Feds arrest family for 'refusing to answer questions' Read more at http://www.wnd.com

[Ron Burgundy]

What this country needs are dummy cars from IA to drive through checkpoints and conduct a blind test of how police are operating it... have them follow the constitutional rights or find a new job

I don't think IA cares any more about our rights than the rest of the cops and BP. Probably less. If they can stop and search 100 people illegally and only get sued maybe twice, that's a pretty good averages.

 

[Rod Farva]

Yeah, don't care what they found. Still an illegal S&S.

 

[oneforthebus]

According to the Supreme Court, a dog alert is probable cause.

http://www.radford.edu/content/va-chiefs/home/june2013/harris.html

Why would border agents bother hassling this guy for no reason and planting drugs in his car? What possible motivation could they have for doing that?

The simplest answer makes the most sense...the guy is breaking the law, he's got pot in the car and he figures his little dash cam will protect him from being caught, but he doesn't understand the law.

 

[DBS1970]

According to the Supreme Court, a dog alert is probable cause.

http://www.radford.edu/content/va-chiefs/home/june2013/harris.html

Why would border agents bother hassling this guy for no reason and planting drugs in his car? What possible motivation could they have for doing that?

The simplest answer makes the most sense...the guy is breaking the law, he's got pot in the car and he figures his little dash cam will protect him from being caught, but he doesn't understand the law.

Part of it is simply asserting power to keep us Plebs in line. I have been through these checkpoints numerous times and my thought is always: "why are they doing these checkpoints 30 miles north of the border on a main road?" The answer quite frankly is they are putting on a show for the sheep and letting in the cheap labor the GOP wants and the new voters the DNC wants. Things like this are simply cover to make these checkpoints look like a legitimate law enforcement practice.

 

[oneforthebus]

Part of it is simply asserting power to keep us Plebs in line. I have been through these checkpoints numerous times and my thought is always: "why are they doing these checkpoints 30 miles north of the border on a main road?" The answer quite frankly is they are putting on a show for the sheep and letting in the cheap labor the GOP wants and the new voters the DNC wants. Things like this are simply cover to make these checkpoints look like a legitimate law enforcement practice.

Thousands of people go through checkpoints every day without a problem. One guy gets caught with pot and it's "oh, they planted it!". I just don't buy it frankly. I'm sure there are a couple of macho tough guys who like to throw their weight around. By and large most of these people are just doing their jobs and would rather NOT have to deal with you on any more than cursory terms. That's been my experience anyway. But, they get a dog alert and then you start acting like a belligerent *******, they really have no choice but to act.

Some people seem to think probable cause equates with evidence of a crime. They don't need to be able to convict you, they just need some sort of reasonable suspicion to search you. Probable cause is a fairly low standard, legally speaking.

 

[DBS1970]

Thousands of people go through checkpoints every day without a problem. One guy gets caught with pot and it's "oh, they planted it!". I just don't buy it frankly. I'm sure there are a couple of macho tough guys who like to throw their weight around. By and large most of these people are just doing their jobs and would rather NOT have to deal with you on any more than cursory terms. That's been my experience anyway. But, they get a dog alert and then you start acting like a belligerent *******, they really have no choice but to act.

Some people seem to think probable cause equates with evidence of a crime. They don't need to be able to convict you, they just need some sort of reasonable suspicion to search you. Probable cause is a fairly low standard, legally speaking.

OFTB,

Flush out your headgear.

These Border Patrol checkpoints have been in the news a lot lately. People have been talking about them and why they exist at all and why we as a nation put up with infringements on our rights. There are dozens of these video recorded search refusals on the web and only this one results in the finding of any contraband. Now, at this late date, as outrage is growing. This doesn't trip you bullshit sensor as a set up?

You ever notice they never report capturing illegals at these stops? The big captures of illegals in transit almost always come from sweeps and actual patrols of the back country and secondary roads. The Coyotes and wets have sense enough to avoid a static checkpoint on the interstate. which serves to reiterate my point, these checkpoints are eye wash.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Yeah, somehow I don't think these checkpoints are actually catching illegals and sending them back. There have been too many reported incidents of local cops catching illegals for something and INS or DHS tells them to let them go.

 

[oneforthebus]

OFTB,

Flush out your headgear.

These Border Patrol checkpoints have been in the news a lot lately. People have been talking about them and why they exist at all and why we as a nation put up with infringements on our rights. There are dozens of these video recorded search refusals on the web and only this one results in the finding of any contraband. Now, at this late date, as outrage is growing. This doesn't trip you bullshit sensor as a set up?

You ever notice they never report capturing illegals at these stops? The big captures of illegals in transit almost always come from sweeps and actual patrols of the back country and secondary roads. The Coyotes and wets have sense enough to avoid a static checkpoint on the interstate. which serves to reiterate my point, these checkpoints are eye wash.

