mm I think MrJo31021 should read the Bill of Rights and case law surrounding the legitimate powers of Border Patrol agents at internal suspicionless checkpoints.
Why is it that the uneducated children and arrogant Red Necks make such ignorant comments? Its people like you all who make these videos standing up for our rights as Americans and our rights!!!!! The CBP is bull shit!!!!!
Second how ironic. So the goal is to ONLY interdict 30% or violations at the port of entry... setting low goals and failing to achieve them. At the border where I enter and leave the US they now have BP agents helping Customs at the Port of Entry. Where as in your CP inside the US they pull customs agents formt he Port of Entry.
Yep - nothing but dog and pony shows designed to entertain the masses bigtimepimpin666. If they were serious about border security, they'd shoot for 100% interdiction at POE's and put the Border Patrol on the border. Pretty simple really. The fact that they don't makes it clear what their mission isn't....
Good work exposing this. I love the fact that, since these guys know you already won a case against them and that you maintain a record of everything online, they basically don't fuck much with you anymore and just wave you through.
are you ever concerned that one of the agents will take down your license plate and come to your home/job to retaliate? hopefully by posting videos, they are less likely since you're in the public's eye. be safe!
Several agents complained to the Border Patrol Union which then sent letters of complaint to my work, the governor's office & Russell Pearce in the state legislature plprz in an attempt to get me fired & charged with violations of state law . They also complained to Youtube & my service provider with false accusations in an attempt to shutdown this channel & my website/blog. Youtube did end up pulling 3 videos but otherwise their efforts at censorship & intimidation have failed.
wow! although, i shouldn't be supersede at their actions nor youtube's cowardly agreement to (some of) their requests. i've been reading everything on your site and am so thankful that you devote the time and patience to educate us on our rights. admittedly, i'm one of many citizens who never knew i could exercise my rights to this extent. i will not only be demonstrating my rights but i will also spread the word to others & direct them to your material.
@CheckpointUSA what state laws did they say you were violating?
and what would that have to do with your job that you should be fired?
I reminded a bully BP agent at an interiro CP about the Fourth ammendment. He didnt know what I was even talking about. Later he got so pissed off he called my unit in the miliatry to complaint about my attitude. It was liek complaining that Ishould like peanuts more than pretzels. Had nothing to do wiht my unit... they had no clue why the hell he called.
...the statute defines what constitutes personal information and who exactly qualifies as a peace officer. Border Patrol agents are not State peace officers in AZ so don't even qualify & their public activities in the public sphere don't constitute personal information. Further, the statute itself is most likely unconstitutional as a prior restraint on freedom of speech. Similar statutes have been struck down as such in several other states.
Tuffly claimed these videos were a violation of ARS 13-2401 which prohibits posting personal information about peace officers on the web if such posting poses an imminent threat to their safety & the poster new it at the time bigtimepimpin666. Unfortunately for Tuffly, videos of public servants standing in the middle of a public highway wearing public uniforms with a nametag paid for with public funds does not constitute personal information under the statute.
Finally bigtimepimpin666, no imminent threat to the safety of these agents exist. They choose to stand in the middle of public highways and expose their faces and nametags to hundreds of thousands of individuals every day at checkpoints around the Southwest.
If exposing their faces and names to the public did indeed pose an immediate threat to their safety, they wouldn't be standing in the middle of public highways seizing people absent suspicion day after day.
Read the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. (Immigration Reform Bill S. 1348) More specifically pages 15 and 16 of the bill.
As far as AZ goes, it has been since Aug 2006 when I worked in a Law Enforcement capacity in AZ.
As it is now I grow tired and know I will never change your opinion of the laws that I know and enforce every day. As well as the laws that protect, guide and authorize myself and fellow brothers to conduct our duties as law enforcement Agents/Officers/SAs.
I hate to break it to you synweb but The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 never passed the Senate. Nor did a subsequent bill that was proposed.
I also refer your attention to an important quote from Martinez-Fuerte regarding any Congressional authorization (quote to follow)...
"Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior & 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
The reason why I used State of Florida v. John Steel is because it states that the use of a k-9 sniff does not require probable cause. Which throws your entire argument out regarding K-9 inspection. I am sure you will try and twist another law as you see fit. Taking them out of any context that it was intended as. The whole truth is the only truth and anything less is a lie.
You do know that a sniff from a K-9 officer's (Not the handler) nose is not considered an unreasonable search nor is it a violation of you REP (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy). You showed nothing in this video of what would constitute any form of violations against your protected civil and constitutional rights. You do not know if the person in the truck ahead of you gave the OFFICER (not agent) permission to access the compartment of the pick-up truck he was driving. You just assumed.
You do know that drug checkpoints are illegal per City of Indianapolis V Edmond don't you synweb?
Actually I do know the person in the truck ahead of me did not give the agent permission to access the compartment unless they were communicating telepathically.
BTW, I couldn't care less if he refers to himself as an agent or an officer. If he's representing the federal government then the term agent certainly applies in a general sense.
Immigration and agricultural check points are not though. There is no limitation on where one can be set up as long as it is within a reasonable distance from the functional port of entry and/or border. Most states they are within 40 miles with Arizona being the exception and extended due to immigration laws. As long as the primary mission is immigration a k-9 sniff is not intrusive.
I am sure you knew this person. This is why you interviewed him. Oh wait, you didn't.
