So.. I went to the border to shoot today.

[ITEOTWAWKI]

But the spirit of our nation demands that we not be randomly accosted, even if politely, by any man. The freedom to go about your business and not have some nosy fed wanting to snoop around your or your stuff. If I'm tear assin' around a mountain or shooting somewhere relatively unsafe, that's one thing, but to get all snoopy for no other reason than you're outside your house is another.

 

[ccwolff]

dont spend so much time looking for black helicopters. you can escalate or diffuse, your choice, and i shouldn't have to say which choice is the stupid one.

Black helicopters?

I should not have to make that choice.
But if I do they should just do what they have to or go away.
I have no choice for next time now, I'll have to be even more direct I guess.

"NO! you may not search my vehicle and DON'T ask me again. Now could you do me a favor and go back to where you came from."

 

[badbob]

"Black helicopters?"

That's Lush Limpbaugh speak. If you act like an American and actually believe you have rights, then you're part of "the black helicopter" crowd, as opposed to the government suckb*** crowd. Kill the messenger if you can't argue with the message.

badbob

 

[jeff_troop]

ccwolff my comments were not meant to be directed at you personally or to how you handled the situation. they were more generic geared towards the comments made by people in general.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

In that I was asked to allow a search of my vehicle for no real reason.
Sure I guess it was fine.

What is wrong with asking?

I noticed above this exchange,

I asked if there was something wrong.

He said you drove by the border "suspiciously fast".

I said , how fast was I going.

Fast enough.

Your statement that he wanted to search for no real reason isn't exactly right. He says you were driving suspiciously fast. You tried to engage him in a debate on speed by asking how fast you were driving. He squelched you by denoting that you were driving fast enough. He apparently didn't want to engage you in a debate on what a particular speed has to do with suspicion as it doesn't mean a thing. Suspicion can be that you were driving faster than the regular folks who take the road in question.

Lets get some thing stright I never said he did. I will say that after he left I wondered wtf that was all about and was a bit irritated that he asked to search for such a cheesy reason. I think I was more irritated that he was surprised that I said no and did not take my first no at face value... or my second.

Right, sorry, he didn't ask to look in your windows. That is correct. He asked to look around your vehicle which was something that the did not have to ask for your permission to do. He did look in your windows AFTER asking to look around your vehicle and peering in your vehicle was perfectly legal.

------------------------------------------------------------

I will say this. We complain that the government isn't doing enough to protect us. Then, when the government does things in the name of protecting us, we complain again. I have come to sense that we want the government to provide us with 100% protection and 0% intrusion. We complain the police can't protect us but apparently want the government to be able to respond to our calls for help and be there in time to stop the bad guy from being able to shoot us, but we don't want to have too many police around or that might create a police state or make us feel paranoid that they are keeping too close of tabs on us. We want the best cops ever, doing more than ever and doing it better than ever, but none of us want to pay the higher taxes that might come with getting cops better trained, better armed, and otherwise better equipped. Basically, the cops will never be good enough because they can never live up to the impossible standards.

 

[ahenry]

From the sounds of things, the encounter was fine.

In that I was asked to allow a search of my vehicle for no real reason.

This seems to be a real hang-up for you, so let me see if I can explain it. Obviously I wasn’t present for any of this, so take what I’m saying with the appropriate grain of salt. First, the Border Patrol catches thousands of smuggling cases each year. That’s not a figurative statement; it’s a literal one. That particular PA might very well have been involved with hundreds of smuggling cases in the course of his career. Doing anything that many times is going to give somebody a few seeming inconsequential bits of knowledge regarding smuggling tactics. He wouldn’t tell you, but its entirely possible that the particular type of vehicle you drive is a common type they see smuggling aliens. Additionally, your actions might have created some suspicion. Probably nothing huge, but little things like maybe the speed you were driving or something similar. Also, you wouldn’t be made aware of this, but it’s entirely possible that they had something that led them to believe somebody was about to pickup a load of aliens. Maybe they had busted up a group in that area. Or maybe they had gotten a citizen report of a group. Or maybe they had chased a group back across the border right before you arrived and they suspected that the group would try to cross again and this time load up in a vehicle instead of trekking across the desert.

