Border Patrol Writes Letter to Military Officer's Commander - Conduct Unbecoming?

[Double Naught Spy]

Military IDs prove legal immigration status. In the case of military officers, it also proves American citizenship.

Well sure enough! The only exception that I can find is if the ID is no longer valid.

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Brent, depends where you live. Here in CT you have to carry youur license and provide it to police.

Huh?
Are you saying that Connecticut law requires someone who is NOT operating a motor vehicle to carry a driver's license?

Statute, please.

I believe the context of Conn. Trooper's reply was specifically in regard to the law requiring the operator of a motor vehicle to physically have the DL with him/her while driving. Brent had said that this wasn't the case where he is.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I believe the context of Conn. Trooper's reply was specifically in regard to the law requiring the operator of a motor vehicle to physically have the DL with him/her while driving. Brent had said that this wasn't the case where he is.

Gotcha. I see the context now.

I've never heard of a state that didn't require a driver to carry the license when actually driving.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

Correct, he was driving, so he would be required to have it with him, if he was here. I doubt there is a federal statute requiring that, I have never heard of one, outside of commercial drivers and commercial vehicles.

 

[KyJim]

I didn't read all seven pages of posts in the other thread or review the entire video. I will just say that if a police officer asks me to roll down the window, I'll roll it down. If he or she asks me to exit the vehicle, I'll exit the vehicle. Police officers have a tough enough time without people going out of the way to give them a tough time.

Having said that, I think writing a letter to a commanding officer is out of bounds. The officer has opened himself up for a potential lawsuit for slander and perhaps a violation of civil rights for having a citizen punished for exercising his rights.

 

[jcsturgeon]

I didn't read all seven pages of posts in the other thread or review the entire video. I will just say that if a police officer asks me to roll down the window, I'll roll it down. If he or she asks me to exit the vehicle, I'll exit the vehicle. Police officers have a tough enough time without people going out of the way to give them a tough time.

I'll say yes to rolling down the window. That part doesn't make sense to me. Absolutely not to getting out of the vehicle though. Rolling down the window is just common courtesy and not doing so does nothing to protect your rights, and quite frankly is just rude.

Exiting the vehicle just because some guy with a badge says so? I think not.

The Boarder Patrol Agents in that case (all the way up to the chief) acted disgracefully. Detaining a citizen for 35 minutes to punish them for speaking to you through a partially, rather than fully opened window is petty and childish. They should all be ashamed and either fired or made to take more training.

 

[gyvel]

Why? It's not against Texas law, and it's not against Federal law.

I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but a retired Customs and Immigration buddy of mine said that AUDIO recording without informing was contrary to some Federal Statute. He told me the CFR Title once, but I forgot which one.

It may not apply in this case, but, like I said, I don't know.

 

[JohnKSa]

It's fairly common knowledge in TX that TX is a 1 party consent state. As long as 1 participant in the conversation is aware of the audio taping then it's legal under TX law. That participant can be the person doing the taping.

From what I can determine, federal law imposes a similar requirement. That is, only one party in a conversation need know that the conversation is being taped for it to be legal.

Could you get your buddy to provide a cite for the law he believes may apply?

 

[Conn. Trooper]

Police Officers can legally order you out of your vehicle. Pennsylvania vs. Mimms case law is established. I don't know for certain if there is a detention or reasonable suspicion requirement, I don't ask anyone to exit a car unless I have RS or even PC. So, I am not sure if that applies to a border patrol checkpoint for immigration status. If I stop a vehicle for a motor vehicle violation, criminal investigation, whatever, I can order you to exit your vehicle.

 

[gc70]

Exiting the vehicle just because some guy with a badge says so? I think not.

You might want to reconsider if you are ever stopped and ordered out of your vehicle.

PENNSYLVANIA v. MIMMS
The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order - the officer's safety - is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being at most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.

 

[jcsturgeon]

So, if I was being detained by a police officer (which wouldn't happen, since I'm a law abiding citizen) then I would be exiting the vehicle for an actual reason and not just because some guy with a badge said so.

 

[JohnKSa]

So, if I was being detained by a police officer (which wouldn't happen, since I'm a law abiding citizen)...

Ever had a taillight burn out? Headlight maybe? Ever forget about your vehicle inspection and drive with an expired sticker? (That's happened to me and to several other folks I know.) Ever had your front plate fall off? (Happened to a friend of mine.) Ever had your license plates stolen? (Happened to another friend of mine.) You've never missed a speed limit change and ended up going over the limit? (That's happened to me and various people I know.) Have you and/or your vehicle ever met the description of a person/vehicle being sought by the police? (My cousin had this happen and was detained at length by the side of the road.)

The idea that being law-abiding precludes ever being detained by the police is absolutely ridiculous and making such a claim is purely being argumentative and obstreperous.

...then I would be exiting the vehicle for an actual reason and not just because some guy with a badge said so.

This is equally argumentative.

When you are detained by police they are afforded certain powers by the law and courts. One of those in most circumstances is the ability to ask you to exit your vehicle. I guess if you want to say to the officer as you get out, "I'm not getting out because you 'said so', I'm getting out for 'an actual reason'." then you're free to do so, but given the minimum age requirements for drivers that might not be the kind of response the officer is expecting.