The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte only authorized permanent immigration checkpoints setup within 100 air miles of a border along nexus points for border traffic synweb. The court explicitly refrained from ruling on temporary or tactical checkpoints setup along secondary roads that don't intersect the border such as the ones depicted in my videos.
In Arizona (where your video is taken) there is no such thing as a permanent Border Patrol check point since they are no longer authorized. They check points need to close or move for no less than 8 hours a week. Nexus points to the interior US also includes any access roads or through roads between main routs. This is why they did not rule on check points as described. You are right about the 100 miles though. I will explain why it is within 100 miles on another post.....
Permanent checkpoints were never authorized prior to the time Rep. Jim Kolbe retired from office since Kolbe blocked funding for any permanent immigration checkpoints within the AZ synweb. After his retirement over 5 years ago, that restriction was lifted & plans for a permanent checkpoint along I-19 South of Green Valley are in the works.
Feel free to checkout my 14 part video series on a town hall meeting with Rep. Giffords in 2009 regarding opposition to this proposed checkpoint.
Actually in Martinez-Fuerte the court referred to nexus points as two or more main roads coming together and leading directly away from the border synweb. The roads you refer to are considered secondary routes, not nexus points.
You're batting average isn't very good here synweb. Perhaps you should bone up on your literature before continuing on.
Regarding the primary scope of checkpoints, that's something to be determined in a court of law when challenged, not by random gov't agents using immigration checkpoints as a pretext to search for drugs, weapons, felons, terrorists, stolen vehicles, etc in violation of their own field manual synweb.
As already referenced, checkpoints that use drug sniffing dogs & are actively looking for illegal drugs are illegal per Indianapolis V Edmond.
Non-immigrant visa holders are required to apply for a permit to enter the interior (Beyond 25 miles [75 in Arizona]). This permit is called an I-94 temporary permit. This applies to all non-immigrant visa holders. The check points are to verify citizenship and compliance with immigration laws.
Indianapolis vs Edmond only applies to unreasonable detention during the course of a check point ect. Once again continued due to lack of space.
Thank you for admitting that these checkpoints are not limited in scope to only looking for illegal aliens but also to enforce an immigration regulatory scheme absent individualized suspicion synweb.
Indianapolis V Edmond applies to any checkpoint that contains a primary purpose of general law enforcement and/or drug interdiction and is not limited to only those cases where an unreasonable detention occurs during the course of the checkpoint. Good try though
Immigration check points are in place to ensure that all immigration laws are being complied with by non-immigrant aliens and immigrant aliens alike.
As far as the k-9 sniff. Look up State of Florida v. John Steel. During the course of inspection a K-9 officer can be utilized to search for ambient odors of narcotics emitting around the vehicle. Since the odor is outside of the vehicle it is legal and not a violation of your 4th amendment rights or your Reas. Expectation of Privacy.
Actually, in U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte, the court only upheld permanent immigration checkpoints as a mechanism to assist the Border Patrol with stemming the flow of illegal aliens across the border, not as a general enforcement tool for immigration law withsynweb.
Don't know why you refer to FL V Steel here. It's a FL court case dealing with a state traffic stop based upon probable cause, not a suspicionless federal checkpoint based upon no cause. Apples & oranges.
K-9 sniffs during the course of an immigration inspection and do not increase the time of being detained are not in violation of Ind vs Edmond.
U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte clearly states that these sites (Fixed and Non-fixed [permanent and non permanent]) are legal and not in violation of the 4th amendment. You are trying to pick and choose what you find out of these laws to justify yourself without using the entire ruling as it was intended. Not telling the whole truth is a lie.
You should take your own comments to heart before making accusations against others synweb. SCOTUS made it clear Martinez-Fuerte ONLY applied to permanent checkpoints:
"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"
Next time apply the entire ruling instead of just the sections you like.
* Checkpoints with a primary purpose of drug interdiction or general law enforcement are illegal synweb.
* Checkpoints can have multiple primary purposes.
* Border Patrol agents routinely extend detentions at these checkpoints for the sole purpose of allowing K9s trained to detect narcotics an opportunity to sniff vehicles.
BTW synweb, in case you hadn't noticed Youtube isn't setup to be a discussion forum. It's setup to serve videos with brief comments of 500 characters or less allowed for those who want to leave brief comments. This is why I specifically refer to my website & blog in all my videos where I write about & analyze these issues in much greater detail.
As such, I suggest you refer to the articles I've written about these videos before accusing me of not analyzing these rulings in greater detail.
"We have also upheld brief, suspicionless seizures of motorists at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz...In none of these cases, however, did we indicate approval of a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." - City of Indianapolis v Edmond
What? You got something to prove? The amount of time I was seized matters little here. What matters is the seizure itself GVMeNProDucTionS. Individuals shouldn't be required to prove their innocence while driving down the road inside the country.
Too bad by doing these selfish closed-minded acts of "Know your rights" it gives criminals, illegal aliens, drug smugglers, etc the knowledge that by showing CBP officers that you can be a hard headed self absorbed person you can get any illegal things anywhere in the country. Kudos to dumb people
Talk about closed-minded, you take the cake goodr14. Perhaps if these Border Patrol & Customs agents were doing their job patrolling the border & manning POE's, instead of harassing domestic traffic inside the country absent suspicion, there'd be less "illegal things" in the country.
Since you're so disdainful of individual rights why don't you go live in a country where there aren't any & let us know how you like it there.