My point here is that it is more than possible that there was a lot more going on than the PA told you.

Edited to add:
The fact that he asked to search doesn’t mean he didn’t have any suspicion. He was just looking to satisfy himself that everything was “kosher”. Something (or several somethings) looked a little out of the ordinary to him. Remember, he’s probably been involved with many, many smuggling cases, and he spends way more time in that specific area than you do. He tends to notice when things are done out of the ordinary, which is often indicative of something going on. You wouldn’t let him search, he looked through the window and probably accomplished the same thing. Had you given consent when he asked you wouldn’t have give up your right to privacy, or unreasonable search and seizure at all, he was asking permission. I suppose it made you feel better, and it’s certainly your prerogative. What you really accomplished though was to make him think that shooters around there don’t like the Border Patrol and don’t really appreciate what they do.

 

[mvpel]

I know that I have rights especially since I have done nothing wrong. I would probably tell him to go ahead that I have nothing to hide.

Are you absolutely sure you have nothing to hide? Positive? Have you kept up with every last little law they've passed over the past 30 years criminalizing plants, animals, and machines? Suppose they find a rubber washer in your trunk and accuse you of having illegal possession of "silencer parts?" Suppose they find a piece of tubing and accuse you of possession of "drug paraphanelia?" Suppose they find a piece of dried-up cruft that fell off the stump you hauled to the dump six months ago and accuse you of possession of "hallucenogenic mushrooms?"

There is absolutely no reason, ever, to consent to a search. Ever.

 

[STAGE 2]

There is absolutely no reason, ever, to consent to a search. Ever.

Baloney. Despite the sentiments of many people here there are still good people who wear the badge. If they are courteous and approach me with the right attutide, I'm going to make their job easy and help out. There's no reason not to.

If johnny law decides to swagger up to me and tell me whats what, then thas a different story.

Too many people have a chip on their shoulder and get over the idea that every officers number one job to personally harass people.

 

[mvpel]

If they are courteous and approach me with the right attutide, I'm going to make their job easy and help out. There's no reason not to.

The only reason they are asking to search you or your belongings is because they have a hunch that they might find something that will allow them to arrest you and charge you with a crime, or a "crime."

Why would you want to make that easier to do?

What kind of person they are, and how courteous they are, makes no difference - they have a job to do and whether or not they act like a jerk will make no difference in your legal defense or the size of your legal bills if you're unlucky enough to wind up with a big previously-undiscovered surprise in your car.

 

[STAGE 2]

The only reason they are asking to search you or your belongings is because they have a hunch that they might find something that will allow them to arrest you and charge you with a crime, or a "crime."

Again, baloney. You have no idea whats going on in the mind of the LEO. There have been many times where I've been approached by officers when shooting and the only reason they asked me a "technical question" was to have an excuse to walk over and talk guns with me.

Furthermore just because a cop is asking questions doesn't mean he's trying to stick you with anything. Cops are people too and have every right to be suspect of people just as we are. This goes doubly so for a person with a gun. If you come across someone in the desert with a firearm who you don't know from Adam and you're going to approach him like you two are old drinking buddies? I don't think so. You're going to be cautious and do everything to make sure that everything with the situation is kosher. This has happened to me before and you'd be surprised how the tone of a person changes when you sympathize with what they do. Its kind of like when you get pulled over at night, and you turn on the dome light and have your hands on the wheel in plain view. Settle the cops fears that you're not a homicidal maniac and things get much nicer.

Don't get me wrong, I think that in this situation ccwolff did the right thing. However there are situations where consenting to a search isn't a bad thing.

As for having surprises in my car, what kind of person doesn't know what's in their own car. All of a sudden there's going to be a bag of crack under the front seat that I didn't know about? I don't think so.

 

[TimRB]

"Furthermore just because a cop is asking questions doesn't mean he's trying to stick you with anything."

Depends on the question. If the question is "May I search your vehicle?", then he is trying to stick you with something. It doesn't matter if he's smiling.

Tim

 

[Number 6]

Absurd advice

However there are situations where consenting to a search isn't a bad thing.