I'm not arguing the merits of the checkpoints. I'm just tired of seeing LEO get bashed on here for doing their jobs. Whether it's a job they should be doing is another discussion altogether. The paranoid fantasy that most cops just love hassling innocent people is the one I will debate whenever I read it.

If you've got illegal drugs in your car and you act like a dick prepare to have trouble with cops. If not you're probably fine.

 

[oneforthebus]

I see this same anti-cop stuff all the time from my idiot brother who got busted twice for DUI within a year while driving drunk with a broken taillight at 3 a.m. No, the cops are not fascist nazis, you were breaking the law and you got caught because you were being incredibly stupid.

 

[Rod Farva]

Thousands of people go through checkpoints every day without a problem. One guy gets caught with pot and it's "oh, they planted it!". I just don't buy it frankly. I'm sure there are a couple of macho tough guys who like to throw their weight around. By and large most of these people are just doing their jobs and would rather NOT have to deal with you on any more than cursory terms. That's been my experience anyway. But, they get a dog alert and then you start acting like a belligerent *******, they really have no choice but to act.

Some people seem to think probable cause equates with evidence of a crime. They don't need to be able to convict you, they just need some sort of reasonable suspicion to search you. Probable cause is a fairly low standard, legally speaking.

I'm not saying they planted anything. I'm not saying they didn't either..... it could very well be a form of post incident damage control that an unscrupulous officer might use to justify his actions or to defend these stops. "See, see.....we find dope doing these." Doesn't matter though because my (and anyone else's) suspicions or lack thereof mean squat in this case. The point is that is is an un Constitutional search and seizure, period, imo. The fact that the supreme court has deemed to allow them doesn't change that....again, imo.....

These and dui checkpoints are both the kinds of things that the founders feared and from which they wished to protect the people.

And for the record, the law is that an officer must have "reasonable suspicion", defined as "a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officers should be allowed stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity." before further probing which attempts to establish "probable cause"

"In Terry v. Ohio, we held that the police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot, even if the officer lacks probable cause."

"Probable cause" means reasonably reliable information to suspect there is a "fair probability" that a person has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence. "Reasonable suspicion" is a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less-reliable nature, that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pa.../probable-cause-and-reasonable-suspicion.aspx


NONE of the above standards are met in checkpoint stops. It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court is at odds with itself.

 

[oneforthebus]

I'm not saying they planted anything. I'm not saying they didn't either..... it could very well be a form of post incident damage control that an unscrupulous officer might use to justify his actions or to defend these stops. "See, see.....we find dope doing these." Doesn't matter though because my (and anyone else's) suspicions or lack thereof mean squat in this case. The point is that is is an un Constitutional search and seizure, period, imo. The fact that the supreme court has deemed to allow them doesn't change that....again, imo.....

These and dui checkpoints are both the kinds of things that the founders feared and from which they wished to protect the people.

And for the record, the law is that an officer must have "reasonable suspicion", defined as "a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officers should be allowed stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity." before further probing which attempts to establish "probable cause"

"In Terry v. Ohio, we held that the police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot, even if the officer lacks probable cause."

"Probable cause" means reasonably reliable information to suspect there is a "fair probability" that a person has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence. "Reasonable suspicion" is a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less-reliable nature, that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pa.../probable-cause-and-reasonable-suspicion.aspx


NONE of the above standards are met in checkpoint stops. It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court is at odds with itself.

This guy knew he was being videotaped...he'd have to be incredibly stupid to violate policy knowing that.

I'm not a big fan of stop and frisk or random DUI checkpoints, I'm with you there. But it seems to me we don't want drugs or guns or explosives or other dangerous things coming across our borders. If border agents can't question anyone how are they supposed to stop that?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

"Probably cause" and "reasonable suspicion" 35 miles north of the boarder would be a car full of Mexican who don't speak English. But if that's all they looked for and pulled over, it would be racial profiling.

 

[oneforthebus]

"Probably cause" and "reasonable suspicion" 35 miles north of the boarder would be a car full of Mexican who don't speak English. But if that's all they looked for and pulled over, it would be racial profiling.

Having pot in your car is still illegal...how is the cop supposed to know whether this guy has a dime bag or is smuggling in pounds of marijuana?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Having pot in your car is still illegal...how is the cop supposed to know whether this guy has a dime bag or is smuggling in pounds of marijuana?

Me, Rod, and DBS are saying that it's irrelevant because the checkpoint and search is unConstitutional in the first place.

 

[Rod Farva]

This guy knew he was being videotaped...he'd have to be incredibly stupid to violate policy knowing that.