I come a cross this type of comment a lot, CheckpointUSA. If you know your Rights and teach other people to know their Rights, you, somehow are contributing to illegal activity, because people who would use their Rights to halt the Gov from illegally searching their person and effects are themselves in Some Cases doing illegal activity(without proof),too.It's up to the government to prove wrongdoing not the Citizen.
The Law must be obeyed by the law,if not, then what good is it?
It shows a lack of understanding regarding the proper role of government in society & is the basis of the authoritarian mindset. Perhaps the public schools have done too good a job preparing our children to be cogs in someone else's wheel....
@CheckpointUSA I am not disdainful of individual rights, I don't like how American people do not want "illegal things" in the country but once it calls for the people to sacrifice 20 seconds of their time to help prevent the things they don't like from being in the country the people wine and give the CBP officers a hard time. I go through a checkpoint every day and I do not mind what-so-ever, I know my rights and respect what the CBP officers are doing. I am happy to do my part for this country
Are you under the impression that the American people speak with one voice goodr14/ That the American people actually consist of millions of individuals. That this particular individual has never whined about "illegal things" in the country.
Why do you equate an individual who exercises his rights at such checkpoints with giving CBP officers a hard time? Could it be that CBP officers are giving people who exercise their rights a hard time or can CBP officers do no wrong?
@CheckpointUSA I am under the impression "That the American people - consist of millions of individuals." captain obvious. I am pointing out that by making a very simple, quick, and painless process that is there to help our country difficult is giving the CBP officers a hard time just because you are solely focused on what is happening to you here and now rather than what those checkpoints do for our country when you are not there doing your best to not help this country stop illegal activities
What makes you think the process is painless or quick goodr14? There are several videos online making it clear agents routinely exceed their lawful authority, search absent consent or probable cause, detain for indefinite periods of time absent consent or probable cause or seek to intimidate & harass while ignoring the border they're paid to patrol.
In other words these checkpoints do very little for our country & a lot against it. See the town hall video series I uploaded for details.
@CheckpointUSA I know it's quick and painless because I have to go through a checkpoint almost every day and it takes me less than 10 seconds on average for the whole stopping, answering a few questions, and leaving.
What makes you think your experiences are the same as everyone else's goodr14? I've created a playlist on my channel including quite a few other videos besides my own. Several of these videos show agents attempting to intimidate people into extending the detention or to search even though the individuals answered all their questions at primary.
Further, you miss the primary point. Individuals have no obligation to answer questions from gov't agents at internal suspicionless checkpoints.
@CheckpointUSA That may be true but by refusing to answer a few very simple questions makes you suspicious and shows that you do not want to help the government slow and/or stop illegal activities.
What illegal activities goodr14? Are you accusing me of engaging in illegal activities because I respect the individual rights that so many have allegedly fought & died for in this country that I actually take the time to understand & exercise them?
Does this mean your comments show you do not want to help the people understand their rights, the proper role of gov't & their heritage? That you don't want to help stop wasteful & abusive gov't practices that do little to stop 'illegal activity'?
I BELIVE DHS IS ALLOWED TO SET UP CHECKPOINTS WITHIN 100 MILES OF THE BORDERS. THE NEXT STEP IS TO START SETTING UP CHECKPOINTS ALONG THE COASTAL BORDERS WITHIN 100 MILES LIKE HIWAYS 1 AND 101 IN CALIFORNIA. THEY ALREADY DID ONE ON THE FREEWAY WAY NORTH OF SAN DIEGO. YOUR PAPERZ PLEEZE
The reality is this country is full of sleepers who have yet to wake up. There is no amount of safety worth giving up your rights for. The border agents should uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, but this is now and Oaths don't mean anything to most, just empty words that need to be repeated to get the job.
Here's another fact for you. Individuals have a right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure. Individuals also have the right to remain silent while being seized & interrogated by gov't agents. They also have a right to privacy & to travel freely within their own country without being molested.
I think I'll continue exercising those rights & show others how they can to while pointing out the government's hypocrisy as you did here.
@checkpointUSA...do you have any suggestions on how these officers could perform their job and not hurt your feelings?
We are at war; in case you don't read the news. We are getting screwed because of people like you. I hope you never have to call upon the people that is trying to protect us all. If you feel you can do a better job, you might want to join the force and do the job yourself.
Golly pajuash, I was going to ask you how I could exercise my rights without hurting your feelings.
With regards to the news, I've been watching for over 9 years waiting for that declaration of war everyone keeps yapping about. It seems Congress has better things to do with its time than declare war however..
With regards to those people you claim are just trying to protect us, perhaps they should try protecting us down along the border instead of harassing us along public highways.
["There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore." -Henry Hyde]
Thanks for the Hyde quote josacape. I remember reading about it when Ron Paul pushed the issue in Congress way back when. Nothing like hearing Congressional representatives overtly thumb their nose at the very document that provides them with legitimacy in the first place. Of course it's ignorant people like pajuash who allow them to get away with it.
I wonder, with your seemingly learned understanding of "the law", have you any knowledge of the term "Border Nexus"
You might want to look that up.
I must admit though, a very large part of me wants to see you stripped of your citizenship, and dumped in a Juarez shanty town until your small mind has come to terms with the reality of the situation your country is facing.
Of course you want to see me stripped of my citizenship & dumped in Juarez somewhere borderbob1000. All violent authoritarian punks like you can't stand to see individuals successfully exercise their rights.
