How to handle a homeland security checkpoint.

[yllus]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Nobody asked him for any goddamn papers. She asked him one very simple question. . .Of what country are you a citizen? All he had to do was say USA. After that, the following scenario would have probably taken place:

"Ok, thank you sir. Have a nice day. Proceed."

Yeah, I'm sure that's the only question she'd ask. I mean, asking a verbal question without requesting to see any hard proof is such an effective method of rooting out illegals.

It's about as effective as the clerk at the airline counter asking if anyone other than yourself has placed anything in your bags. You say "No" and you go about your business. . .but you answer the question. You don't make the clerk's life and the lives of everybody else waiting in line more difficult because you have some asshat agenda or point to prove. The question is there just as a tool to guage a person's response. You can sometimes tell if somebody is being deceitful by their body language or tone. I'm sure border patrol officers probably go through some training in how to spot people who are being insincere or deceitful as do probably all law enforcement personnel.

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?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
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 free to go"

Maybe she should answer the question.

Actually, I believe she is required to answer both questions. Of course, DHS tends to play by its own rules.

They could label him a terrorist and not have to answer the question in Gitmo.

Yet the government dogs have come out to bark in this thread.

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I wish they had dragged that guy from his car and beat him to a bloody pulp. What an asshat being an asshat for the sake of asshattery.

We expelled the British for abuse of our rights, now our people champion such abuses.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: palehorse74
These random checkpoints work pretty well, and they have been deemed legal and constitutional by the SCOTUS, and other legal precedents.

Not quite.

Random DUI checkpoints that meet certain requirements (i.e., can be easily avoided through the use of other roads) have been deemed legal.

One lower-court precedent has been posted in this thread; and I believe the SCOTUS decision concerned "checkpoints set up for the purpose of public safety." I'm pretty damn sure it would be easy to convince SCOTUS that immigration checkpoints fit that description as well -- especially given the lower-court precedents that have deemed these exact checkpoints "legal" and "constitutional."

So, right or wrong, any real change would have to take place in the SCOTUS, and this guy harassing agents with his camera is just plain stupid.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: palehorse74
These random checkpoints work pretty well, and they have been deemed legal and constitutional by the SCOTUS, and other legal precedents.

Not quite.

Random DUI checkpoints that meet certain requirements (i.e., can be easily avoided through the use of other roads) have been deemed legal.

One lower-court precedent has been posted in this thread; and I believe the SCOTUS decision concerned "checkpoints set up for the purpose of public safety." I'm pretty damn sure it would be easy to convince SCOTUS that immigration checkpoints fit that description as well -- especially given the lower-court precedents that have deemed these exact checkpoints "legal" and "constitutional."

So, right or wrong, any real change would have to take place in the SCOTUS, and this guy harassing agents with his camera is just plain stupid.

Sorry to quote myself, but I believe I killed this argument pretty convincingly earlier, so here goes..

You began your argument by citing supreme court cases as her right to work that checkpoint. The legality of the checkpoint is irrelevant. What is at issue here is her behavior as an officer, something she has direct control over and can be faulted for. She should have answered those questions when first asked, her failure to do so was an act of an officer stepping outside of her legal bounds, and therefore being at fault in the situation (as opposed to the civilian who did not step outside of his legal bounds).

He would never have had to "harass" her had she simply answered the question as was her legal obligation. His repeating of the question is not his fault, but hers, in the eyes of the law.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Farang
He would never have had to "harass" her had she simply answered the question as was her legal obligation. His repeating of the question is not his fault, but hers, in the eyes of the law.

Please cite the legal precedent that demonstrates the "legal obligation" of a Federal CBP Agent to answer his specific question.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Farang
He would never have had to "harass" her had she simply answered the question as was her legal obligation. His repeating of the question is not his fault, but hers, in the eyes of the law.

Please cite the legal precedent that demonstrates the "legal obligation" of a Federal CBP Agent to answer his specific question.

Allow me to word it differently because what I said could also mean he walks up to her on the street and she is required to answer those questions (not true).

If she wants to detain him and ask him questions, she is required to inform him of if and why he is being detained, if he asks. In order for her to detain him and get answers to her questions she is required to answer his questions. Therefore with them both repeating questions, she is the one obligated to answer first. Again to be clear--not under threat of punishment is she required to answer, but if she wishes to detain him and get answers to her questions.

