dirtpoorchris

Do you think that the Homeland Security should have this much power? Is this slowly starting to become a "Your papers please!" land? I, for one, welcome our newfound democratic overlords. What are your thoughts on this though? Is this excatly what we need to secure us or is this what will slowly morph into something really, really bad?

__________________
I like pork.

dirtpoorchris

Don't ask about this post. It's super secret.

TacticalEvilDan

Personally, I don't know how any rational citizen of the United States can possibly justify the authorities detaining and harassing individuals not suspected or accused of violating the law.

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Arcana XV

Oh, swell.

Pretty soon there'll be no difference whatsoever between Europe and the US.

__________________
"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

Coolguy

__________________

If not, then throw them away, they were meant for someone else, they are not for you"...

That choice is yours... I bear you no ill will...

TacticalEvilDan

Um, Coolguy, maybe you can explain something for me.

The video linked to in the OP is about a checkpoint where everybody who passes it is quizzed regarding their citizenship. It's done without any pretext that those being stopped are suspected of being in the United States illegally. It's run by Homeland Security. It's done within the borders of the United States (as a pose to at the border proper).

Egro it is an internal suspicionless Homeland Security check. Why is the title B.S.?



As for the videographer's attitude, it was quite plain to me that he had done a quantity of research, both regarding the law and the policy of Homeland Security regarding these checkpoints. He was following a conversational formula guaranteed (in his mind, at least) to keep him out of legal trouble while at the same time allowing him to accomplish his goal of documenting the function of the checkpoint.

He was most certainly confrontational, but he wasn't disrespectful. He kept his tone civil. When he was asked a question, he didn't refuse to answer it, he didn't give some snappy reason why he wasn't going to answer it -- he simply remained silent. His entire intent for being there was to ask questions, on camera, so that he could inform others in a way that was hard to argue with -- he got his information from the "horse's mouth," in other words.

He didn't physically challenge the agents, he didn't disobey their lawful instructions, he didn't pose any kind of a physical threat to anybody at the checkpoint, and he didn't attempt to provoke anyone.

His sole intent, aside from documenting what was happening at that checkpoint, was to see what the agents would do if he refused to declare his citizenship. It seems to me there's no law compelling him to do so, so he didn't and let the cameras roll.


Is your objection to the fact that he simply refused to bend over and grab his ankles?

It seems to me that, in the America my pappy told me stories about when I was a kid, refusing to bend over and grab the ankles was the rule, not the exception.

John1234

The way this went down... i do not really find it to be that big a deal.
We have to round up illegal aliens somehow...

But I do wonder how it would have gone down if the camera man looked more poor, less educated, and did not have the camera (which clearly intimidated the law man).

Btw, to get around any legal difficulties... all the law would have to do is place DUI checkpoints instead.

They can do a DUI roadblock and test every passerby and the only requirement is to inform the newspaper the day before.

Before it was changed years ago, they had to get a court order to place a roadblock. But not anymore.

__________________
"We are all Georgians". No Mr. McCain, We are all Americans.

TacticalEvilDan

You don't do it by essentially presuming guilt and detaining everyone until they prove their innocence.

I have no doubt that appearances and presentation had an effect on the outcome.

I also believe that it was not merely the presence of the camera (or multiple cameras) but the fact that there were witnesses -- as was mentioned multiple times, the cars just stacked right up behind that guy, so it's not like the officers could just manhandle him or take his cameras without people seeing it.

I'm sure several folks would've cheered, but all it takes is one fellow malcontent.

Well, number one, I think DUI checkpoints and other similar operations are BS.

Number two, if you watch the video to the end and then visit the URL he shows you, he objects to those as well.

dirtpoorchris

Ya thats just what we need! Homeland security sobriety tests. Bush purposely made it so you dont even need much to become a homeland security agent. All you need is a GED. If Bush ever installs homeland security youth brigades then prepare for Hitlers second comming. :p

Coolguy

By TacticalEvilDan
Um, Coolguy, maybe you can explain something for me.
Sure. I'll try.


By TacticalEvilDan
The video linked to in the OP is about a checkpoint where everybody who passes it is quizzed regarding their citizenship. It's done without any pretext that those being stopped are suspected of being in the United States illegally.
These kind of stops have been codified and authorized for over half a century. They have been challenged in court and held.

