How to handle a homeland security checkpoint.

[jonks]

Awesome. To those not blinded by fear of teh iillegalz or in favor of absolute submission to any authority figure from an official sounding organization they might see this guy is actually a patriot, protecting OUR rights. Bravo.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm appalled that this guy is blamed for being a "jackass" in the video. He was illegally stopped by law enforcement officials. Anything else in this scenario doesn't matter.

I had a German roommate went on a road trip to L.A. after he finished his PhD. He was cruising along the northern edge of New Mexico (which is far more than 20 miles from the border) and came across one of these check points. He was almost deported because he didn't have his passport or visa papers with him. The only reason he wasn't was because he explained his situation and had the BP agent call the university and try to get him to fax the visa papers to the BP, which the university refused to do (privacy issues ). The BP agent got so fed up trying to deal with the university official that he just let him go on his way.

Bottom line: law enforcement should not have the ability to stop me in my car without probable cause. We are no longer the "land of the free" when I have to produce my papers every time I drive down the interstate. I know that the US Supreme Court (or at least lesser courts) have supported law enforcement's right to run DUI checkpoints, but I vehemently disagree with these decisions.

Looks like you need to go and travel outside the U.S. without your papers and let them all know how things "should" be. I'm sure they would understand. :roll:

What does the rest of the world have to do with this situation? We are a nation of laws, the highest of which is the US Constitution.

My comment was directed at CycloWizard's foreign roommate who was travelling without proper ID which is required by law if I'm not mistaken. I felt compelled to contrast his treatment here vs. what he might expect elsewhere. Personally, I'm proud of how the officer handled the situation....making an effort to call the University and then making a good judgment call when he hit the "privacy issue" dead end. Bottom line...his roommate got a break...yet CycloWizard vilifies law enforcement for doing their job based on the presumption that his roommate was stopped illegally.

If the roadblocks beyond 20 miles are illegal...they're illegal...and "jackass" along with his video can make a very compelling case. I'm sure the ACLU and many other "like-minded" individuals would help him file a legal complaint if he truly had a case.

I totally agree with you...we are a nation of laws...and, I'll go on to say, our laws should be enforced.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Awesome. To those not blinded by fear of teh iillegalz or in favor of absolute submission to any authority figure from an official sounding organization they might see this guy is actually a patriot, protecting OUR rights. Bravo.

what rights is the jackass protecting?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jmman
"During a routine fixed-checkpoint stop, border patrol agents may question individuals in the absence of individualized suspicion about their citizenship and immigration status and request documentation." United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, "[a]gents may briefly question individuals concerning such things as vehicle ownership, cargo, destination, and travel plans, as long as such questions are reasonably related to the agent's duty to prevent the unauthorized entry of individuals into this country and to prevent the smuggling of contraband." Id. at 848 (citation and quotations omitted). Thus, the first stage of the encounter must remain brief, unintrusive, and must "not exceed the scope of a permissible routine checkpoint stop." Id. at 849.

I really hope Farang responds to that...

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: yllus
So what happened to, "All he had to do was say USA"? I thought you said he'd be wished a nice day and would be on his way?

It only goes further than that if you give some reason (such as oh. . .I don't know, gee, umm, refusing to answer a simple question) to make them believe you are lying. If I had been in that BP officer's shoes, the third time that asshat refused to answer my question and asked me "Am I being detained?" my answer would have been "Yes, you are now." And you can rest assured his little video would never have made it to YouTube. So thank your lucky stars that we have people out there far more patient and lenient than I am patrolling our borders. What that woman was doing was not facsism. It was just her job.

Try refusing to answer the question about whether or not anybody you don't know has put anything in your luggage the next time you are flying and see if you make your flight.

Bottom line is, people want secure borders then there need to be border security checks. This particular border checkpoint was not nearly strict enough for my taste. . .but it's at least a little better than nothing.