If you want me to cite something, here is one of many outlines of legal procedure for traffic stops on the internet. If the officer fails to say you are under arrest or being detained, it says you are allowed to continue on your way. The man in the video was perhaps being more cautious by repeating his question to avoid any further trouble.

http://gsa.asucla.ucla.edu/issues/personal_rights.html

prepared by the National Lawyers Guild
. . .
5. IF YOU ARE STOPPED ON THE STREET, ASK IF YOU ARE FREE TO GO. If you are stopped by the police, ask them why. If they do not have a good reason for stopping you, or if you find yourself chatting for more than about a minute, ask ""Am I under arrest, or am I free to go."" If they do not state that you are under arrest, tell them that you do not wish to continue speaking with them and that you are going to go about your business. Then do so.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Nobody asked him for any goddamn papers. She asked him one very simple question. . .Of what country are you a citizen? All he had to do was say USA. After that, the following scenario would have probably taken place:

"Ok, thank you sir. Have a nice day. Proceed."

Yeah, I'm sure that's the only question she'd ask. I mean, asking a verbal question without requesting to see any hard proof is such an effective method of rooting out illegals.

It's about as effective as the clerk at the airline counter asking if anyone other than yourself has placed anything in your bags. You say "No" and you go about your business. . .but you answer the question. You don't make the clerk's life and the lives of everybody else waiting in line more difficult because you have some asshat agenda or point to prove. The question is there just as a tool to guage a person's response. You can sometimes tell if somebody is being deceitful by their body language or tone. I'm sure border patrol officers probably go through some training in how to spot people who are being insincere or deceitful as do probably all law enforcement personnel.

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.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Farang
He would never have had to "harass" her had she simply answered the question as was her legal obligation. His repeating of the question is not his fault, but hers, in the eyes of the law.

Please cite the legal precedent that demonstrates the "legal obligation" of a Federal CBP Agent to answer his specific question.

Allow me to word it differently because what I said could also mean he walks up to her on the street and she is required to answer those questions (not true).

If she wants to detain him and ask him questions, she is required to inform him of if and why he is being detained, if he asks. In order for her to detain him and get answers to her questions she is required to answer his questions. Therefore with them both repeating questions, she is the one obligated to answer first. Again to be clear--not under threat of punishment is she required to answer, but if she wishes to detain him and get answers to her questions.

If you want me to cite something, here is one of many outlines of legal procedure for traffic stops on the internet. If the officer fails to say you are under arrest or being detained, it says you are allowed to continue on your way. The man in the video was perhaps being more cautious by repeating his question to avoid any further trouble.

http://gsa.asucla.ucla.edu/issues/personal_rights.html

prepared by the National Lawyers Guild
. . .
5. IF YOU ARE STOPPED ON THE STREET, ASK IF YOU ARE FREE TO GO. If you are stopped by the police, ask them why. If they do not have a good reason for stopping you, or if you find yourself chatting for more than about a minute, ask ""Am I under arrest, or am I free to go."" If they do not state that you are under arrest, tell them that you do not wish to continue speaking with them and that you are going to go about your business. Then do so.

You havent even come close to proving your case. I'll give you some more time...

 

[Farang]

That isn't a valid rebuttal. I'll give you some more time...

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JD50
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 free to go"

Maybe she should answer the question.

Actually, I believe she is required to answer both questions. Of course, DHS tends to play by its own rules.

They could label him a terrorist and not have to answer the question in Gitmo.

Yet the government dogs have come out to bark in this thread.

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I wish they had dragged that guy from his car and beat him to a bloody pulp. What an asshat being an asshat for the sake of asshattery.

We expelled the British for abuse of our rights, now our people champion such abuses.

What right of that man's was abused? If anything HE was abusing that officer. The fact that they did NOT detain or arrest him due to his outlandish and blatant asshattery speaks volumes to the tolerance of that border patrol officer. He was intentionally trying to provoke a confrontation and the officer was intelligent enough not to step into his trap. I cannot say I would have been as calm were I in her shoes. But I can tell you that his little video would never have made it onto YouTube because his camera would have been naught but a pile of twisted metal and shattered glass and plastic after I was done with it if I had been in that BP officer's shoes.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's about as effective as the clerk at the airline counter asking if anyone other than yourself has placed anything in your bags. You say "No" and you go about your business. . .but you answer the question. You don't make the clerk's life and the lives of everybody else waiting in line more difficult because you have some asshat agenda or point to prove. The question is there just as a tool to guage a person's response. You can sometimes tell if somebody is being deceitful by their body language or tone. I'm sure border patrol officers probably go through some training in how to spot people who are being insincere or deceitful as do probably all law enforcement personnel.

