Shroomism said:

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

---

I'd probably get my car searched if I had this all over my car

zappaisgod said:

Shroomism said:

Edited and added a few videos of examples. The only purpose these worthless fucks serve is to terrorize US citizens and violate the constitution.

---

Aside from the fact that you have no clue what it says in the Constitution there wouldn't be any of these stops if we weren't being invaded by parasitic losers from failed states.  It isn't unreasonable, as has been determined repeatedly.

---

Shroomism said:

zappaisgod said:

Shroomism said:

Edited and added a few videos of examples. The only purpose these worthless fucks serve is to terrorize US citizens and violate the constitution.

---

Aside from the fact that you have no clue what it says in the Constitution there wouldn't be any of these stops if we weren't being invaded by parasitic losers from failed states.  It isn't unreasonable, as has been determined repeatedly.

---

I wrote exactly what it says in the Constitution and also provided you with the court cases that establishes the checkpoint are not "unlawful" but that you are NOT required by law to answer their fucking questions.

And why don't you tell me how many illegal immigrants these checkpoints have stopped and how effective they are vs how many US citizens have have their rights completely violated.

---

Shroomism said:

That doesn't change the fact that you are NOT required to answer their questions. And they regularly arrest, threaten and assault people for not doing so, asking simple questions, or simply video taping them, which is ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO. The people they 'arrest' are 99% of the time let go a few hours later, because they can't legally charge them with anything, they just do it to intimidate people.

---

everybodyhaha said:

How could you possibly know what someone else knows or doesn't know about the Constitution or what they have or haven't read?
You don't.
Just like you don't know how many illegals checkpoints have stopped.
And like you don't know how the government can help you with all the ones you want to go round up and deport.

You're pretty useless and sound like a shill.

---

zappaisgod said:

Shroomism said:

That doesn't change the fact that you are NOT required to answer their questions. And they regularly arrest, threaten and assault people for not doing so, asking simple questions, or simply video taping them, which is ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO. The people they 'arrest' are 99% of the time let go a few hours later, because they can't legally charge them with anything, they just do it to intimidate people.

---

So don't answer their questions and sue them when they go over the line.  Did you know you could do that and that it can be quite lucrative?  I'm assuming your 99% number only applies to your specific beef in re recording .

---

everybodyhaha said:

How could you possibly know what someone else knows or doesn't know about the Constitution or what they have or haven't read?
You don't.

---

Quote:

Just like you don't know how many illegals checkpoints have stopped.

---

Quote:

And like you don't know how the government can help you with all the ones you want to go round up and deport.

---

Quote:

You're pretty useless and sound like a shill.

---

zappaisgod said:

Shroomism said:

That doesn't change the fact that you are NOT required to answer their questions. And they regularly arrest, threaten and assault people for not doing so, asking simple questions, or simply video taping them, which is ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO. The people they 'arrest' are 99% of the time let go a few hours later, because they can't legally charge them with anything, they just do it to intimidate people.

---

So don't answer their questions and sue them when they go over the line.  Did you know you could do that and that it can be quite lucrative?  I'm assuming your 99% number only applies to your specific beef in re recording .

---

Quote:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the people the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures."  The United States Supreme Court stated, "It is agreed that checkpoint stops are 'seizures' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte)."  The reason the High Court maintained that these checkpoints are seizures, is because all traffic is required to stop at these checkpoints.  As such, for the time a vehicle is stopped at the checkpoint, both it and its passengers have been "seized" by the government and cannot depart the checkpoint without permission from the government.  The question then becomes, is that seizure reasonable or not?

The Supreme Court ruled that, "A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing (Indianapolis v. Edmond).”  In other words, if a government agent has suspicion that a person has violated a law, they can seize that person in order to begin an investigation.  This is the standard used, for example, when a police officer pulls over somebody speeding.  They develop the suspicion through a radar gun or other mechanism, and can then make the individual stop and issue a citation, which then has to be proved in court.  If a police officer pulls somebody over without suspicion that they have committed a crime then, according to the courts, they have conducted an unreasonable seizure and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment.

Border Patrol checkpoints not on the border are often referred to as suspicion-less checkpoints.  That is because all people have to stop and are seized, despite the lack of suspicion that any crime or violation has been committed.  So while the Supreme Court has historically ruled such seizures a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the High Court did make an exception for these checkpoints.  In doing so, however, they laid down specific parameters that must be followed for the seizure at these checkpoints to remain reasonable.  Namely, the Supreme Court required that these checkpoint seizures be limited to, "brief questioning" to inquire into immigration status (U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte).

