The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 25, 2010, 10:01 AM   #76
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
"It is obvious to me the folks out side could not hear everything the guy inside the car was saying...."

Like what? Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear?
VAPA is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 10:20 AM   #77
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Hmmm... Aren't the grounds for arrest "probable cause" and don't the officers still have to get a search warrant if the suspect refuses to give then permission? I seem to remember a CIA or NSA Director that didn't understand the reasonable suspicion vs probable cause restriction.
I realize you are relating your Irac experiences and there are probably differences, so no slight intended, just a question.

Cannonfire said:
Quote:
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?
__________________
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 25, 2010, 10:26 AM   #78
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear?
Can you quote what the driver said that the agents could hear?

LOL
gc70 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 10:53 AM   #79
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that internal checkpoints are not for checking or controlling immigration or contraband.
gyvel said:
Quote:
That is exactly what they are for.
That is a valid argument as a temporary, stopgap, measure, but there has been more than enough time to secure the border, if stopping illegal immigration or contraband was truly the goal.
__________________
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 25, 2010, 11:57 AM   #80
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
"Can you quote what the driver said that the agents could hear?

LOL"

Everything he said could be heard by the agent. There were a couple of times the agent said, "what?" and he repeated himself and was heard. Your claim that they couldn't hear him is not supported by the video.
VAPA is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 12:07 PM   #81
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
We "get it" that you joined this forum to advance an agenda. You have already drank the kool-aid and there is no room for debate or disagreement in your mind.

It's been fun, but it's over for me.
gc70 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 12:27 PM   #82
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,781
Gc70, I think you need to reconsider who drank the kool aid. He obviously went to the checkpoint with an agenda. That agenda was to document LEOs breaking the law. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, legally or morally.
He probably should have rolled down his window, but I doubt he had a legal obligation to do so. It seems he may have had legitimate concerns about being dragged out of the vehicle or tased since it has obviously happened before.

LEO don't have the right to just push citizens around at their convenience and just because most people put up with it does not mean it is legal or right.

I just watched the entire video. By the end both sides seem to have realized they lost.
__________________
$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 25, 2010 at 01:31 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 12:52 PM   #83
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,077
Quote:
It is obvious to me the folks out side could not hear everything the guy inside the car was saying....
That was a ploy to get him to open the window more. The window was open plenty and he was directing his voice out of pretty consistently. They could hear him, as they responded to his statements and questions repeatedly.
maestro pistolero is online now  
Old May 25, 2010, 01:17 PM   #84
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
I installed video in the truck and car when cameras got small enough to not be prominent. Also, I turn my cell phone to "record" when I go thru a roadcheck. Before digital, I carried an Olympus micro recorder. I've been through the "He said, she said" crap before. Guess who the court believed? Next time I'll have proof!
Squad car video also seems to not be very reliable in my area.

Quote:
That was a ploy to get him to open the window more. The window was open plenty and he was directing his voice out of pretty consistently. They could hear him, as they responded to his statements and questions repeatedly.
Note to self: Install PA system!
__________________
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 25, 2010, 02:28 PM   #85
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
johnwilliamson062

Quote:
He obviously went to the checkpoint with an agenda.
Excuse my frustration and disgust with agenda-driven posters who deny the obvious and claim their position to be absolutely, incontestably right. This is a discussion forum, not a propaganda concurrence forum. I will happily discuss the merits of what transpired with anyone who is open to rationale debate.

Quote:
LEO don't have the right to just push citizens around at their convenience and just because most people put up with it does not mean it is legal or right.
Which points to a valid question raised by this incident. The Supreme Court has clearly approved interior immigration checkpoints as not violating the Fourth Amendment. It appears highly doubtful than an individual can unilaterally 'opt out' of law enforcement functions ("Sorry, but I don't care to be arrested today."). So, what IS the legal authority to compel compliance with a perfectly legal law enforcement function and what are the consequences to the individual for failure to comply?
gc70 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 02:48 PM   #86
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Which points to a valid question raised by this incident. The Supreme Court has clearly approved interior immigration checkpoints as not violating the Fourth Amendment. It appears highly doubtful than an individual can unilaterally 'opt out' of law enforcement functions ("Sorry, but I don't care to be arrested today."). So, what IS the legal authority to compel compliance with a perfectly legal law enforcement function and what are the consequences to the individual for failure to comply?
Did the fellow on the video fail to comply with an interior immigration checkpoint? Seems that such a checkpoint would involve a quick check of citizenship, or likely citizenship, in order to retain its constitutionally permissable character. Does the fellow refuse to provide ID?

I've never had my citizenship questioned, and I am not sure I could prove it conclusively roadside. Short of a birth certificate, I can't say how I would prove that I am not canadian (short of not wearing plaid flannel).
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 03:01 PM   #87
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
I think that the conduct unbecoming gig is a fair punishment for being an jerk. It is not the duty of an Military Officer to be playing games with Federal Officers.
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 03:07 PM   #88
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Did the fellow on the video fail to comply with an interior immigration checkpoint?
With respect to the military officer, it appears it did not reach the point of the question (Of what country are you a citizen?) before the entire encounter spun into a dominance contest.

