Border Patrol Violates Fourth Amendment of Military Officer

[kodiakbeer]

he was asked if he could roll his widow down and he said it could but refused to then startes to get mad about it.i don't think they were being harsh.They asked to please exit and he gets snotty about everything.

Because they had no reason to ask him to exit the car. Refusal to cede your 4th amendment rights is not a crime, nor should that refusal be seen as "suspicious". Remember, this man was not being stopped for suspicion of a crime or even a traffic ticket.
When asked to slide his passport out for examination, he complied immediately. I suspect the only reason he wasn't dragged out and tased was because he informed them they were on the Internet - a bluff on his part, but one that worked.

if it had been me and some one asked me to step out of the car i would have complied and done as i was told,as would most of you.

And that is exactly the problem. Police are used to seeing fear and slavish obedience, and when faced with something less, they are fully prepared to destroy you in any way they can.

[gc70]

Also, have you watched the video? It's pretty clear within the first twenty seconds that he did not hold up traffic but rather went to secondary as ordered to do.

Yes, I did watch the video. The only reason the guy did not hold up traffic was because he was promptly sent to secondary when it became obvious that he was being uncooperative.

This claim of baiting is ridiculous and is insulting to professional LEO as though their professionalism crumbles at the site of a shiny object or something.

I see. Lots of people run multiple video cameras in their cars just for the heck of it. And lots of people think that "roll down your window" means an inch. And lots of people argue when someone says they can't hear them.

The guy entered the checkpoint with the intention of trying to provoke the BP agents; that is baiting.

[kodiakbeer]

The guy entered the checkpoint with the intention of trying to provoke the BP agents; that is baiting

Even if true - so what? These are public servants. What would you think if you were rude to your garbage man and so he threw your trash all over your yard, then called your employer and complained about your conduct?

I would expect a cop (of any variety) to be as professional as the average garbage man.

[hogdogs]

unless they have an agenda

And that agenda may just be the desire to retain all of their civil rights in the cotus!

I know when I have been pulled over for doing something wrong, I comply fully with the nicest attitude and never miss a chance to say I apologize as well as yes sir and no sir... but if not for good reason, I am pulled... I show no politeness, good attitude and will not hesitate to call 'em "boy"... They don't like it but tough luck... If I am in the right, I don't care how they leave feeling...
Brent

[gc70]

Even if true - so what? These are public servants.

Public servants are people like the rest of us, not public punching bags. Whether it's a LEO, a garbage collector, or the kid at McDonald's, treat a person with a little respect for what they do and you will probably get good service - treat them like crap and your service probably won't be as good.

[kodiakbeer]

Public servants are people like the rest of us, not public punching bags.

He treated them quite respectfully. He just refused to be servile and surrender his civil liberties.

[VAPA]

Treat them with respect like they treated the driver? Funny how you have no words of criticism for the agents who lied and violated the Constitution they swore to uphold. Whether you like it or not, we are a nation of laws and the only individuals in that video who broke that law were public servants.

He absolutely will win his lawsuit, I have no doubt. The laws on the books right now make that clear. And the "he should have rolled his window down all the way, unbolted the door from its hinges, and stripped naked in order to show complete servitude before armed immigration status checkers" argument isn't going to win the day. Neither will "baiting," he wasn't nice enough, or his socks didn't match.

I hope those of you who find fault with the driver aren't guilty of claiming a Second Amendment right because if you do...you're a phony and have no concept of liberty.

[VAPA]

Kodiak, I suspect you are right about the internet video keeping him from being tazed and beaten.

The presence of a video camera is certainly not sufficient to stop Border Patrol thugs from doing exactly that as shown in this video where a Baptist Pastor is tazed for nearly a minute and beaten to the point where he required eleven stitches for refusing to exit the vehicle and answer questions...no crime, the made up charges against him were dismissed with prejudice, and he also has a lawsuit against the BP.

Baptist Pastor Beaten By Border Patrol for 4th Amendment Rights

[cannonfire]

I see. Lots of people run multiple video cameras in their cars just for the heck of it. And lots of people think that "roll down your window" means an inch. And lots of people argue when someone says they can't hear them.

This is why I asked about having a video camera taping your back seat. I do not believe its a crime. and you said it your self, the BP said to roll down his window, in which he did. They did not say roll down your window all the way. The BP obviously could hear him if they were having a conversation with him. And if you notice they keep going to the back of the car to try to talk and get further and further away from the officer. If it was such a problem that they couldn't hear him, then why didn't the BP walk up to the car? You say for the safety of the BP? What about when a LEO goes to give a citation, they walk up to the window. The BP were trying flex muscle with him.

This video shows a guy not complying with BP and they just let him go!!

EDIT: The Baptist Pastor video is a joke, he refuses to be arrested. All that is needed is suspicion.