Regarding border nexus, if you had a clue you would know this wasn't one. Why do you think I've been able to pass through this checkpoint for the better part of 3 years without stating my citizenship & without going to secondary? Really borderbob, get a clue.
If the port of entry does not have enough capacity build 300 % more capacity at each and plan to double that also. Not only that but hire another 10,000 BP for the border to work on the border with in a mile.
I'm not sure why you feel you have a right to make hard work for the agents whom I think you will find the vast majority support. Only in America will people complain about drug searches being conducted, so stupid... Also why do you feel the need to publicise the names and faces of those agents putting them at risk. It doesn't help your cause but may do great damage
I'm not sure why you think government agents have the right to stop, seize, detain, interrogate & search hard working people inside the country absent any individualized suspicion tomminty?
Oh wait, you're from the United Kingdom. That explains your love affair with big government & your contempt for those willing to stand up for their rights.
No stunts or stuntmen were used in the production of this video wawover. Additionally, if the I-35 Laredo TX checkpoint agents need a lesson in individual rights, they're welcome to come on over to the SR-86 Arizona checkpoint for a few sessions instead. I'm an equal opportunity rights activists but Laredo TX is little bit out of my way.
@CheckpointUSA All I'm saying is that they need a lesson down there too. I'm all against checkpoints too. But I need to educate myself, I admit I'm not as informed about all the laws and how to defend myself if I come acccross one of these checkpoints.
I'd like to invite everyone to Google the case in question (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte). There is an entire Wiipedia page about it, and it is in NO way clear that the CBP needs some ultra-high probable cause to search. In fact not only did the court rule that these checkpoints do NOT violate the 4th amendment, they specifically said that their PC bar for searches was LOW. CheckpointUSA obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is to undermine the security of the US.
If the Supreme Court did indeed state there is a lesser standard for probable cause at these checkpoints, it should be easy enough for you to cite the pertinent part of the ruling ericcox2. The fact that you didn't makes it obvious as to what your agenda is. Nonetheless, I'll give you a second bite at the apple. Post your evidence for all to see.
Don;t forget to address U.S. v Ortiz while you;re at it ericcox2:
“The 4th Amendment held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from the border & its functional equivalents, & for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint & a roving patrol.” - U.S. V Ortiz
"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
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)"
And just so that we're clear on the court's intent in Martinez-Fuerte ericcox2:
"The principal protection of Fourth Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop." - Justice Powell U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte
So would it be safe to say that your agenda is to undermine the security of the US by ignoring the actual border in favor of harassing domestic traffic absent suspicion inside the country instead?
I wish you would upload more. My heroes are normal ppl, and your one of em. It takes guts to do what your doing, and we should all be doing it. I do agree with 4409 tho, this is not about fear of mexicans, it's another attempt at an federalized national ID card.
just remember, it's public outrcry that has caused so much focus to shift to the southern border to look for illegal migrants. That public outcry is loudest in Arizona -- where you shot this video.
your organization are a bunch of commies who should be jailed and put away as american traders....why don't you to a mexican checkpoint and try the crap you tried at the given checkpoint!!!! You will be arrested or even killed!!!
For someone claiming to be 49 on his YouTube channel, you sure don't have a clue about communism or what it means to be an American airvaz03. Imagine being accused of being a communist for exercising one's rights while being seized absent suspicion by armed federal agents at an internal Homeland Security checkpoint setup along a public highway.
BTW, you should learn to spell airvaz03. When you accuse someone of being an 'American trader', it makes you look more ignorant than you obviously are.
i wish you would come to houlton maine! if you tried this stuff here they would cuff you stuff you and really man handle you while getting away with it ! They have had their dogs really hurt other animals who where with their elderly owners on vacation ! They have arrested people and tased them for simply asking to not infringe on their rights !! PLEASE come to maine with your campain and help us mainers who need the outside help !! I will pay your expenses !!!
I've been following a story from your neck of the woods where a Maine citizen by the name of Neal Begin was recently shot & killed by 2 Border Patrol agents & a Maine state trooper at his house close to the border. Both DHS & the State of Maine refuse to release any additional information about the incident - at least until their 'investigation' is complete.
Did you hear about this incident and/or have any additional info?
As far as 1070....dont make shit up. The law is very clear. An officer MUST have PROBABLE CAUSE to stop a vehicle or engage in dialouge with a subject. ONCE PC HAS BEEN MET, the officer, if in the scope of his investigation of a crime ALREADY IN PROGRESS, determines a person to be illegal, then he can arrest...continued...
What did I make up about Arizona's SB 1070 Shamz24? Please quote what I said that you claim is wrong along with the source so we're all on the same page.
With regards to your false claim that probable cause is required under SB 1070, you may want to actually read it. I have. Here's the pertinent section:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL ...WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES..."
What they did was wrong. But what Border Patrol does is not wrong AT ALL. And to try to suggest so is just irresponsible. Just tell people how it is. You were mistreated once by law enforcement and now you want to cry about it for the rest of your life...continued...
Here's your chance Shamz24. Please point out which statements in this video are wrong. I notice that you've failed to refute any specific thing that I've actually said.
I on the other hand have gone to great lengths to document my experiences & back up my statements with independently verifiable facts on my website & blog along with these videos wherever possible.
So please, enlighten us as to what I've stated that is false while backing it up with your own independently verifiable facts.