With respect to Pastor Anderson, he stated that he refused to answer the question.
gc70 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 03:37 PM   #89
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
zukiphile said:
Quote:
I've never had my citizenship questioned, and I am not sure I could prove it conclusively roadside. Short of a birth certificate, I can't say how I would prove that I am not canadian (short of not wearing plaid flannel)
In my state you have, or maybe I should say had- I don't know how it is now, to submit a birth cert when you applied for a drivers license, so a valid drivers license implied a birth certificate. Don't know how it is elsewhere.
__________________
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 25, 2010, 03:37 PM   #90
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Quote:
Did the fellow on the video fail to comply with an interior immigration checkpoint?
With respect to the military officer, it appears it did not reach the point of the question (Of what country are you a citizen?) before the entire encounter spun into a dominance contest.
I am not an immigration expert, but it seems that a checkpoint at which this question isn't asked very early on isn't really an immigration checkpoint.

If it is a checkpoint for nebulous police interrogation, the concept itself may be problemmatic.

EDIT
I did watch almost half the video by Andersen. It doesn't strike me as especially smart to respond to police overstepping their bounds by letting matters get to the point of having them seize you by force. You can make your lack of consent loud and repeated, but your better remedy is to tell the judge after the fact, and pursue the department for civil damages for a false arrest, not to goad he and his friends into action.

Last edited by zukiphile; May 25, 2010 at 03:56 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 03:57 PM   #91
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Gc,

My apologies if I have offended you by disagreeing. I have a viewpoint, that is true. I also have an agenda, which is to provide this incident for discussion and debate. But me disagreeing with you and asking you to give examples for claims you have made (what statement did he make that wasn't heard) isn't an agenda, it's me asking you to show me how you reached your conclusion to better understand your viewpoint.

"With respect to the military officer, it appears it did not reach the point of the question (Of what country are you a citizen?) before the entire encounter spun into a dominance contest."

I agree with this. But the OBJECT of that dominance was firmly the driver. Both the driver wanted to maintain dominance of himself, and the agents wanted to dominate the driver. This was not the driver trying to dominate the agents clearly. I think it's an American characteristic to want to maintain dominance of yourself and prevent unlawful government agents to dominate you (ie, get out of the car, get arrested and tazed or searched for no reason).
VAPA is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 04:07 PM   #92
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,781
Quote:
Which points to a valid question raised by this incident. The Supreme Court has clearly approved interior immigration checkpoints as not violating the Fourth Amendment.
As was previously pointed out in this thread and several others have responded to you, this checkpoint has a very narrow purpose and court cases have previously defined what the BP agents can do. I don't think very many at all would claim they stayed within their legal bounds on this video. They don't seem at all interested in whether he is a citizen or not but rather just making sure her is servile.
If his passport and .mil ID are not sufficient to prove citizenship, what is? Someone earlier asked if you need to be a citizen to be an officer. I know USMC, AF and Army do for sure. I am fairly certain all of the services require you to be a citizen in order to be commissioned, although BP agents with no military background can't be expected to know this. He still had his passport.
__________________
$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 25, 2010 at 04:21 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 05:33 PM   #93
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Pnac,

You're probably aware of this but just in case, an excellent tool for mobile phone is Qik.Com - it's free and transmits video/audio in real time to a server that you can keep private. It's a great tool and works well. I agree with you completely, it's imperative that you record any encounters with LEO to ensure you don't lose the "word against word" battle that is leveraged frequently. LEO in my area also are not reliable when it comes to providing dash camera video or audio...
VAPA is offline  
Old May 25, 2010, 05:58 PM   #94
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Thanks for the link, VAPA, that's exactly what I've been looking for!
__________________
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 25, 2010, 10:42 PM   #95
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
VAPA,

I was not offended by your disagreement - that is an integral part of debate. I was peeved by the unanswerable question you posed (Can you quote what the driver said that the agents couldn't hear?), which only the BP agents could answer with certainty.

I do recognize that it is possible that the agents might not have heard everything the driver said, as explained by the BP supervisor in Video #4 @ 4:08: "I know you may be able to hear us just fine, but we have a lot of traffic out here, there is the highway noise, there is traffic behind you. If you could roll down your window - I can understand you may not want to roll it all the way down, but at least enough that we can communicate with you."

As to the basic premise of who was right and who was wrong, both the driver and the BP succeeded in being disastrously wrong.

Brief detention for questioning about citizenship status at a checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment violation.