So the outcome isn't necessarily, "Ok, thank you sir. Have a nice day. Proceed." It is dependent on the arbitrary decision by the border patrol officer.

In this guy's case that would have been the outcome. In fact it still was despite his stubborn asshattery and provocation of the officer. The very fact the officer just let him go despite his irrational behavior proves that she was not looking to just arbitrarily arrest people. That, more than anything, is what astonishes me. I can't believe that it didn't escalate beyond what it was because the guy was certainly giving the officer reason to believe he was hiding something. In my opinion it was the guy with the camera that went away looking foolish, not the officer. He tried to provoke a confrontation and he failed. He wanted to show how America is becoming like Nazi Germany and he failed. The officer, sensing that he was simply looking for confrontation to prove some kind of paranoid point, did not play his game and just sent him on his way deeming him a threat to nobody. So who really got pwnt in this scenario?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what basis is the stop illegal, please tell me where it says check points for illegals is against the law. soberity check points are legal and upheld by the Supreme Court.

oh wait, you don't know you are just spouting out crap that you have no knowledge of.

They are not illegal, just inconvenient. An individual has no legal obligation to comply with them (i.e., they are voluntary, as is clearly shown in the original video), and non-compliance cannot be used as a reason to detain a person.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Awesome. To those not blinded by fear of teh iillegalz or in favor of absolute submission to any authority figure from an official sounding organization they might see this guy is actually a patriot, protecting OUR rights. Bravo.

It wasn't just an "official sounding organization." It WAS in fact an official organization. The U.S. Border Patrol. It's not like she was standing there flashing some novelty/gag "breast inspector" badge.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JD50
She asked him a simple question, if he answered that question then I'm sure she would have answered his. He would have been out of there in 10 seconds and could have used all of that time he wasted writing his congressman, filing a complain, etc.... It's not like the guy was pulled over at random, he knew exactly what was going on. He knew that he was free to go, and that if he just answered her question it'd be over and he would be free to fight the CBP in a more efficient way. But instead, he decided to harass her.

ha·rass

1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.

"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"
"Am I being detained"

"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"
"Am I free to go"

He asked her a simple question, if she answered that question then I'm sure he would have answered hers. She knew that he was free to go, and that if she just answered his question it'd be over and he would be free to fight the CBP in a more efficient way. But instead, she decided to harass him.

ha·rass

1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.

"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"
"Of what country are you a citizen"

"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"
"You have to answer my question"

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I can't believe that it didn't escalate beyond what it was because the guy was certainly giving the officer reason to believe he was hiding something.

Fortunately, in a voluntary search, non-compliance is not a valid reason for detention. The BP officer let him go because she didn't have a legal means of enforcing the stop, and she knew it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jmman
"During a routine fixed-checkpoint stop, border patrol agents may question individuals in the absence of individualized suspicion about their citizenship and immigration status and request documentation." United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, "[a]gents may briefly question individuals concerning such things as vehicle ownership, cargo, destination, and travel plans, as long as such questions are reasonably related to the agent's duty to prevent the unauthorized entry of individuals into this country and to prevent the smuggling of contraband." Id. at 848 (citation and quotations omitted). Thus, the first stage of the encounter must remain brief, unintrusive, and must "not exceed the scope of a permissible routine checkpoint stop." Id. at 849.

I really hope Farang responds to that...

Yes, because a checkpoint 100 miles inside the border is a major part of preventing unauthorized entry and contraband. :roll:

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: Farang

I have established the legal authority of both the checkpoint, and the actions (questioning) by the Federal Agent herself; while you have not cited a single legal fact that spells out a legal requirement for the Agent to answer the cameraman's questions.

Until you do so, the citizen remains "the harasser."

The Federal Agent is allowed to man the checkpoint, and is allowed to question. However, the citizen is not allowed to be detained without cause, if if he is detained is allowed to know why he is being detained. We can probably agree on these points.