CheckpointUSA, this takes place in Arizona, yes? Will you be making a video in response to the new law that was just passed in your state that gives broad power to law enforcement to check for immigration status? Since it is (apparently) illegal to remain silent when asked about your immigration status now, how will this effect how you handle the checkpoints?
One more thing: You are awesome. I hope all is well, brother.
If I'm stopped by an officer in relation to the statute you refer to, you can be sure I'll make a video of it Mekel343.
It's my understanding the statute will empower state enforcers to stop individuals for immigration queries when there is reasonable suspicion to believe an individual is here illegally. The statute cannot lawfully compel an individual to answer such queries. As such, the situation would be analagous to these checkpoints. They can briefly stop but they can't compel compliance.
CheckpointUSA, Thanks for posting these great videos and for 'attempting' to educate the masses. Unfortunately, some just don't 'get it'! Why argue with them? Let them learn the hard way! THANKFULLY, their refusal to take advantage of the education you provide free of charge, doesn't impact our Rights i.e. cannot be taken away collectively! Beautiful thing is, we can still volunteer our rights away if we so choose! That's the double edge sword of freedom! Ignorance and freedom cannot co-exist!
Usually my responses aren't so much geared towards the original commenter but for readers in general. By engaging & debunking the arguments of those who callously disregard individual rights, I not only educate myself but others who aren't necessarily familiar with the issue.
The blue uniformed personnel are known as US Customs and Border Protection officers rather than "agents". The uniformed personnel in green are known as border patrol agents rather than "officers".
Thank you CheckpiontUSA for standing up for our rights! Even for these people that doesn't deserve them. A lot of people wouldn't have the guts to do what u do.
unfortunately, the people who are most likely to be caught at a USBP checkpoint are those who are least likely to have the money or expertise to know and defend their const. rights.
Who just happens to have no life. Why aren't you at work? It's funny when you think about it. These officers have a great job, great benefits, and a life outside of work. They go home to their families and forget about the day.
You, OTOH, spend all of your time and energy recording checkpoints. It's obvious that this consumes your life and causes you much grief.
@drbne313 Actually, I have a very full life, thanks for asking.
Unfortunately, agents of the govt keep on interfering with it by seizing me absent suspicion & demanding I answer investigatory questions I have no legal obligation to answer.
Why do you hate to see individuals exercising their rights anyway drbne313?
Do you hate individual rights? How about the principles this country was founded on? Why are you incapable of expressing yourself without resorting to vulgarities?
By you refusing to answer immigration questions, you are opening yourself up to suspicion, which would allow them to detain you further. You're lucky that they don't and let you on your way, even though you refused to answer a lawful question.
In the time that it takes to answer simple, brief questions, a dog could sniff your car legally without suspicion.
Their conduct just happens to be well within the law. You sir, just happen to be a giant, gaping asshole.
@drbne313 Looks like your true nature is coming out with your reliance on profanity to make your point. Nonetheless, let me help relieve you of your misconceptions:
U.S. vs 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)"
These officers aren't intimidating anyone. According to all of you're videos, the officers were polite and professional. They continuously repeated questions to you. All you have to do is say "U.S. Citizen" and you're on your way. The checkpoints are absolutely legal and within the law. Until they are not, you are required to stop your vehicle, and answer simple immigration questions.
@drbne313 Actually, I don't have to say anything at all.
There is no law that compels me to answer investigatory questions from armed agents of the government who have seized me absent suspicion no where near the border.
The 4th & 5th amendments explicitly protect me from being so compelled as do various Supreme Court rulings.
30% of illegal activity at the border is a huge number. It would be literally impossible to catch 100% of illegal activity at a POE. That would involve stopping and physically searching every traveler, and every vehicle, and also x-raying every vehicle. It is unconstitutional to physically search an individual's person at the border without suspicion (one articulated fact).
@drbne313 It's literally impossible to stop 100% of any criminal activity anywhere. Nonetheless, these agents have far more leeway at the actual border than inside the country to detain and search.
As such, if they really want to secure the border, it should be done on the border or its functional equivalent, not along highways inside the country no where near it.
Well sir, you have a poor grasp of law and SOP, as apparent by --all-- of your videos.
A dog sniff is not a search and the supreme court has ruled it requires zero suspicion, let alone probable cause. Federal laws allow checkpoints within 75 miles of an international border. The checkpoint need not be a direct road from the border, only a route.
The officer was not attempting to open the compartment, according to your video. The officer was tapping the object per SOP. Not a search.
@drbne313 Perhaps you should go back & re-read those SCOTUS cases.
The court has never upheld the use of drug sniffing dogs at suspicionless immigration checkpoints. Rather, they've upheld their use by police during traffic stops based upon probable cause as long as the length of the stop isn't increased due to the use of the dog.
Additionally, the court has struck down the use of general law enforcement & drug checkpoints in Indianapolis v Edmond.
As a US citizen, and of minority decent, I am fine with CBP asking me questions (and for my citizenship).
I'm tired of all the illegals in Tucson! There is too much violence! If we are sheep, then the bad people are wolves! And if the sheriffs/police/law enforcement officials are the "sheepdogs," then let then go after the wolves. Sometimes they hide behind sheep's clothing. And if its CBP, what do I have to hide? What is the price of my freedom?
You're perfectly welcome to waive your rights & submit to unreasonable searches & seizures as often as you deem appropriate congabeat.