Really? Name one. What intelligent purpose could it possibly serve?

As for having surprises in my car, what kind of person doesn't know what's in their own car [?]. All of a sudden there's going to be a bag of crack under the front seat that I didn't know about?

Ever hear of planting evidence?

Ever hear of a passenger stuffing contraband under a seat so as not to have it on them during the search you just consented to?

Are you the ONLY one who ever uses your car? Have you ever left it in a lot and given the keys to an attendant?

Have you actually given this issue any real thought?

 

[STAGE 2]

Really? Name one. What intelligent purpose could it possibly serve?

Sure. John Q Public gives the description of someone who just stole his (insert object here). White male, mid 20's wearing jeans and brown hair. Well, that description fits me and about a million other people. I'd rather let him give my car a look through than be hauled down to the station and jump through all sorts of hoops.

Ever hear of planting evidence?

Yes, but we're talking about real life here and not things you watch on law and order. The chances of this happening are so small that its a joke to bring it up. Even if it did happen, the chances that it would stick in court are next to none. Having a clean record has its advantages.

Ever hear of a passenger stuffing contraband under a seat so as not to have it on them during the search you just consented to?

Sure. But my question is who in the hell are you hanging out with that this is even a possibility. I don't associate myself with people who do things like this, much less implicate me in their own activities.

Are you the ONLY one who ever uses your car? Have you ever left it in a lot and given the keys to an attendant?

For work, yes. I am the only individual who has access to or uses my car. My own private car is used by myself or my wife. Sure I've done valet, but with the regular maintenance and cleaning that I do on my cars, the chances that I miss something are slim to none. That of course assumes that something was placed there in the first place, which is another thing that isn't at all likely to happen.

Have you actually given this issue any real thought?

Yeah. Have you bothered to think of any responses that aren't dictated by TV or fantasy land?

 

[azurefly]

Thus encouraging abusive, intrusive encounters and thereby making it more difficult for those with vertebrae and testicles to say "NO" to such warrantless and unwarranted actions. Does this poster intend to submit blood, hair, urine or semen samples every time a crime is committed in his town because the cop demanding them is " just trying to cover his tracks and do his job?"

Hey, all you "cooperation" advocates - how about you give the cops your guns "for testing" because they might have been used in a crime and the cop is "just trying to cover his tracks and do his job?"

I agree, Number 6.

We are not supposed to have to live under a state of constant scrutiny by our government and its agents. Sure it's not illegal for these agents to ask us to consent to searches, but their continually asking even when they know they don't have the probable cause to compel a search is tantamount to mounting pressure to allow searches we know we should not have to abide.

Eventually, if the spineless keep consenting to the searches, everyone who knows he should not have to allow a search to prove himself innocent (that's the key element here) will be regarded by the agents with greater and greater suspicion. Eventually, knowing your rights and refusing the search will be deemed to be exactly the "suspicious" behavior that constitutes "probable cause"! (It's already clear that ccwolff's agent thought his refusal made him suspicious.)

ccwolff, I think you did great. You exhibited greater courage than most would be able to. It must be nerve-wracking to tell a law enforcement officer to stuff it (essentially), knowing that drawing a line and asserting your rights has the potential to spur him to abuse them. You could find yourself in "contempt of cop," and he might start to give you every hassle he can contrive. At least, that would be many people's fear (including my own). I am not sure if I would have had the courage you had, and been able to refuse the search. I hope that if it happens to me some day, that I will.


-azurefly

 

[Number 6]

Reality check

Sure. John Q Public gives the description of someone who just stole his (insert object here). White male, mid 20's wearing jeans and brown hair. Well, that description fits me and about a million other people. I'd rather let him give my car a look through than be hauled down to the station and jump through all sorts of hoops.

Since, by your own admission, the description fits "about a million other people," it is too vague to justify a search unless you were that one-in-a-million fitting the description in the area. In short, not enough to warrant a compelled search.

Further, what YOU are willing to subject yourself to is your problem. Don't drag us down with you.

