Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to

[X Factor]

If revolution would to start, then yes, government agents are legitimate target. Though nothing in your misrepresentation of my point changes anything I said.

I haven't had to misrepresent anything you said and I don't have any desire or need to. Despite you trying to walk it back now some, your first inclination was to advocate shooting chops. You don't need my help in making you sound foolish.

 

[Ikari]

I haven't had to misrepresent anything you said and I don't have any desire or need to. Despite you trying to walk it back now some, your first inclination was to advocate shooting chops. You don't need my help in making you sound foolish.

I love chops, particularly of the pork variety. However, everything I said has been truthful and while you may want to make it seem as if I have primary motivations towards violence, I do not. Though if one is to advocate total State control over me, I will perhaps advocate total People control over the State. You have a problem with that, it's fine. But it's not a primary argument, but a rebuttal. If you have any shred of intellectual honesty, you could acknowledge that.

 

[Henrin]

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

Btw, this one I like the best. Not only does it describe exactly what the SC has done, but also describes exactly what the federal government and many of the states have done as well.

This little game of trying to turn us into a democracy and not a republican form of government. Yeah, I noticed it.

 

[sangha]

Or time to shoot more cops. Either or.

I know which one you're going to choose

 

[sangha]

Why the backpedal? You've made comments along those lines before.

And when challenged, he's always back pedaled

 

[Ikari]

I know which one you're going to choose

I'm probably going to choose voting so long as it can be used as a tool to control government. I will always take the peaceful means so long as the peaceful means exists. I have stated so many times.

 

[Ikari]

And when challenged, he's always back pedaled

Nope, I've restated as I've said several times over. Perchance consistency is just something you're not capable of dealing with.

 

[Sarcogito]

They don't need probable cause. The need reasonable suspicion which is a significantly lower bar .

As far as I can tell he wasn't refusing a search, which is within his rights for a Terry stop. He was refusing to even talk to the cops which is not within his rights.

One ALWAYS has the right to remain silent.

 

[sangha]

One ALWAYS has the right to remain silent.

That is not true.

One only has the right to not incriminate oneself. There are situations in which a person can be compelled to testify, such as when they are granted immunity (in which case, they can't incriminate themselves)

 

[X Factor]

One ALWAYS has the right to remain silent.

But not always the ability.

 

[Sarcogito]

That is not true.

One only has the right to not incriminate oneself. There are situations in which a person can be compelled to testify, such as when they are granted immunity (in which case, they can't incriminate themselves)

Fair enough, but that is once judges and lawyers are involved. When interacting with law enforcement you have the right to remain silent. Which is one of the reasons I don’t understand how this scenario escalated the way it did. Yes, the USSC has ruled these stops to be Constitutional. However, the Court did not waive our rights with regard to how we can act during law enforcement stops.

So the Border Patrol stopped the guy and he stopped. But he refused to talk to them, which is still his right. They told him to roll his window down, which I don’t see as a lawful order since they can talk to him with the window up. Besides, once they saw he wasn’t going to talk to them, as is his right, and there was no probable cause to hold him for anything, they should have let him go.

I have seen plenty of other videos with sound at such checkpoints where people refused to answer questions and the officers let them on their way because the driver was within his rights. The Courts may have decided Border Patrol can ask the questions, but you can still refuse to answer them, unless of course you actually are crossing a border. Maybe we are missing something from this video. Maybe the driver said “I have illegals in my trunk and if you try to open it I will shoot you where you stand”.

 

[X Factor]

Fair enough, but that is once judges and lawyers are involved. When interacting with law enforcement you have the right to remain silent. Which is one of the reasons I don’t understand how this scenario escalated the way it did. Yes, the USSC has ruled these stops to be Constitutional. However, the Court did not waive our rights with regard to how we can act during law enforcement stops.

So the Border Patrol stopped the guy and he stopped. But he refused to talk to them, which is still his right. They told him to roll his window down, which I don’t see as a lawful order since they can talk to him with the window up. Besides, once they saw he wasn’t going to talk to them, as is his right, and there was no probable cause to hold him for anything, they should have let him go.

I have seen plenty of other videos with sound at such checkpoints where people refused to answer questions and the officers let them on their way because the driver was within his rights. The Courts may have decided Border Patrol can ask the questions, but you can still refuse to answer them, unless of course you actually are crossing a border. Maybe we are missing something from this video. Maybe the driver said “I have illegals in my trunk and if you try to open it I will shoot you where you stand”.

You can refuse to answer them but expect to be detained until they can positively ID you through other means.

 

[Caine]

I know a Statist like you will be on the side of the Authority. But there is no necessity to "follow orders" less those orders have legitimate basis. You're just making excuse for Slave Class. If you don't understand that....it wouldn't surprise me.

And I'm sure that after "hours" of legal training (seriously, hours? For ****'s sake, we ain't even training our officers correctly) you have the Cops and Government interpretation of the 4th. I don't argue that point. What I do argue is that you don't actually understand what the 4th entails, and neither has the government for some time since the 4th is so detrimental to their power.



I understand that Statists and authoritarians love when government force works out against the rights and liberties of the individual. But it's not the way it was meant to be, not in a Free Republic. And fascists may at some point find themselves on the other end of the barrel by patriots.

Well Hot Damn.... Didn't realize I had to be so specific......

Lets see.... is 80 hours enough hours for you? (Thats just the Arrest/Search/Seizure portion of the 6 months classroom instruction)


Also, am I to believe that YOU (random guy on interwebz) know more about the 4th amendment and its proper application than tens of thousands of lawyers and judges across history?

 

[Caine]

Really now? Why would that be exactly?

You don't have RIGHTS regarding being a motorist on the roadway in the first place... you have privileges.

Driving is not a RIGHT.

 

[Caine]

Funny how you seemed to miss the entire f'n concept. So let me restate. There was no warrant nor cause to search and seize one's person, property, nor papers. And yet that was what was done. So it seems rather clearly that the 4th was grievously violated. Which is of no surprise, that right is just about dead thanks to the Government.



Oh, I understand very well what Rights are. You seem to think they are subject to Government whim. They're not, that's not what "Right" means. So perhaps I'll just say this slower, so maybe you'll catch on. I.....UNDERSTAND.....THAT.......THE......COURTS.....HAVE........RULED.........THAT.........ILLEGAL SEARCH......AND SEIZURE.......IS LEGAL........IN SOME (MOST)......CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM......NOT........SURPRISED......THAT THE........GOVERNMENT......WORK IN.......SUCH A...........WAY THAT............THEY USURP.......AND STEAL.........POWER FROM.......THE STATES.......AND THE PEOPLE.

Slow enough? Did you get that? I don't know if I can make that clearer for ya pal. You're just going to have to ferret it out for yourself.

So you are just pissing and moaning then....

Thanks.

 

[sangha]

Fair enough, but that is once judges and lawyers are involved. When interacting with law enforcement you have the right to remain silent. Which is one of the reasons I don’t understand how this scenario escalated the way it did. Yes, the USSC has ruled these stops to be Constitutional. However, the Court did not waive our rights with regard to how we can act during law enforcement stops.

So the Border Patrol stopped the guy and he stopped. But he refused to talk to them, which is still his right. They told him to roll his window down, which I don’t see as a lawful order since they can talk to him with the window up. Besides, once they saw he wasn’t going to talk to them, as is his right, and there was no probable cause to hold him for anything, they should have let him go.

I have seen plenty of other videos with sound at such checkpoints where people refused to answer questions and the officers let them on their way because the driver was within his rights. The Courts may have decided Border Patrol can ask the questions, but you can still refuse to answer them, unless of course you actually are crossing a border. Maybe we are missing something from this video. Maybe the driver said “I have illegals in my trunk and if you try to open it I will shoot you where you stand”.

I want to agree with you, but I've got the nagging feeling that it may be technically true, but realistically not.

For one thing, I know that in some states, the cops are allowed to detain you for short periods of time, and during that period they are allowed to ask you certain specific questions such as who you are, what you are doing at the time and where you are going. What I don't know is if you are required to answer the questions, particularly the last two. What I do know is that if you don't answer the first one, they can detain you for as long as it takes for them to identify who you are. I don't know if there are any consequences to not answering the other two.

When you are under detainment, you are required to comply with their orders. That doesn't mean you have to answer their questions, but you do have to do what they tell you to do, as long as their orders are "lawful" (I'm not going to get into what should be done if the orders are not lawful). AFAIK, orders like "Please roll down your window" and "Step out of your car" are lawful orders, and a detainee is required to obey them. If you don't, the police are allowed to use force to get you to comply

 

[DDD]

What is it with you guys and the police? They are the border patrol! Why would you not let them do their job?!

I think these and other videos that we have seen here would only serve as data for the police to build new techniques to handle these people that tease vacuums between their civil rights and an ordinary job of a policeman.

 

[joko104]

If something happens enough times people are conditioned to it as what is normal and right.

People have been conditioned that if the police make demands that violate known rights and a person doesn't instantly comply and abandon that legal right, it is acceptable for the police to immediately assault, tazer, beat, handcuff and arrest with false charges that person plus destroy that person's property - for "failure to comply with an officer" and "interfering with an officer."

Then, after the fact, the person maybe can negotiate dropping the false criminal charges in exchange for not filing a lawsuit that probably will fail anyway.

There was no justification for that officer to smash the window from behind sending glass into the man's face and eyes because he was taking a picture and opted not to talk to the police. By the video, there was no demand he get out of the vehicle. The demand was that he talk to the police, which he had exactly no legal duty to do. Regardless, instantly assaulting the man (which is what was done, not just the car) had no justification.

At no point had the man presented or said any threat of any kind justifying him being assaulted with surprise flying glass or his vehicle vandalized. But such conduct is known to be so common people now just accept it.

 

[Linc]

Btw, this one I like the best. Not only does it describe exactly what the SC has done, but also describes exactly what the federal government and many of the states have done as well.

This little game of trying to turn us into a democracy and not a republican form of government. Yeah, I noticed it.

Present Moment Awareness, as in right now: The filibuster as applied this decade guarantees minority rule. The severely Gerry-mandered states, even with more Dem than Repub votes overall for House members, guarantees minority rule. Enjoy!! Dems rue the day when their people forgot to vote in 1990 and 2010.

 

[joko104]

You don't have RIGHTS regarding being a motorist on the roadway in the first place... you have privileges.

Driving is not a RIGHT.

You memorized that slogan well!

It's ridiculous of course, but so drilled into people it is just recited.

 

[Gaius46]

Fair enough, but that is once judges and lawyers are involved. When interacting with law enforcement you have the right to remain silent. Which is one of the reasons I don’t understand how this scenario escalated the way it did. Yes, the USSC has ruled these stops to be Constitutional. However, the Court did not waive our rights with regard to how we can act during law enforcement stops.

So the Border Patrol stopped the guy and he stopped. But he refused to talk to them, which is still his right. They told him to roll his window down, which I don’t see as a lawful order since they can talk to him with the window up. Besides, once they saw he wasn’t going to talk to them, as is his right, and there was no probable cause to hold him for anything, they should have let him go.

I have seen plenty of other videos with sound at such checkpoints where people refused to answer questions and the officers let them on their way because the driver was within his rights. The Courts may have decided Border Patrol can ask the questions, but you can still refuse to answer them, unless of course you actually are crossing a border. Maybe we are missing something from this video. Maybe the driver said “I have illegals in my trunk and if you try to open it I will shoot you where you stand”.

I'm sorry but from a legal standpoint you are wrong.

The SC has specifically refused to invalidate a Nevada law compelling people to identify themselves to police during Terry stops. Here's a link to the opinion

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

Assuming an internal Border Patrol checkpoint qualifies as a Terry stop, I know if it does but I suspect it does, then you have to give the police whatever information the controlling statutes require.

 

[Gaius46]

If something happens enough times people are conditioned to it as what is normal and right.

People have been conditioned that if the police make demands that violate known rights and a person doesn't instantly comply and abandon that legal right, it is acceptable for the police to immediately assault, tazer, beat, handcuff and arrest with false charges that person plus destroy that person's property - for "failure to comply with an officer" and "interfering with an officer."

Then, after the fact, the person maybe can negotiate dropping the false criminal charges in exchange for not filing a lawsuit that probably will fail anyway.

There was no justification for that officer to smash the window from behind sending glass into the man's face and eyes because he was taking a picture and opted not to talk to the police. By the video, there was no demand he get out of the vehicle. The demand was that he talk to the police, which he had exactly no legal duty to do. Regardless, instantly assaulting the man (which is what was done, not just the car) had no justification.

At no point had the man presented or said any threat of any kind justifying him being assaulted with surprise flying glass or his vehicle vandalized. But such conduct is known to be so common people now just accept it.

I agree that breaking the glass was way over the top, but the guy does in fact have a legal obligation to answer some of the police questions. That is well established law.

 

[Sarcogito]

I'm sorry but from a legal standpoint you are wrong.

The SC has specifically refused to invalidate a Nevada law compelling people to identify themselves to police during Terry stops. Here's a link to the opinion

HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.

Assuming an internal Border Patrol checkpoint qualifies as a Terry stop, I know if it does but I suspect it does, then you have to give the police whatever information the controlling statutes require.

But doesn't a Terry stop require reasonable suspicion? I don't see how an interior Border Patrol check point would be considered a Terry stop.

 

[sangha]

But doesn't a Terry stop require reasonable suspicion? I don't see how an interior Border Patrol check point would be considered a Terry stop.

Reasonable suspicion is a very loosely defined, and a very low burden to overcome. Border stops can stop anyone traveling on a road which has been known to be used to transport illegal immigrants.

Earlier, I posted a quote from Justice Marshall stating that for all practical purposes, traffic stops are Terry Stops.

 

[Gaius46]

But doesn't a Terry stop require reasonable suspicion? I don't see how an interior Border Patrol check point would be considered a Terry stop.

As sangha mentioned traffic stops are Terry stops. The SC ruled so in a decision post-Terry who's citation I can't remember off hand and am too lazy to look up right now.

And reasonable suspicion is an almost non-existant standard in my view. I was once stopped by for swerving once, in the middle of day, because of a pot-hole. The officer claimed that he believed I might be DUI. Again, once, in the middle of the day, because of a pot hole that he himself probably hit. That's absurd in my view and had I been ticketed for anything I would have used the reasonable standard as a defense ("your honor if this is reasonable anything is) and I would have promptly lost.

I did read the SC internal border patrol checkpoint decision when we first started discussing this and it appeared to me at that time that SC considered them Terry stops but I could be wrong.