You have no right to demand the same of others however & doing so will have no effect on the level of violence in the Tucson area.
Indeed, the very agency you're willing to surrender your rights to for the illusion of increased security routinely allows over 70% of major illegal activity to pass through ports of entry so as to not inconvenience border commerce.
Okay, let's use your line of thought. "Constitutional violation" occurs when gov't goes against the laws they create.
Currently, they only need 'mere suspicion' to pull me over (Title 19). If your info is correct on percentage "of major illegal activity to pass through ports of entry..", probable cause only increases the %. If you & i can't search people (unless you're an agent), what would you propose in preventing the "70%" of illegals from getting in to the U.S.? People who breaks laws- lie.
Actually, Constitutional violations occur when govt goes against the Constitution. When govt goes against laws its creates, hypocrisy & illegal acts occur.
Inside the country, agents need rs to conduct roving patrol stops & no suspicion for checkpoint stops. Agents can divert to secondary on mere or no suspicion for the sole purpose of brief immigration queries that can't be made at primary due to heavy traffic. Any further detention or searching requires consent or probable cause however.
Illegal acts against the constitution is a violation- it's the same thing.
But you need to clarify- everyone knows where the checkpoints are, even the illegals. Agents enforce drugs and smuggling laws (illegal crap). What smuggler is ever going to consent to a search? "No suspicion" at a checkpoint can't go backwards to probable cause. PC has to be established first (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S.). We all have to stop at the checkpoint and they only need mere suspicion to search.
I don't know where you're getting your info congabeat but it's wrong. SCOTUS has made clear that consent or probable cause are needed to search at internal checkpoints:
The 4th Amendment held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from the border & its functional equivalents, & for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint & a roving patrol - U.S. V Ortiz
Well, I got my info from your statement a day ago when you said, "... agents need rs to conduct roving patrol stops & no suspicion for checkpoint stops." If you're wrong, you tell me?
Looking at CBP's website, BP celebrated its 85th Anniversary. Quote from site," The Purpose: To combat the illegal entry of aliens, contraband, and the flow of illicit liquor from Mexico and Canada into the United States."
The only thing that is in addition to their jobs- they also have to look for terrorists.
This really gets old after a while congabeat. Try to pay attention will you.
There's a difference between a stop at a checkpoint and a search at a checkpoint. A stop can be conducted at a reasonably located limited scope internal checkpoint absent suspicion. A search however MUST be premised on consent or probable cause.
You do understand the difference between a stop and a search don't you?
If not, I suggest you figure it out before leaving anymore comments.
Additionally, congabeat while the "jobs' of CBP agents may be all those things you list above, the Supreme Court has made clear that the primary purpose of an internal checkpoint MUST be limited to brief immigration queries with any further detention based upon that pesky consent and probable cause again.
If agents use the pretext of an immigration checkpoint stop to detain people to look for terrorists, drugs or illicit liquor, those agents are violating the law. So says SCOTUS.
Here's another SCOTUS quote to drive the point home:
U.S. vs 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.'"
"What smuggler is ever going to consent to a search?"
You have of course hit on an important point regarding this issue. For a checkpoint to have any chance of being effective, individuals passing through them must either be ignorant of their rights or intimidated into waiving their rights.
The 1st scenario doesn't speak well of individuals within society while the 2nd scenario doesn't speak well of government agents.
Anyway you slice it, checkpoints are a poor choice of enforcement tools.
The info I posted regarding major illegal activity passing through ports of entry was from various studies conducted by the GAO. You can watch my checkpoint town hall meeting videos to hear it first hand from the horse's mouth.
At port's of entry, agents have far more legal leeway to seize, detain, interrogate & search then they do at checkpoints inside the country.
The GAO stated the only reason why they don't is because they don't want to burden border traffic & commerce.
Illegals prefer to avoid the port's of entry. That's why Border Patrol works outside of the port's of entry. So, do you think they'd be driving a car/truck between the ports? If not, their marching in the dry heat (and I see them)!
In the end, the deadly stuff is going to be brought across on land (north or south). It's not going to come on a boat or plane (too much security measures- w/help from other countries). Mexico & Canada doesn't want to help us. They want us to spend it first.
Additionally, a GAO report revealed that border operations result in ~118 illegal border crosser interdictions per agent per year in the Tucson sector as opposed to ~6 interdictions per agent per year at internal checkpoints.
As such, the numbers speak for themselves. If the government was serious about border security, it would be beefing up actual border operations, not harassing domestic traffic inside the country.
We have more freedoms here than in any other country. Better that other countries where the gov't can take everything (your family, your spouse, your land, your money) for the sake of politician's pocket books. Does it sound appealing to live in North Korea? Nigeria? Yemen? Somalia? Cuba? Venezuela? Colombia?
No offense to the people, just the hatred that is in those places. Americans are the most hated people on the planet. And they-non U.S.- still want to live here! Crazy!!
Apparently there is a Title 19 of the Codes of Federal Regulations- listed as "Customs Duties." There is more to Title 19 that we cannot see. Civilians cannot view this portion, but a request for public disclosure could be submitted. But in it, it talks about the extended jurisdiction, which is described as a "Border Nexus" in which it is legal for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to conduct searches. I am aware of this as I reside in the "zone" in which this Title 19 has designated.
"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
Why aren't we reasearching the uses & effects of marijuana. Why do we continue the illegalization of it? Makes no sense. Because some cotton growers lobbied to stop hemp as a competative textile.