Sorry, but a private airline is different than a public road, so comparing the two is moot.

I'm not comparing the airline and the road, I'm comparing the lines of questioning used in each situation.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Farang
That isn't a valid rebuttal. I'll give you some more time...

I challenged you to cite a legal precedent or regulation demonstrating the legal requirements for U.S. Federal CBP Agents to answer questions from civilian drivers at immigration checkpoints -- and you responded with some garbage from UCLA's Law Club telling me what I could/should do when I'm stopped by the cops.

So, like I said, you haven't even begun to answer the challenge. If/when you do, I'll respond in kind. Until then, the legal authority of a United States Federal Agent, as established in legal precedents concerning immigration checkpoints specifically, trumps your UCLA Law Club webpage on how to annoy cops.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It's about as effective as the clerk at the airline counter asking if anyone other than yourself has placed anything in your bags. You say "No" and you go about your business. . .but you answer the question. You don't make the clerk's life and the lives of everybody else waiting in line more difficult because you have some asshat agenda or point to prove. The question is there just as a tool to guage a person's response. You can sometimes tell if somebody is being deceitful by their body language or tone. I'm sure border patrol officers probably go through some training in how to spot people who are being insincere or deceitful as do probably all law enforcement personnel.

Sorry, but a private airline is different than a public road, so comparing the two is moot.

I'm not comparing the airline and the road, I'm comparing the lines of questioning used in each situation.

I don't think he meant you're comparing a private airline to a public road, as in a private airline is a company that flies airplanes and a public road is an object made of asphalt. He meant comparing the line of questioning in each situation is moot.

 

[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:

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Farang
That isn't a valid rebuttal. I'll give you some more time...

I challenged you to cite a legal precedent or regulation demonstrating the legal requirements for U.S. Federal CBP Agents to answer questions at immigration checkpoints -- and you responded with some garbage from UCLA's Law Club telling me what I could/should do when I'm stopped by the cops.

So, like I said, you haven't even begun to answer the challenge. If/when you do, I'll respond in kind. Until then, the legal authority of a United States Federal Agent, as established in legal precedents concerning immigration checkpoints specifically, trumps your UCLA Law Club webpage on how to remain silent.

I provided basic legal procedure of a stop and said why it was relevant to this case and who is at fault for the confrontation. I am not aware of any federal legal precedent applying specifically to CBP agents and this question and would not be surprised if there wasn't one, however that is not what my argument is relying on so your question is irrelevant.

You have not provided any legal precedent on the requirements of citizens to remain detained by law enforcement officers or answer questions if, when they ask they are being detained, are not answered or are told "No." I have provided a lawyer's guild's assertion that you are free to ignore and continue on your way should a law enforcement officer answer "No" or ignore the question of "Am I being detained?" So you have nothing to "trump" my lawyer's guild source. The burden of proof is in your hands.

Remember the point I'm making here is that if she does not answer that question, she has no right to detain him and ask her questions. Therefore fault in this situation lies with her. Once you establish that he does not have the right to ignore her and continue on his way, if he is not told he is being detained when he asks, then you can argue he is at fault here.

 

[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.

 

[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.

You're not in the BP officer's shoes, so that is irrelevant.

The driver was not situated at a border or about to board an airplane, so that is irrelevant.

The border patrol officer clearly had no legal authority to detain the driver, else she would have simply answered in the affirmative when asked if she was detaining him. She did not. She was relying on the ignorance of those driving past to not ask the question. When confronted with the question of her legal authority to stop him, she avoided answering. Fact.

Again, "this particular border checkpoint" wasn't even a border checkpoint - failing the test for that term as it's not actually situated on the border. Nor is it even remotely sensible - what happens to those people who drive on through without carrying their passport? Detention? Since when is it mandatory to carry proof of residency within your own country?

It was an arbitrary roadside stop within the nation proper set up for the purposes of [blank]. Amazing that people are leaping to the defence of this practice.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Farang
That isn't a valid rebuttal. I'll give you some more time...

I challenged you to cite a legal precedent or regulation demonstrating the legal requirements for U.S. Federal CBP Agents to answer questions at immigration checkpoints -- and you responded with some garbage from UCLA's Law Club telling me what I could/should do when I'm stopped by the cops.

So, like I said, you haven't even begun to answer the challenge. If/when you do, I'll respond in kind. Until then, the legal authority of a United States Federal Agent, as established in legal precedents concerning immigration checkpoints specifically, trumps your UCLA Law Club webpage on how to remain silent.