 

[nate45]

jcsturgeon

Below is a link to a good video about what your rights are when you are pulled over by police. As others have noted, refusing to get out of the vehicle is not one of them.

What to do when pulled over

I've found through personal experience that being polite and compliant works very well in relations with the police. Even if they give you a ticket, or arrest you, still act nice, it can only help not hurt. Hey, lets face it, if they catch you breaking the law, don't blame them. It was your fault and after all they get paid to catch law breakers.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So, if I was being detained by a police officer (which wouldn't happen, since I'm a law abiding citizen) then I would be exiting the vehicle for an actual reason and not just because some guy with a badge said so.

One of the things that I have learned in dealing with operating motor vehicles is that nobody always obeys all of the traffic laws all the time. Even folks attempting to comply don't get everything correct all the time. Maybe you are different, but I doubt it. As with everyone else, you probably violate various laws with some regularity and if not traffic laws, then some sort of obscure laws about which you may not even be familiar.

If you are pulled over for some reason by the cops, in many states they most definitely have the legal authority to have you exit the vehicle (so far I haven't found any that don't allow cops to order you from your vehicle). So if some guy with a badge says so and you don't comply, you certainly may be changing your status of being a supposed law-abiding citizen.

 

[Al Norris]

... however ... We are not really discussing what the police may or may not do.

We are discussing what a Border Patrol immigration inspection (check stop) may do. There is a difference, isn't there? I don't believe they have the same "police power" that a city/county/state cop has.

 

[gc70]

I don't believe they have the same "police power" that a city/county/state cop has.

The Border Patrol is charged with enforcing different laws than city/county/state officers. However, Border Patrol officers have the same array of police powers, and limitations on those powers, as do other law enforcement officers -- to enforce laws within their jurisdiction.

Martinez-Fuerte specifically permits detention and brief questioning at Border Patrol checkpoints. Once a person is stopped (technically 'detained') at a checkpoint, the person's Fourth Amendment rights are the same as for any other type of police detention. And the authority of the Border Patrol officers (for instance, ordering a person to exit a vehicle per Mimms) is the same as that of any other law enforcement officers.

BTW, if a person is found to be intoxicated at a checkpoint, the Border Patrol will not arrest the person for being drunk (not within their jurisdiction), but will detain the person until a city/county/state cop arrives to make the arrest.

 

[Al Norris]

Thank you gc70. I wasn't aware of this.

 

[gc70]

I should have probably used a term like 'law enforcement powers' since 'police powers' has a broader legal meaning concerning government's capacity to regulate behavior and enforce order.

LEOSA has an interestingly brief take on the characteristics of 'law enforcement powers' in its definition of a "qualified law enforcement officer."

an employee of a governmental agency who—

(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest

 

[VAPA]

I don't believe it's the case that the Border Patrol has the same authority as police. It depends on the state, and if they have been granted the ability "state peace officer authority" by the state to enforce certain state laws. According to the Border Patrol Inspector's Field Manual (2008), state peace officer authority is:

"Power granted by some states to some Federal officers/agents authorizing them to enforce state law. As separate sovereigns, each state may determine who is authorized to enforce the laws of that state. Usually this means that arrest power is granted to state police, sheriffs, and to various municipal police departments. Some states have enacted legislation designating Federal law enforcement officers as state peace officers with the power to enforce state law. Whether or not a specific Federal officer has this state authority is sometimes difficult to determine."

In any case, they do not have the ability to just order people out of their vehicles as has been stated (well they can order, but the driver doesn't have to comply). Not at suspionless checkpoints at any rate. The reason is because, unlike an encounter with a cop (who is not supposed to pull somebody over unless they have reasonable suspicion of a "crime"), these checkpoints are operated without any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever. As such, they cannot order you out of the vehicle. They need to develop reasonable suspicion to further the detention beyond "brief" and they need probable cause in order to arrest or search. Headlights and speed are all "crimes" in the case of cops.

And while the unfortunate Mimms case allows cops to order people out of their vehicles for their "safety" - I would bet that if a cop pulled somebody over without reasonable suspicion (which definitely happens), and the driver has recording equipment to prove that fact, they could refuse an order out of their vehicle. Of course they'd better have a plan as the cop would likely escalate the situation, but I would guess with proof of a lack of reasonable suspicion that any charges against the driver would be dismissed. Maybe this will get pressed to test in the courts in the future.

I personally won't exit the vehicle when I know the cop has pulled me over absent reasonable suspicion.

 

[gc70]

I don't believe it's the case that the Border Patrol has the same authority as police. It depends on the state, and if they have been granted the ability "state peace officer authority" by the state to enforce certain state laws.

That's a red herring. Border Patrol officers have authority to enforce federal laws regardless of any grant of coincident authority to enforce state laws.

With respect to the federal laws they enforce, Border Patrol officers most certainly have authority to detect, investigate, arrest, etc.

The reason is because, unlike an encounter with a cop (who theoretically doesn't pull somebody over unless they have reasonable suspicion of a "crime"), these checkpoints are operated without any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever.

Have you heard about sobriety checkpoints? The same legal concept applies.

 

[VAPA]

Obviously federal officers have the authority to enforce federal law. But they do not have the authority to enforce state laws unless granted it by the state.

I agree the same legal concepts apply to DUI checkpoints. No suspicion, no need to exit.