Further, the courts have ruled that these checkpoints cannot be "catch all" checkpoints, that operate looking for any and all types of violations, but rather that they are limited to immigration status.  Anybody who has much experience with these checkpoints knows they routinely stray outside these lines and are effectively in place to also look for drugs.  Drug dogs are not gifted in the art of smelling citizenship (they're also prone to false alerts especially when handled by a dishonest dog handler).  But legally, these checkpoints are limited to briefly inquiring into immigration status, and they are not allowed to investigate into anything else unless they have reasonable suspicion for a non-immigration violation.  The reason for this is because these suspicionless seizures are an intrusion into the lives of law abiding citizens who are forced to stop there, and the courts have reasoned that as long as they are limited to brief inquiry into immigration status, then the intrusion is minimal and therefore justified.  As an aside, Supreme Court justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan vehemently disagreed with this view that such an intrusion would be minimal and therefore did not think them reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  In fact, they argued that the ruling allowing these checkpoints to seize motorists, no matter how brief, did not justify the intrusion upon citizens suspected of no wrong doing who were simply traveling down the highway.  They wrote:

    The starting point of this view [the majority opinion] is the unannounced assumption that intrusions are generally permissible; hence, any minimization of intrusions serves Fourth Amendment interests. Under the Fourth Amendment, however, the status quo is nonintrusion, for, as a general matter, it is unreasonable to subject the average citizen or his property to search or seizure. Thus, minimization of intrusion only lessens the aggravation to Fourth Amendment interests; it certainly does not further those interests (U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte).

The majority of Supreme Court justices found otherwise, and made an exception for suspicionless checkpoints, but required the seizure to be brief and limited to inquiring into immigration status.  The Supreme Court stated that “[A]ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause (U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte).”

So what is brief, and what is further detention?  According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over the checkpoint in Uvalde, Texas), a stop of “a couple of minutes” is “within the permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop (United States v. Machuca-Barrera).”  That Circuit has also ruled that Border Patrol officers may “ask questions outside the scope of the stop,” ie questions that are not related to immigration status, but they may do so “only so long as such questions do not extend the duration of the stop (United States v. Machuca-Barrera).”

What about an order to exit the vehicle?  Do individuals have to exit the vehicle if requested to do so during the brief immigration inquiry?  The answer is no.  Regardless of whether requested in primary or requested in secondary, an individual has no legal obligation to exit their vehicle.  Certainly such action is not required to briefly inquire into immigration status, and further, the Border Patrol has no authority to order a person to exit their vehicle. Why not?  Yet again, it's because there is no suspicion of any wrongdoing.  The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise in the case of suspicion based stops by law enforcement, such as a traffic stop for suspicion of speeding (Pennsylvania v. Mimms).  In that case, the Supreme Court has said law enforcement can order vehicle operators out of their vehicles for "officer safety."  The High Court chose, during suspicion based stops, to value the safety of government actors during routine traffic stops over the safety of American citizens.  However, agents of the Border Patrol have no such authority at suspicionless checkpoints.

So what questions are individuals required to answer at these Border Patrol stops, if any?  The answer is none.  Cooperation during suspicionless checkpoints is not required.  Individuals have a right to not answer questions, and there is no law that requires them to provide any identification.  Further, cooperation with an investigation/inquiry is not required even in stops that are based on suspicion, so they are most certainly not required in a stop where there is no suspicion of wrongdoing.  Still further, choosing not to cooperate with government actors who intrude into your life at a suspicionless checkpoint, cannot be used against you as a basis for suspicion.  The Supreme Court ruled, "We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate...does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure (Florida v. Bostick). The Fifth Circuit that holds jurisdiction over the checkpoint in Uvalde, Texas agrees stating, “t would make a mockery of the reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements if citizens' insistence that searches and seizures be conducted in conformity with constitutional norms could create the suspicion or cause that renders their consent unnecessary (United States v. Machuca-Barrera).”  An individual does not have to cooperate with agents at these checkpoints, and after the "couple of minutes" required to "briefly inquire" into immigration status, agents who have developed no reasonable suspicion for any violation, must release the motorist in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment.  Even if the individual chose not to answer questions or cooperate.

The Fifth Circuit has also stated, "Our decisions have held that police violated the Fourth Amendment by extending a stop by even three or five minutes beyond its justified duration (United States v. Machuca-Barrera)."  As such, I am extremely confident that my lawsuit will be victorious as I was detained for nearly thirty-four minutes, after agents failed to ask me any questions related to immigration status until more than ten minutes into the detention, and only did so after I had provided my driver's license, military ID card, and even offered my passport (an offer the agent ignored).  Beyond that, when the supervisory agent even later finally asked for both of my passports, I quickly provided them to him.  Still, he put them in his shirt pocket and detained me for another fifteen minutes while he called my military chain of command to verify that I was actually in the military--questions and actions that had nothing to do with my immigration status, but rather demonstrated a desire to punish me for recording the incident.  The agents repeatedly lied, saying that they had asked me my immigration status in primary, and that I had refused to answer the question.  The video shows that I answered every single question asked of me, with the one singular exception of providing the identity of my commanding officer, which I was not required to provide and which was information irrelevant to my immigration status.  Beyond extending the detention to call my military employer, their intent to harass was further demonstrated several weeks later when they wrote a letter to my military commander and claimed that my conduct was "unbecoming."

---

Quote:

In certain cases where the type of seizure is minimally intrusive, however, the Supreme Court has decided that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search than the probable cause standard.  In the case concerning DUI checkpoints, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices determined that the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet.  Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

---