The citizen (as noted in my source) has the right to ignore the officer and continue on his way if he is not given an affirmative answer to "Am I being detained?" So when he asks the question and is not given an answer, he has the right to continue. He repeats it to avoid any more confrontation than is necessary, but the officer is required to respond in the affirmative if she intends to detain and question him. Otherwise, he is free to go and is not required by law to respond to her questions.

So you have established the right of the officer to ask the questions, but not of the citizen to answer them. You have yet to show any legal reason as to why the citizen was in the wrong here. I have said that the officer was in the wrong for refusing to answer his question, which he has the right to know the answer of if he is to be questioned and detained, and provided evidence as to why. Had she not refused to answer this question, there would be no "harassing" done either way. She would have answered "No" and he would've been on his way.

Well, as a matter of law, you are incorrect. She stated everything she needed to to really make this guys life hell if she wanted to. She stated that this was an immigration checkpoint for the purpose of determining nationality. Specific case law clearly states that the border patrol agent has the right to ask questions without stating any specific cause, specifically because that is the purpose of an immigration checkpoint. Let's not be obtuse here. Here are a couple of salient points from US case law.....


"During a routine fixed-checkpoint stop, border patrol agents may question individuals in the absence of individualized suspicion about their citizenship and immigration status and request documentation." United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, "[a]gents may briefly question individuals concerning such things as vehicle ownership, cargo, destination, and travel plans, as long as such questions are reasonably related to the agent's duty to prevent the unauthorized entry of individuals into this country and to prevent the smuggling of contraband." Id. at 848 (citation and quotations omitted). Thus, the first stage of the encounter must remain brief, unintrusive, and must "not exceed the scope of a permissible routine checkpoint stop." Id. at 849.

Again this isn't getting the my point (although you are the closest yet and I appreciate that)-- the law does not state he is required to answer her questions, it merely states that she is allowed to be there, stop him, and ask them. At which point he has the right to ask whether he is being detained, and if he is not, to continue on his way leaving the questions unanswered. So unless you can provide a law stating that the citizen is required to provide information at a checkpoint stop, you still aren't hitting my point.

As for palehorse, you can repeat 'show me precedent' over and over but I've already explained three or more times as to why that is not necessary for my argument, and why the burden of proof lies with you at this point.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Citrix
what basis is the stop illegal, please tell me where it says check points for illegals is against the law. soberity check points are legal and upheld by the Supreme Court.

oh wait, you don't know you are just spouting out crap that you have no knowledge of.

They are not illegal, just inconvenient. An individual has no legal obligation to comply with them (i.e., they are voluntary, as is clearly shown in the original video), and non-compliance cannot be used as a reason to detain a person.

Not even close to correct. They easily could have detained this guy for not answering their questions........

The only reason that they let this guy get away with this is simply because she probably was reasonably certain that he was not here illegally, and she was trying to avoid a confrontation.......

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Not even close to correct. They easily could have detained this guy for not answering their questions........

The only reason that they let this guy get away with this is simply because she probably was reasonably certain that he was not here illegally, and she was trying to avoid a confrontation.......

Actually, it IS correct. They have no authority to detain you UNLESS given reasonable suspicion, and since it is a voluntary search, non-compliance is not a valid reason for detention. Without reasonable suspicion, they cannot hold you for an unreasonable amount of time, which is once again proven by this video.

 

[Arkaign]

This bit of the Supreme Court ruling says it best : "the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. P P. 560-562."

Translation, "FUCK YOU CITIZENS! GOV'T > U".

How about if our politicians weren't a bunch of corrupt assholes, if we didn't let the courts smash our rights to bits, and the education system wasn't comparable to watching 16 hours a day of reality TV, maybe we'd be better off?

How about actually patrolling / securing the border instead of harassing citizens well within our borders?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Awesome. To those not blinded by fear of teh iillegalz or in favor of absolute submission to any authority figure from an official sounding organization they might see this guy is actually a patriot, protecting OUR rights. Bravo.

what rights is the jackass protecting?

