to secondary, would you still have the same argument?
At the end of the day, pinching one or both nipples or rolling your window down a few inches or a few miles, has no impact on the mission of the BP to determine immigration status.
I think I understand your, and the BP, perspective though. It's summed up with "Obey Me." That contrasts with the American perspective, "Don't Tread on Me."
kodiakbeer
Moderator
Then they should have said "We have probable cause to search your vehicle - please step out." They didn't do that.
Why didn't they do that? Because they didn't have any probable cause and such a search would have found their case thrown out of court followed by a civil suit. They would be breaking the law - and they knew it was all being recorded.
Note - they didn't ask to actually examine the documents provided by the guy in the car until a supervisor showed up. That alone should tell you that they didn't care if this guy was an American citizen or not - they just wanted to hassle him for his lack of servility.
I'm glad I don't live in the southwest!
dabigguns357
New member
Id'e be more than happy to if the B/P agent is female,good looking and single.
- Status