I'm not a big fan of stop and frisk or random DUI checkpoints, I'm with you there. But it seems to me we don't want drugs or guns or explosives or other dangerous things coming across our borders. If border agents can't question anyone how are they supposed to stop that?

I hear you......I think we can be as secure as we can be without giving up liberty.....in other words, there's only so much we can do and remain the country we were. Remember this is 35 miles inside the country. If they can do it there where's the line at which they can't? As for the video taping the article says an officer reached in and turned the camera off after the driver was removed. Plenty of time after that to plant something but again I did not bring that premise into the thread, doubt that it happened and in my argument it's a moot point,,,,,should never have gotten to that point.

"Probably cause" and "reasonable suspicion" 35 miles north of the boarder would be a car full of Mexican who don't speak English. But if that's all they looked for and pulled over, it would be racial profiling.

Exactly.

 

[oneforthebus]

Me, Rod, and DBS are saying that it's irrelevant because the checkpoint and search is unConstitutional in the first place.

So, if a dog alert and unusual behavior when asked a simple, casual question do not amount to probable cause, what does? Do you have to be blowing pot smoke out your window or say "I'm on my way to my dealer with drugs in my trunk" for an agent to have reasonable suspicion? How would we ever intercept anything if we're not allowed to question people or use drug detecting dogs?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Doesnt matter, I don't think checkpoints well inside the border are Constitutional.

 

[Elfiero]

Enough...now I'm really confused. Why were they stopped and asked where they were going then, if they were 35 mi inland.

The idea is to move the net farther inland so if someone (terrorists supposedly) avoids the first line at the border they can have "reasonable suspicion" by you answering, and they detecting an accent, middle eastern ethnicity, look in the vehicle, crap like that.

The supreme court has ruled that they can detain you temporarily( constitutionally ambiguous at best), and you don't have to answer. It's voluntary.

You don't have to comply at DUI checkpoints either(same idea; smell for alcohol, look in your car), of course you risk running into the thug type police and things going very wrong for you.

Here is how you get it done. Some people even carry a sheet you hold up to the window stating that you won't answer any questions and outlining your rights.

Notice the "you just have to answer" part of the statement from the female officer and the driver responding with "I have to answer?" then no response from her................

 

[Elfiero]

Four words that can be spoken or put on a sheet of paper: "I don't answer questions". Use at your own risk, this revenue collector almost loses it several times if you observe him carefully.

I'm going to say the driver has had a few drinks by his demeanor, but he seems to have been down this road before(no pun intended).

 

[oneforthebus]

Here's an idea, don't drink and drive, then you don't have to worry about DUI checkpoints and you also don't have to worry about killing yourself or someone else.

 

[Elfiero]

Here's an idea, don't drink and drive, then you don't have to worry about DUI checkpoints and you also don't have to worry about killing yourself or someone else.

I'm worried about some kid accidentally killing himself with his parents gun so let''s go door to door and start collecting guns. How does that sound to you? I am pro gun by the way but think about it, are all your rights important or just some?

I'm not advocating drinking and driving but I do think in this day and age people have to stand up for their rights. ALL of them

 

[DBS1970]

This is one that Elfie is correct on. DUI check points are the same as the Border Patrol checkpoints, people that are doing nefarious things can easily avoid them, so they aren't really about public safety. They are about conditioning people to obey the agents of the state. Remember the poem about Nazi Germany where the Author writes, "When the came for X I said nothing" and goes on to site all the people. the agents of the state came for? Well the point is the state will eventually get around to you if you don't speak out. So don't be a sheep or you will get sheared.

 

[Rod Farva]

Strictly construing the Constitution would make the pot found in this instance "fruit of the poison tree" and inadmissible in court.

 

[oneforthebus]

I'm worried about some kid accidentally killing himself with his parents gun so let''s go door to door and start collecting guns. How does that sound to you? I am pro gun by the way but think about it, are all your rights important or just some?

I'm not advocating drinking and driving but I do think in this day and age people have to stand up for their rights. ALL of them

Not a good analogy in a number of ways.

One, owning a gun is a constitutional right. Driving a car is a privilege. You are subjected to all sorts of qualifications before you are legally allowed to drive...you've got to prove you're competent and physically and mentally capable. You agree to carry insurance. You agree to abide by all driving laws. When you accept a driver's license you are voluntarily relinquishing some "rights" in the interest of public safety.

But let's assume you do have some "right" to drive around in your car. You still have a legal responsibility to do it safely and not endanger others. Just like you have a legal responsibility to keep your loaded gun away from a kid.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I'm worried about some kid accidentally killing himself with his parents gun so let''s go door to door and start collecting guns. How does that sound to you? I am pro gun by the way but think about it, are all your rights important or just some?

I'm not advocating drinking and driving but I do think in this day and age people have to stand up for their rights. ALL of them

I...agree...with Elfie...