You have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
You have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech
You have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

But you're right, they are sorta quaint things. Of course you could always deal with this:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp if you don't feel like answering every question.

Police threaten driver for invoking rights.

Evidence that American cops are out of control continues to mount. You will find video proof of what I mean below. Normally I would have it here so you could watch it but the person who filmed it placed it on Google video instead of YouTube. Google doesn?t allow such linking (stupidly in my opinion as I know it tends to mean I go to YouTube for material and ignore Google Video entirely).

Here are the details. Brett Darrow, 19, was driving in St. Louis when he approached a drunk driving roadblock which police set up. He had his video camera in the car and it was running. You will see the police intentionally deny him constitutional rights and overstep their authority several times. Darrow never broke the law yet he was threatened with arrest for merely invoking constitutional rights.

The police used drunk driving as the pretext for pulling people over. But what interested them in Darrow was not whether he was drinking. They wanted to know where he was going. He was being interrogated as to his private, legal activities which are no concern of the police.

The police ask: ?Where are you headed tonight?? That is not related to drunk driving and while the can chat Darrow is under no obligation to answer that question. He replies: ?I don?t wish to discuss my personal life with you officer.? His response is polite and to the point. The police order him to leave the car running and to get out of the car because he refused to be interrogated by them on matters which are not their concern.

The police officer then makes it clear that his invoking of his rights is the reason they will punish him by delaying him further. ?I?m going to interview you because you didn?t want to interview. You didn?t want to sit down and have a talk with me.? So refusal to be interrogated illegally is now a reason to be interrogated illegally. Again Darrow responds politely: ?I do not want to talk about my personal life.? The require Darrow to leave his car.

The video camera then records a police officer getting in the car under the pretext of moving the car. The pretext only existed because they refused to allow Darrow to pull the car over himself. Brett is asked if he has had anything to drink. He says he has not. Two police officers are asked to watch him while the third calls in his license as a pretext to hold him longer.

Brett asks: ?Why am I being detained officer?? The police officer tells him ?You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight.? So to ask a legal, polite question elicits a threat from the police that they will look for an excuse to arrest the person just to punish them for invoking their rights.

Darrow now get assertive, and properly so. ?You?re saying you?re going to make up a reason to arrest me?? The officer says: ?No, I didn?t. I said we would find a reason.? What the officers said is that they would ?find? a reason to arrest the man because they don?t like his questions. Darrow then tells the police that they should know ?all of this is being recorded?. I suspect the officer didn?t believe him and responded that they were recording as well. Darrow emphasizes how the police told him he would be arrested if he didn?t answer their questions. The cop denied it saying ?I said do what he told you to do.? But he is not legally required to obey orders to surrender constitutional rights.

Darrow asks: ?Why are you going to find a reason to lock me up when I?m only asking you why I?m being detained in a normal voice?? The officer ignores the question and tells Darrow to obey orders. Darrow asks: ?Am I being detained?? The officer says he is. Darrow is told he may not leave.

At this point the officer openly lies. When Darrow asks why he is being detained he is told ?Because you don?t have a driver?s license.? Remember the first officer demanded the license and walked away with it. So by obeying the order of the first officer he is told he is now in violation of the law and can be detained because he doesn?t have a license.

Darrow points out the first officer took the license and wants to know why the police officer is making this claim. The officer doesn?t answer except by saying: ?Nineteen years old and you know everything.? Obviously he doesn?t know everything but he does know his constitutional rights and that upsets the police.

Darrow wants to know if all drivers are being forced out of their cars like this. The police refuse to answer. When the police return his license and insurance card Darrow again asks why he was detained. He is told ?You didn?t want to answer my questions?. Darrow notes that he is not required to discuss his personal life with police officers when they are checking for drunk driving.