I provided basic legal procedure of a stop and said why it was relevant to this case and who is at fault for the confrontation. I am not aware of any federal legal precedent applying specifically to CBP agents and this question and would not be surprised if there wasn't one, however that is not what my argument is relying on so your question is irrelevant.

You have not provided any legal precedent on the requirements of citizens to remain detained by law enforcement officers or answer questions if, when they ask they are being detained, are not answered or are told "No." I have provided a lawyer's guild's assertion that you are free to ignore and continue on your way should a law enforcement officer answer "No" or ignore the question of "Am I being detained?" So you have nothing to "trump" my lawyer's guild source. The burden of proof is in your hands.

Remember the point I'm making here is that if she does not answer that question, she has no right to detain him and ask her questions. Therefore fault in this situation lies with her. Once you establish that he does not have the right to ignore her and continue on his way, if he is not told he is being detained when he asks, then you can argue he is at fault here.

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."

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: yllus
Again, "this particular border checkpoint" wasn't even a border checkpoint - failing the test for that term as it's not actually situated on the border. Nor is it even remotely sensible - what happens to those people who drive on through without carrying their passport? Detention? Since when is it mandatory to carry proof of residency within your own country?

I've driven through dozens of similar CBP checkpoints, throughout Texas and Arizona, and I've never once been asked for an ID. I simply answered their questions, and was waved through a few seconds later.

Also, it has been established through legal precedent that immigration checkpoints, near AND far from the border itself, are both legal and constitutional.

If you want to change that, then take it up with the legal system. Perhaps SCOTUS will hear the case, but I wouldnt be surprised, given the current immigration debate, if they refuse.

After all, you want to catch illegals before they settle in, don't you?

 

[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.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: palehorse74
These random checkpoints work pretty well, and they have been deemed legal and constitutional by the SCOTUS, and other legal precedents.

Not quite.

Random DUI checkpoints that meet certain requirements (i.e., can be easily avoided through the use of other roads) have been deemed legal.

One lower-court precedent has been posted in this thread; and I believe the SCOTUS decision concerned "checkpoints set up for the purpose of public safety." I'm pretty damn sure it would be easy to convince SCOTUS that immigration checkpoints fit that description as well -- especially given the lower-court precedents that have deemed these exact checkpoints "legal" and "constitutional."

So, right or wrong, any real change would have to take place in the SCOTUS, and this guy harassing agents with his camera is just plain stupid.

Sorry to quote myself, but I believe I killed this argument pretty convincingly earlier, so here goes..

You began your argument by citing supreme court cases as her right to work that checkpoint. The legality of the checkpoint is irrelevant. What is at issue here is her behavior as an officer, something she has direct control over and can be faulted for. She should have answered those questions when first asked, her failure to do so was an act of an officer stepping outside of her legal bounds, and therefore being at fault in the situation (as opposed to the civilian who did not step outside of his legal bounds).

He would never have had to "harass" her had she simply answered the question as was her legal obligation. His repeating of the question is not his fault, but hers, in the eyes of the law.

You didn't kill any argument, I just gave up on you because you are obviously not going to change your mind. Your assertion is that when stopped by the Police, you have the right to ask the first question and they have to answer you before doing anything else. I am telling you that in certain situations you do not have the right to ask the first question. I gave you an example but you ignored it. I'll quote myself...

For example....Let's say that your car matches the description of a car that was just involved in a drive by shooting and the Police stop you and take you out of the car at gun point. You cannot just jump out of the car and refuse to do anything before they explain to you why they stopped you. Once they secure you and the vehicle, then they will explain what's going on, and most likely send you on your way since you didn't commit the crime.

Again, like I said before, at certain times a Police Officer DOES have authority over regular citizens. DUI checkpoints and immigration checkpoints appear to be one of those times. Now I certainly do not agree with DUI checkpoints, and I only agree with immigration checkpoints if they are reasonably close to the border. The law states that they are legal, sorry.

 

[Farang]

JD50--

the example you cited is one of reasonable suspicion--the car matches the description of one that was involved in a crime. That is completely irrelevant to this case. So yes, when you are confronted by officers without cause, you do have the right to ask the first question and have it answered.

I'm willing to change my mind as long as you are able to prove he is the one required to answer first.

 

[palehorse]

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.

For the last time, please cite the legal statutes and/or precedents.

 

[OutHouse]

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.

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.

 

[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.