VAPA

I knew you'd be back. I was actually gonna make a wager with you, but didn't want that to influece your decision. welcome back!

Since we're all friends again... Here is what the official Border Patrol Inspector's Field Manual (2008), which is compiled to comply with the law set by the Courts, has to say: "18.6(E) Checkpoints: The Border Patrol conducts two types of inland traffic-checking operations: checkpoints and roving patrols. Border Patrol agents can make routine vehicle stops without any suspicion to inquire into citizenship and immigration status at a reasonably located permanent or temporary checkpoint provided the checkpoint is used for the purpose of determining citizenship of those who pass through it, and not for the general search for those persons or the vehicle. Inquiries must be brief and limited to the immigration status of the occupants of the vehicle. The only permissible search is a “plain view” inspection to ascertain whether there are any concealed illegal aliens." "18.7(B) Reasonable Suspicion: Before an inspector may constitutionally detain a person (non-entry related case), the inspector must have reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is illegally in the United States. This higher degree of suspicion arises generally in questioning persons encountered in and around the port who are awaiting persons referred to secondary. This suspicion is based on questioning of alienage alone and also involves specific articulable facts, such as particular characteristics or circumstances which the inspector can describe in words." The Border Patrol refused to provide that manual for quite some time, in light of several lawsuits, but eventually a lawyer got it with his FOIA request. It's based on the case law previously cited, including: "We have already noted that the permissible duration of the stop is limited to the time reasonably necessary to complete a brief investigation of the matter within the scope of the stop. The scope of an immigration checkpoint stop is limited to the justifying, programmatic purpose of the stop: determining the citizenship status of persons passing through the checkpoint. The permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop is therefore the time reasonably necessary to determine the citizenship status of the persons stopped. This would include the time necessary to ascertain the number and identity of the occupants of the vehicle, inquire about citizenship status, request identification or other proof of citizenship, and request consent to extend the detention. The permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop is therefore brief. Indeed, the brevity of a valid immigration stop was a principal rationale for the Supreme Court's conclusion in Martinez-Fuerte that immigration checkpoints are constitutional: 'The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to free passage without interruption; but it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which [a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.' Within this brief window of time in which a Border Patrol agent may conduct a checkpoint stop, however, we will not scrutinize the particular questions a Border Patrol agent chooses to ask as long as in sum they generally relate to determining citizenship status." - Fifth Circuit (U.S. vs Machuca Barrera), 2001 So does anybody still think the Border Patrol did not violate the Constitution? And for those who have concentrated their venom on the driver's behavior, and now understand that this was a violation of the driver's civil rights upon clear proof, don't you think it's strange to spend your energy pointing fingers at the driver who simply didn't want (and was not legally required) to roll his window down all the way for any number of reasons, such as perhaps one of these: 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzlmMRU6pI 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A BTW the Baptist Pastor in that video refused to go to secondary, refused to answer any questions, refused to roll down his window despite the agent's lying that a drug dog hit on his car--not only did he have his windows smashed in, get tazed for 20 seconds, and have his head slammed into the broken edge requiring 11 stitches, he was charged with multiple crimes. In his first trial, the judge dismissed the case with prejudice (ie, saying the prosecution was out to lunch). The prosecution appealed the case, and Pastor Anderson had to go to another trial to defend himself. This time it wasn't dismissed and a jury heard it. Verdict--> NOT GUILTY on all charges (and one juror thanked the Pastor for standing up for our rights). Youtube has the first trial for those who wish to watch. 3. Why Don't You Just Roll Your Window Down and Answer the Question?? https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2010/02/12/why_don_t_you_just_roll_down_your_window The military driver was exercising his Constitutional rights, and honoring his oath to defend the Constitution domestically. You may not like the way he talked, the clothes he wore, or his legal course of action but you SHOULD appreciate that, and spend your venom on the clear Constitutional violation and unlawful actions of the Border Patrol. Except you Nigel, you're not American so you can still believe in the divine right of Kings or whatever you believe. Still think these guys got what they deserved? I'll let the Pastor respond to that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix5i8Iv-OmE&feature=related

I just wanted to come back real quick and apologize for insulting a few of you, saying you were morons and implying that I had the only reasonable argument and facts. Sometimes I just forget my gentle nature. My apologies.

It has been nice, but I'm done with this forum. It's telling when only idiots speak up and nobody with any sense chimes in.

I have been [around] young kids in school, not as a [parant], but rather as somebody witnessing young people learn the basics of how to read and write (and type). I'm guessing this was not your school I saw. If only it was just your grammar and not your logic. But it's both. Do yourself a favor and STFU.

I think there have been too many jumps above 20K without oxygen for a couple in this crowd... Border Patrol suspicion less checkpoints (ie not on the border), have a DIFFERENT set of rules applied to them by the Supreme Court of the United States. Why? Because in the U.S. we have ruled that the government cannot just randomly pull people over, you know, just to check how things are going and to just see if maybe something illegal is going on. We have said that is a violation of the FOURTH AMENDMENT (please go read it). So, when the Supreme Court said these checkpoints can exist they gave SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS. One of those, is they are limited to BRIEFLY determine immigration status. That's all they can fish for. Now if they happen to see another federal violation committed in their presence, they can move on that (but that's not just being generally "suspicious"). Does that make sense? I know you guys are not lawyers and are too lazy to research the law of the link provided with the video. Got it. But until you pull your head out, please save the tone because you just look like idiots. But, hey there are some really good DZs in North Korea and I think you'd really like the politics. Ever thought about moving?

Good.