Darrow complains on tape to a supervisor about the police riding the clutch when they moved the car causing it to smoke. At this point the police supervisor says they had to move the car because they ?were conducting an investigation?. Investigating what? The pretext of the stop was drunk driving and it was clear that Darrow had not been drinking. This seems to imply the checkpoint was merely an excuse to do other sorts of searches which they are not allowed to do.

This shows typical attempts by the police to intimidate people into surrendering legal rights. They are allowed to see if Darrow is drunk but not allowed to require him to tell them where he is going or to harass him and threaten him with arrest when he doesn?t answer their questions.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Jmman
Not even close to correct. They easily could have detained this guy for not answering their questions........

The only reason that they let this guy get away with this is simply because she probably was reasonably certain that he was not here illegally, and she was trying to avoid a confrontation.......

Actually, it IS correct. They have no authority to detain you UNLESS given reasonable suspicion, and since it is a voluntary search, non-compliance is not a valid reason for detention. Without reasonable suspicion, they cannot hold you for an unreasonable amount of time, which is once again proven by this video.

Look up the case law my friend. Reasonable suspicion does not apply to these checkpoints. A suspicious circumstance is all that is required, which is a much lower threshold than reasonable suspicion. Not answering questions about your nationality is probably reasonable suspicion anyway. Might want to do some research into US v. Velasco.......

And if these things are so voluntary, how do they detain thousands of people every year and the courts continue to uphold their detention and subsequent convictions?. Hell, even the ACLU admits that these checkpoints are clearly legal........

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Look up the case law my friend. Reasonable suspicion does not apply to these checkpoints. A suspicious circumstance is all that is required, which is a much lower threshold than reasonable suspicion. Not answering questions about your nationality is probably reasonable suspicion anyway. Might want to do some research into US v. Velasco.......

And if these things are so voluntary, how do they detain thousands of people every year and the courts continue to uphold their detention and subsequent convictions?. Hell, even the ACLU admits that these checkpoints are clearly legal........

Read up... I already stated that these checkpoints are legal.

Information voluntary provided to LEOs and other government representatives can be used against you in court. Hence why you should never voluntarily answer any questions that you are not required to provide.

 

[MadRat]

In the original video she only asks him if he would do the things she asked. He has every reasonable right to say no. It is not a demand, it is a request. Refusal to follow a request is not reasonable cause or suspicious activity. I fear the average ago on the forum must be under 25 years old to so easily give up one's rights so freely. I was alive and conscious in the 70's and the cops were beyond overboard in that decade. We regained a lot of civil rights in the 80's and 90's only to see a bunch of weak spined kids give them all back up today. What a crock of shit.

If you do not exercise your rights all the time expect them none of the time.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: Farang

I have established the legal authority of both the checkpoint, and the actions (questioning) by the Federal Agent herself; while you have not cited a single legal fact that spells out a legal requirement for the Agent to answer the cameraman's questions.

Until you do so, the citizen remains "the harasser."

The Federal Agent is allowed to man the checkpoint, and is allowed to question. However, the citizen is not allowed to be detained without cause, if if he is detained is allowed to know why he is being detained. We can probably agree on these points.

The citizen (as noted in my source) has the right to ignore the officer and continue on his way if he is not given an affirmative answer to "Am I being detained?" So when he asks the question and is not given an answer, he has the right to continue. He repeats it to avoid any more confrontation than is necessary, but the officer is required to respond in the affirmative if she intends to detain and question him. Otherwise, he is free to go and is not required by law to respond to her questions.

So you have established the right of the officer to ask the questions, but not of the citizen to answer them. You have yet to show any legal reason as to why the citizen was in the wrong here. I have said that the officer was in the wrong for refusing to answer his question, which he has the right to know the answer of if he is to be questioned and detained, and provided evidence as to why. Had she not refused to answer this question, there would be no "harassing" done either way. She would have answered "No" and he would've been on his way.