As far as your tv fixation, I practice law. I have a lawsuit pending in Federal court based upon illegal search and seizure, with a second one (same PD) in the works. I've also had a cop barge into my home; no warrant, no PC and sure as hell, no consent.

You, according to your profile, are just a student.Get back to us when you have some experience with the real world.

 

[azurefly]

Sure. John Q Public gives the description of someone who just stole his (insert object here). White male, mid 20's wearing jeans and brown hair. Well, that description fits me and about a million other people. I'd rather let him give my car a look through than be hauled down to the station and jump through all sorts of hoops.

Why would the cop need to search the CAR to determine if you, the PERSON, match the description of the thief?

What if it was a wallet that had been stolen? Just how long, thorough, and exhaustive a search are you willing to let this cop perform?

The fact is, if the cop truly has reason to believe you are the thief, those circumstances obviate his requirement to ask you to consent to the search. He is already allowed to search, if there is probable cause to believe you were involved in the theft.

So if he asks, it means it's a fishing expedition.

And the long and the short of it is, ANY consent to a ANY search is designed to help THEM, and not to help YOU in any way. If you started your day with nothing to get arrested for, the best that can happen if you consent to a warrantless search on request is that your "what-can-I-get-arrested-for?" quotient stays the same. It might possibly go UP. It will not ever go DOWN if you allow a cop to go poking through your car. They are not doing that in a dogged effort to keep you from getting arrested.


-azurefly

 

[azurefly]

I have an idea for the "cooperation advocates."


Why not go down to your local police station and tell them you want to put your DNA, blood, and fingerprints on file with them, since you have nothing to hide, and it may help them solve crimes in the future?

Some of you seem to be very eager to accept a responsibility to prove your innocence, and act as though the authorities would never abuse you in any way. You act like the police have never seized on the wrong guy, based on flimsy (or planted, or nonexistent) evidence, and then covered up wrongdoing so as to send an innocent person on down to a conviction, if only because it would be embarrassing to them to admit earlier mistakes. I've even read of convictions overturned because police, DAs, detectives, etc. concealed exculpatory evidence. (How they can send an innocent person to prison knowing they have the proof that the guy didn't do it is beyond me.)


I am not interested in ever giving the cops a shot at collecting "evidence" that I broke a law, if the law does not compel me to give that evidence.

And the fact is, the Constitution says that I don't HAVE TO provide evidence to be used to prosecute me.

The "I have nothing to hide" crowd jeopardizes the rights of all of us.


-azurefly

 

[Samurai]

Be kind to your fine-feathered-Fuzz...

Careful, azurefly... I'm actually in favor of collecting DNA and fingerprint samples of everyone in America and cataloging them. I think it would actually be helpful in solving crime.

Now, I don't think anything was done "improperly" at the border. However, having not heard the "tone" of the conversation, I can only caution everyone of the following: It is perfectly possible to exercise your 4th Amendment rights without being rude to a LEO who is ONLY trying to do his job. (Again, I don't think anyone was rude HERE, I'm just saying for the sake of conversation...)

A proper response might be phrased, "Well, I don't really feel like staying here with you while you do a search, so I'm going to refuse consent." Or even, "I'm a 4th Amendment advocate, so I'm not going to consent to a search." These are better responses that telling a hard-working border agent, "NO! And kiss-off for asking!!!"

In other words, whenever people exercise their rights, always TRY to be as POLITE as POSSIBLE to the LEO. Let him know you appreciate living in a stable non-anarchaic society with law enforcement personnel and courts of law. Let him know you appreciate his diligence, EVEN IF YOU DON'T. It'll make HIM (or her) feel appreciated, and it'll smooth-over the encounter.

 

[TimRB]

"Careful, azurefly... I'm actually in favor of collecting DNA and fingerprint samples of everyone in America and cataloging them."

If that's so, *he's* not the one who needs to be careful.

Tim

 

[springmom]

Careful, azurefly... I'm actually in favor of collecting DNA and fingerprint samples of everyone in America and cataloging them. I think it would actually be helpful in solving crime.

PLEEEEEEEAAASSSEEEEEE tell me you're kidding.....

Springmom, who hopes she's just being colossally gullible