The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 24, 2010, 03:22 AM   #26
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 4,647
Quote:
Got a cite for that, gyvel?
__________________


Actually, my buddy did cite a specific statute regarding this. Next time I talk with him I'll get it again. As I said, he is retired from Customs and Immigaration and worked many busts and investigations, mostly drug stuff.

I'll try to find out more for you about this. I was never involved with LE.
gyvel is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 05:46 AM   #27
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
I'll be interested to see that citation, too.

From my understanding, (which PNAC has also reinforced) both Federal and Texas state law are one consent states. So as long as the driver consented, he's good.

My guess is even without these laws on a public highway with public servants he would be well within his rights to record audio/video as there is no expectation of privacy. Same rule would apply to a person recording on public sidewalk.

Last edited by VAPA; May 24, 2010 at 05:52 AM.
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 08:56 AM   #28
riverwalker76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 993
I still can't figure out why this guy wasn't fully cooperative with the Border Patrol!

I mean ... being confrontational, and not rolling your window down? I can understand why they were holding him. That kid was a pain in the tail!
__________________
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
riverwalker76 is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 10:03 AM   #29
paull
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 9, 1999
Location: SE Texas, 'tween Houston & Galveston
Posts: 157
Quote:
I still can't figure out why this guy wasn't fully cooperative with the Border Patrol!
The implication I get is that he has been stopped numerous times at the check-point and was unhappy with his treatment.

...decided he would bait them a bit.

They don't like to be baited, trust me on this one.
p
paull is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 10:39 AM   #30
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,657
"We complain about our borders, drugs, illegals, etc. and now we are complaining because the customs folks are doing their job."

That's the rub, isn't it?

We expect 100% exclusion of illegals, illegal drugs, terrorists, etc.

But we scream bloody murder when they try to do the job we expect them to do.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 10:47 AM   #31
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Riverwalker,

You don't understand why he wasn't full cooperative? The video shows he was fully cooperative with the exception of not exiting the vehicle, not rolling his window down in secondary (until later in the detention), and not giving the name of his CO.

So you would exit a vehicle upon order of your government at a checkpoint the Courts have said can only briefly detain for the limited purpose of determining immigration status even when knowing the agents weren't actually interested in your immigration status? Is there anything you wouldn't do when your government orders it? What if the government orders you to turn in your weapons?

You would roll down your window upon order of your government after they made it clear they were not interested in doing their job (determining immigration status) despite being able to communicate with the agents?

You would provide the name of your supervisor after government agents lied to you and harassed you so they could harass you some more?

On behalf of agents who abuse the Bill of Rights, thank you for your cooperation.
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 10:52 AM   #32
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Mike,

They were not doing the job as "we expect them to do" as long as by "we" you mean our Judicial Branch and the Founders who wrote the Constitution and libertarian/Constitutionalists who values their rights.

The Courts have made it very clear that these internal suspicionless check points not located on the Border are only authorized for one purpose, to determine immigration status, and the detention to determine said immigration status must be very brief. According to the Courts, any questions that are not related to immigration status that extend the detention are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Are you really suggesting that the conduct of these agents was in any way useful or proper, despite being clearly illegal?
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 11:03 AM   #33
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,759
Quote:
We expect 100% exclusion of illegals, illegal drugs, terrorists, etc.

But we scream bloody murder when they try to do the job we expect them to do.
I will agree with others and say they don't seem at all concerned with whether he is a citizen or whether he has drugs on him. They just seem interested in making sure he knows who is in charge and if he doesn't do as they say things will turn out badly for him. The stop lasted thirty minutes and we have less than ten minutes of video and we lack any record at all of the previous situations, but from what we have the BP does not look good.

The border agents are talking into the gap in the window, but they are not putting their ear up to the gap in order to hear. Doing so would leae them vulnerable. The difference in location could result in a huge difference between who can hear who, so I also think it is very likely the BP agents really could not hear him..
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; May 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 11:10 AM   #34
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Here is a link to Part One of the full 30+ minute video showing the interior and rear camera footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BId1f8WG2s
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 11:39 AM   #35
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
It is my belief the video demonstrates a fourth amendment violation and is evidence of a culture in LEO that is unconcerned with civil liberty.
This may be true, but the video also shows a citizen who set out to bait law enforcement.

Here is something else to consider with respect to rights - people behind the individual in the video. If I had been in the car behind the guy, I would not have wanted to wait while he played out his dominance contest with the Border Patrol.

Last edited by gc70; May 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM.
gc70 is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 12:06 PM   #36
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
I look at internal checkpoints like this:
Suppose there's a factory dumping pollution in the water. OK, they dump it into a nearby stream, the stream carries it into the river, the river joins another river, together they form a lake, the water from the lake runs thru the dam, down the river, joins another river, etc., etc. and eventually the water and pollution runs into the sea. Whew!

Now, does it make more sense, assuming you really wanted to stop the pollution, to stop it at the source, or, ten miles out in the ocean?

The point I'm trying to make is that internal checkpoints are not for checking or controlling immigration or contraband. They are too far from the border for that.