Border Patrol Role Expands
Legislation in 1952 codified and carried forward the essential elements of the 1917 and 1924 acts. The same year, Border Patrol agents were first permitted to board and search a conveyance for illegal immigrants anywhere in the United States. For the first time, illegal entrants traveling within the country were subject to arrest.

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

428 U.S. 543

...

1. 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, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 556-564.

(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well-disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 556-557.

(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving-patrol stops. Pp. 557-560.

(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 560-562.

(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No. 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving-patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 563-564.

2. Operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, [428 U.S. 543, 544] 387 U.S. 523, distinguished. The visible manifestations of the field officers' authority at a checkpoint provide assurances to motorists that the officers are acting lawfully. Moreover, the purpose of a warrant in preventing hindsight from coloring the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure is inapplicable here, since the reasonableness of checkpoint stops turns on factors such as the checkpoint's location and method of operation. These factors are not susceptible of the distortion of hindsight, and will be open to post-stop review notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. Nor is the purpose of a warrant in substituting a magistrate's judgment for that of the searching or seizing officer applicable, since the need for this is reduced when the decision to "seize" is not entirely in the hands of the field officer and deference is to be given to the administrative decisions of higher ranking officials in selecting the checkpoint locations. Pp. 564-566.

...

MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases ...
We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.

By TacticalEvilDan
It's run by Homeland Security. It's done within the borders of the United States (as a pose to at the border proper).

Egro it is an internal suspicionless Homeland Security check.
Correction. It is a US Boarder Patrol operation which is "the mobile, uniformed law enforcement arm of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)."
They are conducted along known routes that illegals as well as illegal smugglers use (not at the boarder).
CBP Agents are Federal Officers and have Jurisdiction as it pertains to Federal Law.
They can set up one of these check points anywhere within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States.



By TacticalEvilDan
Why is the title B.S.?
Because they are not Homeland Security checks but Boarder Patrol checks which have existed long before Homeland Security came to be.
Secondly, while the term "Suspiciounless" is accurate in regards that they do not have to have suspicion to conduct these checks, the use of said term has duality in meaning and that secondary meaning is what comes across. It especially becomes clear after throughly reading the videographer's comments.



By TacticalEvilDan
As for the videographer's attitude, it was quite plain to me that he had done a quantity of research, both regarding the law and the policy of Homeland Security regarding these checkpoints.
If he had done thorough research he would have known what their function was and that these check points have been in operation for decades, which is long before Boarder Patrol was under 'Customs and Boarder Protection' within the DHS.

The videographer had a run in at a multiple jurisdictional check point in 2002 where he first refused to answer the question and was then forcible removed from his vehicle and detained for over three hours.
He contends that he successfully defended the charges, yet what really happened is that the government failed to file the proper paperwork and the charge was dismissed w/o prejudice. It was then refiled 6 months later and proceeded until again the government failed to get the proper paperwork in in time. This time it was dismissed w/prejudice.

He then followed up with a civil suit in which he has been unsuccessful. Decided in Federal District Court in 2007 and is now on appeal to the 9th Circuit.



By TacticalEvilDan
He was following a conversational formula guaranteed (in his mind, at least) to keep him out of legal trouble while at the same time allowing him to accomplish his goal of documenting the function of the checkpoint.
Sure he was following some sort of formula he had in his head. But it wasn't to document the function of the check point.

The function of check points is stated on the US CPB website.
All he had to do was do as he did and cooperate and he still would have gotten the same documentation. It is clearly obvious his goal was, and is, to provoke Boarder Patrol Agents into a confrontation to see and document what would happen if he doesn't answer the question.
Luckily for him that they did not take advantage of the authority they have.



By TacticalEvilDan
He didn't physically challenge the agents, he didn't disobey their lawful instructions, he didn't pose any kind of a physical threat to anybody at the checkpoint, and he didn't attempt to provoke anyone.
The underlined portion I disagree with. Refusing to answer the simple question of whether he was a US Citizen is provocation in and of itself.
You admit as much in your following sentence;

His sole intent, ..., was to see what the agents would do if he refused to declare his citizenship.

He unsuccessfully tried to provoke a reaction, not this one time, but several times (thirteen so far).
Yes, he is purposely out to provoke.
The man should be arrested and charged for impeding the official duties of a Federal Officer.