[maestro pistolero]

Maestro, what do you mean by "bait?" Are you suggesting he was hoping to induce a violation by the BP? If so, what leads you to believe this?

I was merely responding to post#35 where his actions were described as baiting. I personally don't think he baited them. Perhaps a better description of his behavior was that he was laying in wait for them, because he obviously had some reason to expect them to detain him. Past experience, perhaps.

No one comes armed with two video cams and a ready recitation of the law, without some prior expectation of their shenanigans.
I don't know why they were so interested in this guy, unless he has some kind of profile that drew them.

I don't think he was rude, and he didn't refuse to answer any questions until they ask the identity of his CO. The repeated questions like "Why did you refuse to identify yourself" were ridiculous, and amounted to the famous "did you stop beating your wife" question, to which there is no good answer, except, "I never beat her."

[gc70]

Baptist Pastor Beaten By Border Patrol for 4th Amendment Rights

Pastor Anderson seems quite busy fighting the Border Patrol, inciting a member of his flock to carry an AR to a Presidential event in Phoenix last year, praying for Obama's death and preaching a sermon about Why Billy Graham is Going to H***.

[VAPA]

All interesting stuff about the pastor, Gc. And completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You shouldn't need to agree with a person's religious or political viewpoint to support their Constitutional right to have that viewpoint and be free from government abuse.

[gc70]

Pastor Anderson can believe whatever he wants. When those beliefs are contrary to the law and land him in trouble, he may warrant no sympathy.

Pastor Anderson: "I get stopped at the checkpoint and they started asking me questions; I refused to answer the questions."

Supreme Court - UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE: "In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment and need not be authorized by warrant."

[VAPA]

Nice. Can you now show me the law that says you have to answer questions at the checkpoint?

The courts have held, as far as I know so please correct me if I'm wrong, that the Fifth Amendment covers a person's right to be silent and not answer questions even if they are not charged with a crime. Miranda rights are a reminder of this right.

Personally I see no problem with answering questions concerning immigration status at a checkpoint because, as you've shown, the Courts have upheld those checkpoints as Constitutional for the purpose of determining immigration status in a brief way. So I'm with you there. BUT, I'm not sure I can fault an American who believes differently...as far as I know, they have the right to remain silent when questioned by LEO.

[gc70]

BUT, I'm not sure I can fault an American who believes differently...as far as I know, they have the right to remain silent when questioned by LEO.

While I can admire a person with the conviction to test (and possibly expand) the limits of the law, I have less sympathy for someone who resists arrest, even passively, to generate sensationalism. The Pastor would have had the same Fourth Amendment court case without resisting arrest, but the video would not have been nearly as interesting.

[VAPA]

Resisting arrest? How do you come to that conclusion??

[gc70]

After a person has been arrested ("you are under arrest"), failure to comply with an officer's orders ("get out of the vehicle") typically constitutes resisting arrest.

[cannonfire]

Because the BP told the guy that he was under arrest and he refused to get out of the car. Since they were placing him under arrest, they had every right to break his window, and use a taser. They even paused and told him that they were going to do it, but he wanted to make a video. If you get pulled over, and they said get out of the car, the dog sensed drugs, and you don't get out of the car, they would do the same thing, not just in the case of the BP. They had reasonable suspicion with the drug dog, but again you dont see that in the video. And, when I was in Iraq we had MPs with drug and bomb sniffing dogs, none of which made any noise when they suspected drugs or explosives, they simply sat down. So the argument that the dog did not make any noises means nothing because the dog may have been trained to sit instead of bark. In which case he was denying the police officers their right to search the car without a warrant but with reasonable suspicion. Any LEO on this forum will tell you all they need is reasonable suspicion and just because you say it was not good enough does not mean you can deny their suspicion. Its the same if an LEO says he smells pot in your car, you can not deny his suspicion by jumping up his nose and say that there is no pot odor there.

This pastor guy is a freaking joke. If he is trying to preserve our rights, he is doing it all the wrong way, he is in no way corroborating with LEOs and should not be taken seriously. He compares a simple immigration check point to Nazi Germany. Illegal aliens are not just at the borders, but they are deeper in the country as well, so the distance from the border should mean nothing. I would have no problem with every state conducting immigration checks, even states nowhere near a border.

[VAPA]

Interesting. So I assume you guys believe the judicial system messed up when it dismissed all charges against the Pastor WITH PREJUDICE? Seems the courts disagree with your claims about resisting arrest.

[VAPA]

It should be noted that the Pastor didn't see the dog behave out of the ordinary and he requested the dog be brought back to see if it alerted. The DHS guy who broke his window when he showed up asked the BP to bring the dog back out...and the BP refused.

Sounds like the BP conjured up a dog alert that wasn't there and the Court agreed.