Research is minimul. It is known to helf people with Multiple Sclerosis, Glaucoma & recovering cancer patients. It remains illegal with benefits both medical & textile. As well it was a convenientently linked to african slaves to garner acceptance as an illegal substance.
keep up the good work exposing these fat coward bastards who stand around in their pathetic uniforms acting like the fucking nazis that they are!!
It takes a man of true courage and intellect to brazenly square off with these slugs in the middle of the desert and stand up for the rights and laws that thousands have died for. you are a true patriot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This looks like a Nazi police state....the USA is becoming a huge police state and Americans are losing their "freedoms" and Constitutional rights. It makes me laugh when you hear those stupid Americans saying that their "beloved" U.S. troops are overseas fighting and dying to protect their constitutional rights and "freedoms". Such BULL SHIT....America is gone....America is dead.
how do i do this and still take care of my family...im sure this is a question you get often......other than revolution how do us family men resolve this?
It's a tough question but for me not doing something is untenable. If we don't do something while something can still be done, what legacy will our children inherit?
May I suggest a combination of the following:
* Organize with like minded individuals
* Know who has your back
* Have a plan (you don't have to always follow it but you do need one)
* Know your rights & the law
* Exercise your rights within the law
* Document & publicize encounters with public servants
You are a man to be admired, Checkpoint USA . More importantly your stance against these power hungry officials should be the catalist to get people off their behinds, and follow your example.
This is not a port of entry, why is customs in force? wow DHS has some things to get in order. Janet Napalitano needs to get off her fat ass and do something
This coming from the creator of the videos I can't even watch any more due to the absolutely ridiculous plugs you do before each video... how ironic. They bring nothing to the video but paint you as a clown void of any meaningful purpose. You can do it seriously as to not discredit yourself in the eyes of many.
Hmm, gives me an idea next time I smuggle 6 kilos methamphetamine. Bring a video camera along to divert the attenton of "border" patrol into thinking I just want to harrass them when really I'm trying to make a hundred thou.
Awesome work you are doing. I have alot of family in the border patrol (one is even a judge for immigration) and should forward them your site and see what they have to say for themselves.
you should inform them that they have an obligation to the constitution, not to their superiors. "following orders" or "just doing my job", is not an excuse for violating the rights of others. They need to question each order they are given. And THEY need to refuse it, if its not constitutional. Until they start to correct themselves this is going to get further and further out of control.
where is their traffic control permit, did they submit a traffic control plan to the county for approval? and did they pay for the permit? This always gets some fun interactions with the BP You need to come down to so cal, we have all kinds of fun, there is no way they would let you pass if you had a camera on them
How do you know that the red truck did not give consent. you were not in his truck he might of gave gthe other officer permission
pepper0345 2 months ago in playlist U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoints
good inspection officers.
grunder20 2 months ago
mm i think the person who made this video should read the USA PATRIOT Act
MrJo31021 2 months ago
mm I think MrJo31021 should read the Bill of Rights and case law surrounding the legitimate powers of Border Patrol agents at internal suspicionless checkpoints.
CheckpointUSA 2 months ago 3
Why is it that the uneducated children and arrogant Red Necks make such ignorant comments? Its people like you all who make these videos standing up for our rights as Americans and our rights!!!!! The CBP is bull shit!!!!!
Mellitan1 3 months ago
so much to say...
first of al you have a lot of balls.
Second how ironic. So the goal is to ONLY interdict 30% or violations at the port of entry... setting low goals and failing to achieve them. At the border where I enter and leave the US they now have BP agents helping Customs at the Port of Entry. Where as in your CP inside the US they pull customs agents formt he Port of Entry.
bigtimepimpin666 7 months ago
Yep - nothing but dog and pony shows designed to entertain the masses bigtimepimpin666. If they were serious about border security, they'd shoot for 100% interdiction at POE's and put the Border Patrol on the border. Pretty simple really. The fact that they don't makes it clear what their mission isn't....
CheckpointUSA 7 months ago
Good work exposing this. I love the fact that, since these guys know you already won a case against them and that you maintain a record of everything online, they basically don't fuck much with you anymore and just wave you through.
Int3rlocutor 7 months ago
are you ever concerned that one of the agents will take down your license plate and come to your home/job to retaliate? hopefully by posting videos, they are less likely since you're in the public's eye. be safe!
plprz 10 months ago
Several agents complained to the Border Patrol Union which then sent letters of complaint to my work, the governor's office & Russell Pearce in the state legislature plprz in an attempt to get me fired & charged with violations of state law . They also complained to Youtube & my service provider with false accusations in an attempt to shutdown this channel & my website/blog. Youtube did end up pulling 3 videos but otherwise their efforts at censorship & intimidation have failed.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
@CheckpointUSA
wow! although, i shouldn't be supersede at their actions nor youtube's cowardly agreement to (some of) their requests. i've been reading everything on your site and am so thankful that you devote the time and patience to educate us on our rights. admittedly, i'm one of many citizens who never knew i could exercise my rights to this extent. i will not only be demonstrating my rights but i will also spread the word to others & direct them to your material.
plprz 10 months ago
@CheckpointUSA what state laws did they say you were violating?
and what would that have to do with your job that you should be fired?