But, back to the case in question, if everyone just rolled over, excepted the "official explanation" at face value, no matter how ridiculous that explanation was, we would just lose more and more freedom. Washington said "Government is like fire, a faithful servant and a fearful master". I applaud his standing up and exposing the BS for what it really is...BS.
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 12:21 PM   #37
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,657
I've not watched the video. For some reason my computer chokes on it.

I'm making a general comment.

And, for a reality check, VAPA, you should read about some of the actions and laws later taken by the very men who wrote the Constitution.

Actions that, on their very face, don't appear to be very Constitutional even working within the spirit of their own actions.


"clearly illegal?"

"very brief."

Have the courts defined "very brief"? Is it less than 20 minutes? Less than 0.0000000000125 seconds?

Lacking a defined value of what constitutes "very brief", one can't claim that something is clearly illegal.

One can only suggest that it violates the spirit of the court findings and is illegal based on a subjective standard.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 12:22 PM   #38
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
GC,

What does that mean he baited? Does a person who has his house broken into two times who then installs a security camera system "bait" robbers? 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.

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.

I gotta say, it's amazing what lengths some people will go to justify illegal government behavior.

Last edited by VAPA; May 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM.
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 12:24 PM   #39
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,657
"illegal government behavior"

Once again, YOUR interpretation.

An equally valid corollary could easily be "It's amazing the lengths to which some will go to claim repressive government."
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 12:26 PM   #40
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Thanks Mike. Perhaps your comments will be better if and when you watch the video.

As for the Courts defining what they mean by "brief" - in fact they have clarified. They have stated that they have found that detentions which have last 3-5 minutes longer than what was reasonable have been found to be Fourth Amendment violations.

You can try to justify bad behavior if you wish and you can appeal to the flexibility of words in that attempt but...it's pretty common sense that 30+ minutes of detention is not a brief attempt to determine immigration status of a guy who is clearly American, who is very compliant, and who has two forms of ID and two passports on the window.

I suggest you watch the video so as not to be accused of justifying the actions of some very bad government actions...
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 12:27 PM   #41
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
This may be true, but the video also shows a citizen who set out to bait law enforcement.
And they took the bait, and made quite a number of mistakes, and detained the gentleman way beyond what was necessary to determine citizenship, which is their only lawful purpose to detain. This should be costly to the BP. If the goal was to highlight unconstitutional practices, this was nearly perfectly played. 3 government IDs, including a military IDm hardly leaves any room for doubt about citizenship.

The BP crossed the line. With that kind of TD, it doesn't take 30 minutes to verify identity. I have been cleared to buy a gun in less than 10 minutes.

He baited them, but can anyone suggest a better way to expose an unconstitutional detention?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 12:38 PM   #42
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
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?
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 01:13 PM   #43
cannonfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 492
I do not know the laws about personal property in your own car, while on public property... If that makes any sense.. What I'm wondering about is the posts about the wire tapping/video being produced. It would make sense to me that you have the right to video/audio record anything that is happening inside of your own property. People have security cameras in their houses and on their property to protect them from burglars without their permission, so why would you have to have the BP's permission to tape them when everything is in your car?
EDIT: The camera was not facing outside, it was put under the rear view mirror, facing the back seat.

Seriously, I have no idea about the law and am curious if any of you LEOs can lend a hand with that. It is not like he is planting a 'bug' in another person's property that would require a warrant, it is in his own car.

I have to admit, I'm not one big for youtube, but after watching this video, its obvious that there are a bunch of these kinds of videos on the web. All of them (well most of them that I watched) all had to do with the person in the car not complying with the BP, which is their fault. But I do not see anything wrong with what this officer did besides not rolling down the window as far as the BPs wanted it rolled down.

I'm in the military, and I do not know about officers and citizenship, but I know for a fact that you DO NOT have to be an American citizen to be ENLISTED in the US military. I served with a guy who was legally allowed to be in the country from Mexico and joined the Marines so that his paperwork would get pushed through quicker (he soon became a citizen shortly after we returned from Iraq).

What I find disturbing is how they had two forms of ID, the officer asked if the BP wanted a passport, and the BP said no. The BP said something to the effect of 'the military ID and driver's license were not immigration papers'. Well you don't have immigration papers if you are not an immigrant! You have a SSN which is on the back of the Military ID!

It could have all been resolved when the supervisor came over, checked 4 identifications. He should have just said 'Move Along, sorry for the inconvience' and that is it. Going on further to call his CO and write emails is unnecessary and should be filed for harassment. IMO
__________________
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti - Dante

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the planes for 9/11

Last edited by cannonfire; May 24, 2010 at 01:40 PM.
cannonfire is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 01:22 PM   #44
kodiakbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
What does "baiting" or not have to do with the issue? Aren't these BP agents supposed to be professionals?

Their job was to check whether the occupant of the vehicle was a legal resident. The occupant complied. End of story - or should have been. But, no. They have to come unglued because the citizen wasn't sufficiently servile enough to please them. So, they hassle him for 30 minutes then take retaliatory measures by calling his employer and lodging a complaint about his lack of servility.