I never said the Agents handled it right! They really didn't BUT the driver of the car approached the incident WRONG. Had he rolled his window all the way down, answered a couple questions, he'd have been on his way with no problem. The driver set it up and the Agents let that asshole get to them. I do believe, this is a rather 'isolated' incident. The Agents I've dealt with have handled things more professionally. The Agent here, might have been a rookie. Your defense of this guy is a bit mis-guided... I think. Plain and simple... the driver was acting like a jerk and has had previous encounters similar to this. Got NO sympathy for him. Chuck I see. You think both are wrong, but you slam the driver (who may have been wrong in your eyes, but acted legally whether you like it or not) instead of the agents who were LEGALLY wrong (violating the Constitution as specifically defined by the Supreme Court in its case law concerning these checkpoints). You're just outraged at the color of the shirt worn by the driver (oh, it's so tacky) yet have practically nothing to say about armed agents violating the Constitution! Priorities much? Yeah no sympathy with him. He's had previous encounters and was looking for it. That's why he set up cameras. He was setting them up. Like a DZ owner who gets her student rigs robbed by some meth-heds and then decides to set up a camera to catch the illegal act. She was setting them up! Like Martin Luther King, the dude did that shit all the time (standing up for his rights as an American in the face of an abusive and legally wrong government), no sympathy for him, either.

Got ya. So in your view it's ok for the government to harass, lie to, and punish citizens if in their view the citizen is a jerk, a douche, or a poo poo head regardless of whether said jerk has broken the law. And I guess in your view, you give a pass to the Agents who lie several times to the driver, right. Not jerks? Right on. Very enlightened. Well, just enjoy yourself and others will defend your freedoms for you so you don't have to get your hands dirty.

Feel free not to back your "he deserved it" up with any kind of reasoning or facts. Much more persuasive that way.

Well, since you're apparently a Brit then we can agree to disagree on civil liberty and the rights of American citizens since we're not talking about your rights against the Crown. We kicked out the tyrant a few hundred years ago, and today we've got a few un-American cowards to deal with, but such is the conflict between freedom and tyranny. Some think the government should be able to push around citizens for any reason they want (being a "dickhead", looking at an agent funny, or whatever bogus reason they come up with). They are apologists for tyranny, have little understanding of American history, and live off the fleeting freedom that was earned by greater people than themselves, like a spoiled rich kid who will later bankrupt the family business because he never developed the character required to do great things. But this is just philosophy. The fact is, the Agents in this video broke the law. The driver broke no laws. When he wins his federal lawsuit and their tax money goes to him and his lawyers, some will still talk the same baloney, still cheerlead for the erosion of their right to exist and not be screwed with by armed, lying, intrusive government. "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

So how would the driver rolling the window down all the way, have done anything to help the BP determine his citizenship? It would have helped set the scene of a compliant and helpful person, rather than someone out to be awkward. Have you ever tried to talk next to a busy road? It is very difficult to hear against the background noise. And do you really think the window being all the way down would have helped the agent determine citizenship when he never asked about it? He asked about car ownership (which the driver answered). Don't you think if the driver were asked, "Are you a U.S. citizen" instead, that he would have answered that question?

The driver was compliant well beyond what he was legally required to comply with. Even the Border Patrol Agent tells the driver that his window does NOT need to be rolled down all the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbCCBH7YM4&feature=player_detailpage#t=254s If there was traffic noise that prevented the Agent from hearing the driver, why does the video show the Agent was able to hear everything said by the driver in the video? The video shows the Agent could hear the driver. If the Agent couldn't hear in primary, he wouldn't have repeated back what the driver told him (proving that he did hear) and he probably would have said "I'm having a hard time hearing you" in the ten seconds of primary. The Agent didn't say this because he heard everything said by the driver: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BId1f8WG2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=21s

The Supreme Court has stated these checkpoints are only allowed in order to briefly determine immigration status. That being said, how would rolling the window down all the way have helped the agent determine immigration status when the agent chose not to ask about it? He instead chose to ask about vehicle ownership (which has nothing to do with immigration status). So how would the driver rolling the window down all the way, have done anything to help the BP determine his citizenship?

In response to KevinP from the previous thread: Kevin, if you are military, then you have taken an Oath (before God) to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. That being said, this is a Constitutional matter. The questions therefore are, 1) did the driver act legally and 2) did the Border Patrol act legally? The answer is clearly 1) Yes and 2) No. If you fight on foreign soil as the driver in the video did/does, thanks for your service. But why do you fight? Is it to keep America free? Is it to preserve our Constitutional rights (ie freedom). If so, then if you respond as a military member, you should answer these questions and judge accordingly. It's interesting that people will pronounce the driver a "douche" and don't mention the agents' actions. Lying. Breaking the law. Violating their oaths to defend the Constitution. And why? Because they really thought this guy wasn't American, but didn't want to actually ask about citizenship or inspect his passport? BTW, you claim about the windows being tinted (which isn't evident in the video) is interesting since the Border Patrol never mentions tinted windows in the video, and does not mention tinted windows or the ability to see into the car in the three page letter they sent his commander. You seem to be the only person bringing up tinted windows. At any rate, those who think citizens should just COMPLY with any unlawful request by the government are worse than illegal aliens. They're un-Americans living in the country bought and paid for by the blood of real Americans. Too dumb, or too cowardly to care about freedom beyond a bumper sticker. If you're interested in the full video (from start to finish), and all the relevant facts and law, and the Border Patrol's three page letter sent to the officer's commander, you can view it all here: http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/TotheBorderPatrol.aspx

Pardon the thread bump. For those interested, this is good reading concerning the video of the military guy going through the checkpoint. http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/TotheBorderPatrol.aspx