Quote:
U.S. Supreme Court - UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE - The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

"While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited. The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to "free passage without [428 U.S. 543, 558] interruption," Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 (1925), and arguably on their right to personal security. But it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which
"`[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.'" United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 880."
The BP messed up grandly by not asking about citizenship status before sending the driver to secondary. (Video 1 @ 0:26)

The driver messed up by thinking he did not have to get out of his car when ordered to do so immediately upon being approached by the BP agents in secondary. (Video 1 @ 1:36: "For what? You haven't told me anything and now you're making me exit my vehicle.")

Quote:
U.S. Supreme Court - 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 BP agents also took a cheap shot at the driver by contacting his CO. Anyone who has been associated with the military knows that the military does not take kindly to officers becoming involved in political issues, and testing the limits of the law, or trying to establish a basis to contest a law, falls in that category.

Nevertheless, the driver invited repercussions by deliberately involving himself in actions that he knew were frowned on by the military.

I was glad to see that the driver's subsequent foray (April 10 video) through the checkpoint was without incident.
gc70 is offline  
Old May 26, 2010, 07:48 AM   #96
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
Good post. Just two thoughts.

First, the PA law doesn't apply to the driver as far as exiting the vehicle. The driver had no legal obligation to exit the vehicle because this was not a lawful stop for the purpose of immigration status but was a fourth amendment violation from the onset. He stopped, they asked if the car was his, he answered, he was sent to secondary and then told to "hop out of the vehicle." That's clearly not how a brief stop for the purpose of checking immigration status is supposed to work anymore than it would be if the driver stopped, was asked what his favorite color was, and then ordered out of the vehicle.

Second, the driver was not putting himself in that situation. He was driving to get a destination and this checkpoint was in the way. The agents thrust that situation upon him illegally and the driver was the victim of it. This isn't a case of both were wrong. This is a case of abuse and the driver was the victim. IMHO.
VAPA is offline  
Old May 26, 2010, 02:08 PM   #97
dabigguns357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Ona,West Virginia
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
This is a case of abuse and the driver was the victim. IMHO.
A victim of what and how was he being abused.

It's not like they drug him out kicking and screaming or him on the ground saying "don't taze me bro"nor were they beating him like a 4 year old in walmart.Had the guy simply rolled down the window and handed him his license,more than likely none of this would have happend.

As i watched the video again,i still see it from the bp's point .Someone rolls up to a checkpoint and when asked if the window in his car could go down and he said yes but refused to roll it down more than an inch,i would at the least think he was hiding something he didn't want them to see or smell which is probably what they were acting on.

Now i do agree with someone who posted that they should have let him sit there and called for someone else,no since ruffling feathers cause someone doesn't want to (fully) comply.
__________________
it's better to have a gun on your hip than one to your head
dabigguns357 is offline  
Old May 26, 2010, 02:22 PM   #98
VAPA
Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2010
Posts: 63
So let's just say, hypothetically, that a cop pulls you over for no reason and says, "I just want you to sit in your car for thirty minutes and then you can go." That wouldn't be abuse? Sure it's not Rodney King but it's still abuse. Abuse of authority, illegal, and there would be a victim of that abuse. The driver.

As to your second point...not being full cooperative (which isn't supported by the agent at the end of the video who says he understands if the driver doesn't want to roll the window down all the way but just enough so they can communicate), then let me ask you this. If when the driver came up they asked him who owned the car and then the agent said, "can you pinch your nipples and stick out your tongue" and the driver instead only pinched one nipple and stuck out his tongue, and was sent to secondary, would you still have the same argument?

At the end of the day, pinching one or both nipples or rolling your window down a few inches or a few miles, has no impact on the mission of the BP to determine immigration status.

I think I understand your, and the BP, perspective though. It's summed up with "Obey Me." That contrasts with the American perspective, "Don't Tread on Me."
VAPA is offline  
Old May 26, 2010, 02:25 PM   #99
kodiakbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
Quote:
Someone rolls up to a checkpoint and when asked if the window in his car could go down and he said yes but refused to roll it down more than an inch,i would at the least think he was hiding something he didn't want them to see or smell which is probably what they were acting on.
Then they should have said "We have probable cause to search your vehicle - please step out." They didn't do that.
Why didn't they do that? Because they didn't have any probable cause and such a search would have found their case thrown out of court followed by a civil suit. They would be breaking the law - and they knew it was all being recorded.

Note - they didn't ask to actually examine the documents provided by the guy in the car until a supervisor showed up. That alone should tell you that they didn't care if this guy was an American citizen or not - they just wanted to hassle him for his lack of servility.

I'm glad I don't live in the southwest!
kodiakbeer is offline  
Old May 26, 2010, 02:48 PM   #100
dabigguns357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Ona,West Virginia
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
"can you pinch your nipples and stick out your tongue"
Id'e be more than happy to if the B/P agent is female,good looking and single.
__________________
it's better to have a gun on your hip than one to your head
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 11:01 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 0.13993 seconds with 7 queries