Well, as a matter of law, you are incorrect. She stated everything she needed to to really make this guys life hell if she wanted to. She stated that this was an immigration checkpoint for the purpose of determining nationality. Specific case law clearly states that the border patrol agent has the right to ask questions without stating any specific cause, specifically because that is the purpose of an immigration checkpoint. Let's not be obtuse here. Here are a couple of salient points from US case law.....


"During a routine fixed-checkpoint stop, border patrol agents may question individuals in the absence of individualized suspicion about their citizenship and immigration status and request documentation." United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, "[a]gents may briefly question individuals concerning such things as vehicle ownership, cargo, destination, and travel plans, as long as such questions are reasonably related to the agent's duty to prevent the unauthorized entry of individuals into this country and to prevent the smuggling of contraband." Id. at 848 (citation and quotations omitted). Thus, the first stage of the encounter must remain brief, unintrusive, and must "not exceed the scope of a permissible routine checkpoint stop." Id. at 849.

Again this isn't getting the my point (although you are the closest yet and I appreciate that)-- the law does not state he is required to answer her questions, it merely states that she is allowed to be there, stop him, and ask them. At which point he has the right to ask whether he is being detained, and if he is not, to continue on his way leaving the questions unanswered. So unless you can provide a law stating that the citizen is required to provide information at a checkpoint stop, you still aren't hitting my point.

As for palehorse, you can repeat 'show me precedent' over and over but I've already explained three or more times as to why that is not necessary for my argument, and why the burden of proof lies with you at this point.

Showing me the legal statute(s) mandating that she answer HIS question is indeed necessary for your supposed argument to hold any water.

I've already proven that the Agent was in the right. As it stands, you haven't proven, or disproved, anything.

 

[MadRat]

palehorse, either get on with it and put up your own facts or get off the shitter. These circular arguments of "no, you prove it first!" are childish.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: MadRat
palehorse, either get on with it and put up your own facts or get off the shitter. These circular arguments of "no, you prove it first!" are childish.

WTF?! You have it entirely bass-ackwards.

My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.

Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."

It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: MadRat
palehorse, either get on with it and put up your own facts or get off the shitter. These circular arguments of "no, you prove it first!" are childish.

WTF?! You have it entirely bass-ackwards.

My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.

Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."

It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.

There is nothing to prove. The agent doesn't have to answer the persons question, but by default if the police don't tell you are being detained then you are free to go.

But hey if you want proof it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: MadRat
palehorse, either get on with it and put up your own facts or get off the shitter. These circular arguments of "no, you prove it first!" are childish.

WTF?! You have it entirely bass-ackwards.

My side of the argument has already been proven using several legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions listed in this very thread. We established the agent's legal authority to set up the checkpoint, stop drivers, and ask the specific questions heard in the video.

Farang has yet to cite a single legal reference of any sort to back up his argument that "the agent is required to answer the driver's question first."

It is my contention that no legal statute exists to back up of Farang's claims; therefore the onus is on him/her to prove me wrong and post such a legal reference.

There is nothing to prove. The agent doesn't have to answer the persons question, but by default if the police don't tell you are being detained then you are free to go.

But hey if you want proof it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Beyond the "spirit" of the concept, what aspect of U.S. habeas corpus, specifically, applies to the driver being "free to go" if the agent does not answer his question?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure you can simply drive away from Federal Agents who are questioning you... you can answer their questions, or plead the 5th, but what makes you think you can just drive away?

I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that Farang is either; but, please, humor me and point me toward some sort of existing law or precedent that spells it out.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: bbdub333
What an idiot... he'll wind up getting his ass beat one day for no good reason.

No good reason? More like standing up for his rights.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
This bit of the Supreme Court ruling says it best : "the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. P P. 560-562."

Translation, "FUCK YOU CITIZENS! GOV'T > U".

How about if our politicians weren't a bunch of corrupt assholes, if we didn't let the courts smash our rights to bits, and the education system wasn't comparable to watching 16 hours a day of reality TV, maybe we'd be better off?

How about actually patrolling / securing the border instead of harassing citizens well within our borders?

:thumbsup: