"Border" checkpoint vs. Porcupine 411 (patrol, aliens)

[roaringwaterbay]

where did this conversation come from?

[bornblind06]

It will happen in Canada after the north american union is in full effect...

[newc9999]

The land of the free my ass! This shit does not happen in Canada. If you want real freedom get an citizenship application or claim refugee status at the border.

[kukynphunt]

It's because he said he was from Jersey, they were checking to see if he was trafficking illegal human organs across the border to the Jewish Rabbis in NJ/NY.

[militarysims]

Why is the US made out to be some horrible country because we in force our board control laws. I"m really sick of hearing it. Other country's do the same thing. The reason for the check point is because Canada has really shitty board control and people fly into Canada and then cross the boarder into the US. You cant have it both ways do you want to live in a Safe country or do you want to live in terror USA. Fact of the matter is we give the illegals way more rights then any other country.

[Pafoofnik1]

"Other country's do the same thing"

I was in Germany and France again last year.

Neither one had internal checkpoints some distance from their borders.

In fact, we we driving and never even slowed down for the border crossings. No one was there.

[scalper122]

Because they are not in forcing board control. It's not board control when it's against your own citizians.

[OnGuard4Liberty]

The Stazi in America.

[UOGSammich]

yankeesdj1 -These checkpoints and the entire "Constitution Free Zone" is a load of crap, if you are willing to give up your 4th amendment you might as well move out of the country. In many of these videos you hear the BP say "we are not detaining you, and you are not free to go." Then at the end of the illegal inspection "sir you were always free to go". This is not a police state. Get your constitution straight, some people have to drive through these checkpoints every day multiple times.

[yankeesdj1]

read the law and quote me to prove ur point...i guarentee your wrong...it is constitutionally based...im sure of it

[nilesmc]

Paperz pleaze!

Slaves, you are being trained like dogs to put up with this shit. Watch Peter Bressi's vids at CheckpointUSA channel.

If you find yourselves at one of these 'suspicionless stop' checkpoints (what is this, fucking East Germany?) DO NOT PULL OVER TO 'SECONDARY' FOR FURTHER INSPECTION (unless you're in the mood to get tasered)

it's Pavlovian

[nilesmc]

Sorry, it's Terry Bressi not Peter.

[RidleyReport]

what's the benefit of not pulling over to secondary

[lgtbyddrk]

the benefit would be not bowing to tyranny... maybe?  :D

[nilesmc]

That's pretty much it.

Watch DHS Checkpoint Blog Entry 14: Obedience Training by CheckpointUSA to see how to handle yourselves if this happens to you.

[nilesmc]

Watch - DHS Checkpoint Blog Entry 14: Obedience Training by CheckpointUSA.

All his vids are 'must watch' as is his (Terry Bressi's) story done by ETS Pictures which you can also find on youtube.

[UOGSammich]

Not pulling over to secondary blocks traffic and pretty much forces the Border Patrol to make a decision. One of these cases went to court over the civilian impeding the flow of traffic and the judge threw it out, in fact the border patrol was impeding traffic. You can see this case on the 4409 channel. By law you are only required to stop at these checkpoints, not answer any questions, especially if you think the constitution free zone is a bunch of BS.

[yankeesdj1]

Get your laws straight and read the supreme court case that states that you have to stop and cooperate by answering questions regarding citizenship. Why do Americans want to bash an agency that protects the country on a daily basis?

[CheckpointUSA]

I've got my laws straight yankeesdj1. Sounds like you're somewhat confused however:

U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976): "...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -'[A]ny further detention. . . must be based on consent or probable cause.' (U.S. vs. Brignoni-Ponce)"

[CheckpointUSA]

"Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation" - U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte

[candlstudios]

Sorry Yankee but you need to get your laws straight. You are only required to stop. That is all. Anything you say WILL be used against you. That's a fact. You are welcome to "cooperate" as much as you like. It can only hurt you, not help you.

[christianpatriot125]

Presumably not pulling over backs up traffic behind you & gives the goons a problem. The longer they detain you without suspicion the more the traffic backs up. Therefore they may let you go to remove the problem they've caused by delaying your journey.

If you pull over to secondary, they hold all the cards. They can leave you stewing until you succumb, or 'deal with you' without onlookers.

These checkpoints are tax-payer funded. What's the cost-benefit analysis?

[CheckpointUSA]

I wouldn't call it a benefit but BP agents falsely claim the authority to indefinitely detain individuals at internal suspicionless checkpoints until they've proven their right to be in the country to the agent's satisfaction. They also use secondary as a place to coerce individuals into allowing searches. All of this despite clear guidance from SCOTUS to the contrary.

By not moving to secondary, it forces agents to consider whether they can justify taking further action in a court of law.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA Wrong. You have absolutely no clue regarding checkpoint law and BP authority to move you to secondary. What it boils down to is whether the agent feels it truly necessary to deal with the hassle of forcing you into secondary. You don't have a choice, it is the choice of the agent to decide whether you're worth the trouble. A referral to secondary and your refusal to go can be backed by the agents authority to move your vehicle for you. His choice, not yours.

[CheckpointUSA]

Since you appear to be so knowledgeable chamsdropz24, it shouldn't be difficult for you to back up your words with quotes from pertinent court cases. I've already backed up my position with Supreme Court quotes were the justices have very clearly stated any further detention or searching after the initial immigration questions must be based on consent or probable cause.

As such, either put up or shut up. My videos speak for themselves.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA Directly from the Supreme Court. No individualized suspicion is necessary to stop, question and then selectively refer motorists to a secondary inspection checkpoint. Id. at 563 [96 S.Ct. at 3085]

I have proven you wrong in every single exchange. Why do you continue challenging me...I am an Immigration Officer, therefore I know he law, period. You're just guessing and trying to stir up trouble. Your videos prove nothing more than your ignorance.

[CheckpointUSA]

If you're an immigration officer then you're a disgrace for either not knowing the law or purposefully misapplying it chamsdropz24:

U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte (1976): "...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -'[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause.')"

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA Again, you still are clueless. A referral to secondary is not a SEARCH. It is a referral to further satisfy the Immigration Officials suspicion, run records checks on you, etc...A search anywhere past a POE is one that is subject to the 4th Amendment. So I KNOW the law. Your answer proves your ignorance because you assume a referral to secondary is a search...foolish at best. You make it too easy.

[CheckpointUSA]

Your reading skills are abysmal chamsdropz24. The Supreme Court quote I provided you dealt with 2 separate issues - a search AND an extended detention. Both require consent or probable cause. If you divert a vehicle to secondary AFTER immigration queries have been made at primary, the referral represents an extended detention. If an individual voluntarily goes to secondary, they have consented. If they don't go to secondary, you cannot legally compel them to do so absent probable cause.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA My reading skills are in fact perfect. Your legal analysis and understanding is what one can consider appalling. When you are referred to secondary, it is due to your not satisfying the agent that you are in the country legally and have not committed and immigration violation OR he has reasonable suspicion to believe you have committed a criminal act. Just because he asks you immigration related questions doesn't mean you have satisfied him..that's your lack of understanding.

[CheckpointUSA]

You've made the foolish mistake of believing the authority you have at the border or its functional equivalent applies inside the country at internal immigration checkpoints as well chamsdropz24. It doesn't.

What you've forgotten is that in this country individuals have rights & regardless of how much you'd like to turn this country into just another tin pot dictatorship where armed federal agents can cherry pick whoever they want off the streets for any reason they want you can't Get over it.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA I have made no such mistake. I have in fact PROVEN my point, and the ONLY part of M-F you quote is the consent for extended detention...why is it you ignore ALL of the other parts of the case that do NOT support your thinking and in fact prove you are WRONG? I've provided that for you, from that very same case, so why do you refuse to acknowledge it? Because in reality, you have no case and would hate to look like the fool you are.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA You do not have the right to refuse a referral to secondary as evidenced by my post, even from your favorite Martinez-Fuerte case law. You take ONE portion of the law and apply it to EVERYTHING while not accepting there are EXCEPTIONS within those rules that you wish to ignore, because reading them and admitting that they exist blow your entire elementary, unfounded movement out of the water.