The Pastor refuses to answer questions and refuses to go to secondary and refuses to exit his vehicle. No different in principle than the military officer (although the officer was much more cooperative). The BP agents lied about the drug sniffing dog just as the BP agents lied to the officer about not answering questions on citizenship in primary.

Not convinced the drug sniffing dog didn't alert? Not convinced by the Court dismissing all charges with prejudice? How about being convinced by the fact that the dog found nothing?

Or do you think the dog made a mistake and it's just coincidence that the BP agents refused to bring it back to see if it would alert on camera? If you think it's just a mistake, are using such mistake-prone dogs as reason to beat, taze, and assault an American citizen a good idea?

You may not like the Pastor but he did nothing wrong and the Court agreed.

And do you think that American citizens don't have the right to refuse to lend themselves to unlawful arrest? He didn't resist arrest...he simply didn't facilitate it. Do you think anytime the government says "here, put these cuffs on, you're under arrest" that a citizen MUST do so even though the act is unlawful?

[Eagleks]

I see both sides as crossing the line of stupidity.

The guy was baiting them and showing passive resistance, e.g. window, stepping out, etc. can all be considered reasonable requests.

The other side, once the Border Patrol knew the guy was legite they should have sent him on. They seemed to want to push the subject since he had done what he did, and pushed it further by calling the guy's CO and being jerks.

I think both sides were wrong and both probably deserved reprimands.

[gc70]

You may not like the Pastor but he did nothing wrong and the Court agreed.

Has the Pastor posted a transcript of the trial or the court's decision on the case? Either would make very interesting reading.

[cannonfire]

Good point about the dog, and again I mentioned that you do not get to see the dog or anything since the video starts after the fact. I was simply stating that the dogs don't necessarily have to make a noise to say they think something is back there. AND those dogs are not always correct..

For example: In Iraq, we had a male in a large van pull up to a gas station and started filling (forgive me I forget the exact number) 4-5 55 gallon barrels of fuel. Suspicious indeed, so we brought the bomb sniffing dog out to make sure the male was not creating a bigger boom for a VBIED. The dog sat after sniffing at the rear driver side door, indicating the possibility of explosives. They pulled the dog away and allowed the dog to sniff around, again, it sat at the rear driver door. We called EOD and they came to take a look, it ended up being a car alarm that this guy installed himself, no explosives detected at all.. But the dog sat twice.

Now that is Iraq, not America, but the dogs are still trained the same way. I dont believe that we can argue over what the dog actually did since it was not in the video. No, a dog detecting drugs does not constitute for him to be treated that way, but it does constitute reasonable suspicion that does not require a warrant, and it fully constitutional.

In my opinion, once the police have reasonable suspicion, the "suspect" should have to follow what a LEO says, otherwise, what power to up hold the law do they have if we do not have to abide by their demands?

I do not like the guy as I made clear earlier, I think he is a joker. If you look on youtube, you will find the video of that incident where he cut out the part where he was arguing about allowing the police to arrest him. It is not your job to resist being arrested because you feel that they are wrong, otherwise there would be no criminals in prison. That is the courts job to determine whether the arrest was warranted or not, not yours. It sucks, but that is why we have the judicial branch.

And hey, good for him for getting the charges dropped. But we know that the media influences the courts (it sucks and it shouldn't but it does) and since these were such low charges I would not be surprised if they dropped them because of fear of what rumors would come out (not saying that that is why is was cleared). This guy publicly came out and stated that he wish the president would be killed amongst other things, the media would have a field day with this saying he was imprisoned for saying that about the president, blah blah blah, (I'm way off my point and am just playing Devil's Advocate now)... But at the end of the day, just because someone is cleared of charges does not mean they are not guilty of committing the crime. Everyday murderers and rapists are let free because of a flawed system.

But honestly everything we see on the web is speculative at best and we can not make full arguments over these without the court hearings (I'm guilty too). Those videos were cut to show what he wanted people to see and you could not see him on the ground during the security camera scene. For all we know he could have been biting or trying to fight the officers, but you can not tell from the video.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic, the pastor wasn't even the topic and now I'm ranting about it. The military officer is innocent, IMO

[gyvel]

The point I'm trying to make is that internal checkpoints are not for checking or controlling immigration or contraband.

That is exactly what they are for.

[blume357]

have a dialog with the guy.

Once he refused to roll his window down and was off to the side I would have called and waited for a higher authority and let him sit there and stew.

It is obvious to me the folks out side could not hear everything the guy inside the car was saying....

Then again every time I've ever been pulled over by an LEO I've shown them respect even the one time the guy was a jerk and started to draw on me.

bottom line is my time is money and important to me.... in the end, they will win.. they got all day to sit there and wait for back up and such... after all they are getting paid by the hour regardless of whether they are watching you or chasing bad guys.