Cops are PUBLIC SERVANTS. If they forget that fact, then they are bad cops.
kodiakbeer is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 01:41 PM   #45
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Those are my thoughts exactly Kodiak. I would hope that responsible LEO who expect to be held accountable for their actions, just as they hold the citizens who pay them accountable, would be offended at this claim of "baiting" like they are three year olds instead of professionals.

Last edited by VAPA; May 24, 2010 at 01:50 PM.
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 01:47 PM   #46
dabigguns357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Ona,West Virginia
Posts: 1,215
Military or not,He was acting suspicious and rude from the start.

An officer asks him to roll down the window and he gets rude and flat refuses to more than an inch,thats just cause for him to be detained and see why and what he is trying to hide.Then he goes and gets mouthy with the agent is only making it worse.The guys an idiot and makes the miltary look bad by pulling a dumb *** stunt.

I wonder who put boy wonder up to it,cause he wasn't to bright.

i've been pulled over so many times it aint funny but i remember a few rules,don't get mouthy,don't be be cute or funny and say as little as possible.
__________________
it's better to have a gun on your hip than one to your head
dabigguns357 is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 01:57 PM   #47
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,759
Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that internal checkpoints are not for checking or controlling immigration or contraband. They are too far from the border for that.
In large swaths of the SW border you can walk across the border at any point and there are in most places a highway running parallel to the border within a dozen miles. Once you are across you pretty much need to come across a vehicle and start moving on that highway or you are going to have major water problems trying to walk out. It does make sense to have check points internally on these parallel highways. You have to spend some time in the area to understand this.

Quote:
It would make sense to me that you have the right to video/audio record anything that is happening inside of your own property.
It really doesn't matter if it is his property or not.
There is a group which follows around police officers with abusive records and videotapes all their interactions. Very in your face and at least bordering on impolite about it also. The police officers usually tell them to get lost and often threaten them and have on several occasions detained the videographer. The group has gone to court several times and I believe it has at least gone to federal court and several state supreme courts, if not the SCOTUS. If my memory serves me correctly ALL of the higher courts have found it is entirely legal to videotape a uniformed LEO while he is overtly performing his duty without consent and even if he/she asks you to stop. Of course, if he enters private property, for say a domestic dispute you must get permission of the property owner. I do not believe the group has ever pushed it with something like a detective where they are at times being covert and the camera may unduly endanger their lives.
Furthermore, it has been decided in several court cases, that young children at public places such as water parks or beaches are afforded no protection from people videotaping them. The case I believe involved a beach with one of those rinse showers to wash off sand where someone set up a camera to tape children having the sand rinsed off of them by their parents. I doubt a BP agent is afforded more protection to privacy from a citizen than a small child from a pedophile.
Of course, I don't think either of this cases has gone to the supreme court, so it would not necessarily pertain to the entire US.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 01:59 PM   #48
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
"An officer asks him to roll down the window and he gets rude and flat refuses to more than an inch"

Dab, how is he rude? I see him render a pretty polite verbal greeting to the officer when he first stops. When the agents asks him to roll down the window more, he rolls it down more. When the agent asks if that is as far as it goes, he tells him that the window can be rolled down more. He doesn't "flat refuse" to roll the window down more...the officer asks him to roll it down more and he does. So how far does it have to be rolled down? If you've watched the full video you'll see the agent says "I understand if you don't want to roll it down all the way" and asks him to roll it down enough that they can communicate. Seems pretty clear they could communicate with the window up and down from the video. So can you provide some quotes from the driver being rude and "flat refusing?"

"thats just cause for him to be detained and see why and what he is trying to hide."

Actually it's not. The only legally permissible reason for the brief detention at the checkpoint is to determine immigration status...not to see what somebody is "trying to hide" because they don't roll their window down to an arbitrary and unpublished, unadvertised level.

"Then he goes and gets mouthy with the agent"

How does he get mouthy? Again, do you have some quotes? I didn't see him mouthy at all.

"The guys an idiot and makes the miltary look bad"

I agree with others who have stated that he honored his oath to defend the Constitution and personally I think he makes the military look very good. But that's just my opinion.

"I wonder who put boy wonder up to it,cause he wasn't [too] bright."

What makes you think anybody put him up to anything?
VAPA is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 02:00 PM   #49
kodiakbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
Quote:
An officer asks him to roll down the window and he gets rude and flat refuses to more than an inch,thats just cause for him to be detained and see why and what he is trying to hide
So, his lack of servility is justifiable reason to detain, harass and put his employment in jeopardy? I don't think so. I think a couple of guys with badges had their egos bruised because a citizen refused to be slavish enough to suit their taste.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
kodiakbeer is offline  
Old May 24, 2010, 03:02 PM   #50
dabigguns357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Ona,West Virginia
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
how is he rude
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.

As the guy sits there he says he feels threatened,they have weapons and still he refused(afraid for his life).Now he says he is going to post it on youtube for the world to see.

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.

point blank the guy just wants to be an ***.How many people would go out of the way just to make a scene like that unless they have an agenda.How much you want to bet he wins his lawsuit.
__________________
it's better to have a gun on your hip than one to your head

Last edited by dabigguns357; May 24, 2010 at 03:31 PM.
dabigguns357 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18862 seconds with 7 queries