[CheckpointUSA]

Actually, you're the one taking your favorite Martinez-Fuerte quote out of context chamsdropz24. I provided you the context in which the court ruled secondary referrals were permissible. That context involved the singular scenario where traffic is too heavy to stop everyone at primary. Under such circumstances, agents may selectively refer vehicles to secondary solely for the immigration question. Any other scenario involves an impermissible extended detention if there is no consent or pc.

[CheckpointUSA]

Regarding secondary referrals, let's put it in context shall we chamsdropz24:

“The defendants arrested at the San Clemente checkpoint suggest that its operation involves a significant extra element of intrusiveness in that only a small percentage of cars are referred to the secondary inspection area, thereby "stigmatizing" those diverted and reducing the assurances provided by equal treatment of all motorists..."

continued in next post...

[CheckpointUSA]

"...We think defendants overstate the consequences. Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy.” - U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte

In other words, SCOTUS only authorizes secondary referrals when traffic is too heavy to make immigration queries at primary or in the presence of pc. Otherwise secondary referrals are an illegal extended detention in the absence of consent.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA You again prove your ignorance. Border patrol agents have "virtually unlimited discretion to refer cars to the secondary inspection area." INS v. Delgado, Questions may be asked in the absence of any individualized suspicion. Martinez-Fuerte, Border patrol agents may "question individuals regarding suspicious circumstances, in addition to citizenship matters, when those individuals are stopped at a permanent checkpoint." United States v. Benitez.

[CheckpointUSA]

All the scenarios you refer to are based on consent chamsdropz24. You can ask whatever questions you want. You cannot compel an answer & you cannot compel a driver to secondary in the absence of probable cause if they don't consent. I have well over 200 hundred videos that prove this point. Others are now demonstrating this as well.

Sounds like you had best never leave your POE chamsdropz24 because you're clueless regarding your authority away from the border or its functional equivalent.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA How the hell are the scenarios I provided based on consent??? These are not scenarios, they are quotes from LAW. Wow, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Just because the agents do not exercise their authority over you because you're a pest doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They are thinking about the hazard you will create should they deal with you and the amount of paperwork that comes with busting your window and extracting you so they can move your car to secondary.

[CheckpointUSA]

Give it a rest chamsdropz24. They did exactly that with Steven Anderson last year and got their butts kicked in court . They'll soon get their butts kicked again in the civil rights lawsuit that's been filed.

Agents don't refrain from busting windows because they're afraid of the paperwork involved. They refrain from breaking windows when they know their actions are being recorded and anything they say/do can be used against them in a court of law not to mention the court of public opinion.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA or upon a valid investigative detention, Espinosa, application of the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the government and the privacy right of the individual at permanent border checkpoints falls on the government's side. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Now, take all of this case law from the Supreme Court, study it, admit you're wrong, and move on before your followers realize that you're really not a freedom fighter, just a grown man playing kids games.

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA Your biggest problem is that you attempt to dissect a ruling to benefit you. That's not how it works, because if that was the case, you would see RECENT cases that agree with you. BP has been doing this for YEARS and if I'm not mistaken...aren't you the one that has had cases tossed out of court because they don't meet muster? If so...that further proves my point. You don't know the law and have no basis for doing what you do other than wanting to be an annoyance.

[CheckpointUSA]

You would be mistaken chamsdropz24. Every checkpoint case I've been involved in I've won. My current civil rights lawsuit was initially dismissed by the district court but was re-instated by the 9th circuit last year. We're now awaiting a scheduling conference for trial.

Regarding what the BP has been doing for years, this is what SCOTUS says:

"We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation"

[chamsdropz24]

@CheckpointUSA please provide case numbers so that I verify your claims. From my understanding, you have never made headway in any lawsuit, and I would LOVE to be proven wrong by your showing me you have successfully won against CBP.

[CheckpointUSA]

CBP has never been foolish enough to charge me directly chamsdropz24. Rather, they've gotten local cops to do their dirty work for them - just like in the Steven Anderson case.

I've documented all of my checkpoint cases in great detail on my website and blog. 2 of the case revolve around charges against me where I had them dismissed with prejudice, The 3rd case is an ongoing civil rights lawsuit stemming from 1 of the other cases with a recent win in the 9th & ongoing district court litigation.