Gc,
What I think you fail to understand is that the difference between the PA law and this incident lies in the fact that, in this incident, the request to exit the vehicle was unlawful. To go back to the Nipples example, if the BP agents had demanded he pinch his nipples and yet the driver only pinched one nipple, that would not be cause to order the driver out of the vehicle. For you to think otherwise is to think BP agents can order a person out of their vehicle for any reason, or no reason at all, despite being limited by the Courts to only determine immigration status. As others have said on this forum, you and I can disagree on "reasonable" and "probable cause" and "suspicion" but the determiner will be the Courts. If you want to make a wager on what is determined in the Courts with the pending lawsuit concerning this incident, please let me know. I would love to make some quick money.
Edit: I'm not challenging your assertion that the driver could be secondaried for "mere suspicion." But, they cannot order him out of his vehicle without probable cause. In the video they had neither. The Fourth Amendment violation begins early on when it's clear they are not interested in his immigration status (only question in primary, "is this your vehicle") which is outside the scope of the checkpoint's legal purview (to establish citizenship). Do you think a Judge is going to watch that video and come to the conclusion that the driver was secondaried and ordered out of his vehicle to determine immigration status? No way. So it's a violation from the beginning. It's made much more clear as time passes that they don't care about his status. He puts ID up on the window which should have ended it, but it doesn't. In fact, they later tell him his ID is irrelevant because it's not immigration documentation despite the fact they asked for it. So if the Judge takes them at their word, the question is, "why did you further extend the stop by asking for documentation that was irrelevant because it's not immigration documentation?" Then the DRIVER has to ask if they want a passport and they ignore it. Instead they finally ask if he's a citizen and he gladly says yes. But even THAT doesn't end it. Instead the agents begin lying to justify WHY they secondaried him (you didn't answer that question when we asked in primary...a lie that is furthered by the supervisor much much later in the long detention). Then later when the supervisor shows up, the driver already has two IDs, and two passports on his glass. Still, that doesn't end the detention. Then when the supervisor asks for the passports, already offered by the driver much earlier, that should end it right? But no, the supervisor further extends the detention, passports in hand, to ask questions not related to his immigration status (who is your boss) and takes more time to retaliate against him. The Fourth Amendment violation in this video is massive and the Courts will have no problem establishing that fact I am certain. Relevant case law says their scope is to be brief solely to determine immigration status. That wasn't done. Case law says that questions which further the detention that are not related to immigration status are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Waiting to call somebody's boss after they have provided two passports, two IDs, and said they were a U.S. citizen is therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The retaliation against the driver, well, that's even more nefarious and it will be interesting to see how the Courts rule there. I would expect the taxpayers will be paying for this one.
BTW, the full video of Pastor Anderson's trial was just released:
https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2010/05/22/p216#more216
Poptime,
That's an interesting perspective. You say the driver was within his rights as a citizen yet you think there is another standard that justifies ending his career as a military officer. Is there a standard for military officers to submit to unlawful authority or to unlawful requests by the government? And how do you square this with an officer's oath to support/defend/bear truth faith and allegiance to the Constitution (which includes the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures)? Yes or No...would you agree that exercising one's rights supports those rights (ie the more people who exercise their rights to keep and bear arms support those rights by preventing anti-2nd Amendment types from painting pro-gun citizens as fringe lunatics, for example)? If you think exercising rights does in fact support those rights, then what is the source of your expectation of a military officer to submit to unlawful demands which trumps the oath to support the Constitution? Or perhaps you would rather the oath to Constitution, demanded by the Constitution itself, be replaced by your standard that government officials submit to any government demand regardless of its Constitutionality (for example, disarming American citizens when ordered regardless of the rights that are violated in the process)?