I reminded a bully BP agent at an interiro CP about the Fourth ammendment. He didnt know what I was even talking about. Later he got so pissed off he called my unit in the miliatry to complaint about my attitude. It was liek complaining that Ishould like peanuts more than pretzels. Had nothing to do wiht my unit... they had no clue why the hell he called.
bigtimepimpin666 7 months ago
...the statute defines what constitutes personal information and who exactly qualifies as a peace officer. Border Patrol agents are not State peace officers in AZ so don't even qualify & their public activities in the public sphere don't constitute personal information. Further, the statute itself is most likely unconstitutional as a prior restraint on freedom of speech. Similar statutes have been struck down as such in several other states.
CheckpointUSA 7 months ago
Tuffly claimed these videos were a violation of ARS 13-2401 which prohibits posting personal information about peace officers on the web if such posting poses an imminent threat to their safety & the poster new it at the time bigtimepimpin666. Unfortunately for Tuffly, videos of public servants standing in the middle of a public highway wearing public uniforms with a nametag paid for with public funds does not constitute personal information under the statute.
Further...
CheckpointUSA 7 months ago
Finally bigtimepimpin666, no imminent threat to the safety of these agents exist. They choose to stand in the middle of public highways and expose their faces and nametags to hundreds of thousands of individuals every day at checkpoints around the Southwest.
If exposing their faces and names to the public did indeed pose an immediate threat to their safety, they wouldn't be standing in the middle of public highways seizing people absent suspicion day after day.
CheckpointUSA 7 months ago
Apparently, you don't know the laws very well, synweb. Most of your ilk often don't!
josacape 10 months ago
Read the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. (Immigration Reform Bill S. 1348) More specifically pages 15 and 16 of the bill.
As far as AZ goes, it has been since Aug 2006 when I worked in a Law Enforcement capacity in AZ.
As it is now I grow tired and know I will never change your opinion of the laws that I know and enforce every day. As well as the laws that protect, guide and authorize myself and fellow brothers to conduct our duties as law enforcement Agents/Officers/SAs.
synweb 10 months ago
I hate to break it to you synweb but The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 never passed the Senate. Nor did a subsequent bill that was proposed.
I also refer your attention to an important quote from Martinez-Fuerte regarding any Congressional authorization (quote to follow)...
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
"Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior & 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
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
The reason why I used State of Florida v. John Steel is because it states that the use of a k-9 sniff does not require probable cause. Which throws your entire argument out regarding K-9 inspection. I am sure you will try and twist another law as you see fit. Taking them out of any context that it was intended as. The whole truth is the only truth and anything less is a lie.
synweb 10 months ago
Comment removed
BRYANSAUCEDA 10 months ago
You do know that a sniff from a K-9 officer's (Not the handler) nose is not considered an unreasonable search nor is it a violation of you REP (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy). You showed nothing in this video of what would constitute any form of violations against your protected civil and constitutional rights. You do not know if the person in the truck ahead of you gave the OFFICER (not agent) permission to access the compartment of the pick-up truck he was driving. You just assumed.
synweb 11 months ago
You do know that drug checkpoints are illegal per City of Indianapolis V Edmond don't you synweb?
Actually I do know the person in the truck ahead of me did not give the agent permission to access the compartment unless they were communicating telepathically.
BTW, I couldn't care less if he refers to himself as an agent or an officer. If he's representing the federal government then the term agent certainly applies in a general sense.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
@CheckpointUSA
Immigration and agricultural check points are not though. There is no limitation on where one can be set up as long as it is within a reasonable distance from the functional port of entry and/or border. Most states they are within 40 miles with Arizona being the exception and extended due to immigration laws. As long as the primary mission is immigration a k-9 sniff is not intrusive.
I am sure you knew this person. This is why you interviewed him. Oh wait, you didn't.
synweb 10 months ago
The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte only authorized permanent immigration checkpoints setup within 100 air miles of a border along nexus points for border traffic synweb. The court explicitly refrained from ruling on temporary or tactical checkpoints setup along secondary roads that don't intersect the border such as the ones depicted in my videos.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
@CheckpointUSA
In Arizona (where your video is taken) there is no such thing as a permanent Border Patrol check point since they are no longer authorized. They check points need to close or move for no less than 8 hours a week. Nexus points to the interior US also includes any access roads or through roads between main routs. This is why they did not rule on check points as described. You are right about the 100 miles though. I will explain why it is within 100 miles on another post.....
synweb 10 months ago
Permanent checkpoints were never authorized prior to the time Rep. Jim Kolbe retired from office since Kolbe blocked funding for any permanent immigration checkpoints within the AZ synweb. After his retirement over 5 years ago, that restriction was lifted & plans for a permanent checkpoint along I-19 South of Green Valley are in the works.
Feel free to checkout my 14 part video series on a town hall meeting with Rep. Giffords in 2009 regarding opposition to this proposed checkpoint.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
Actually in Martinez-Fuerte the court referred to nexus points as two or more main roads coming together and leading directly away from the border synweb. The roads you refer to are considered secondary routes, not nexus points.
You're batting average isn't very good here synweb. Perhaps you should bone up on your literature before continuing on.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
Regarding the primary scope of checkpoints, that's something to be determined in a court of law when challenged, not by random gov't agents using immigration checkpoints as a pretext to search for drugs, weapons, felons, terrorists, stolen vehicles, etc in violation of their own field manual synweb.
As already referenced, checkpoints that use drug sniffing dogs & are actively looking for illegal drugs are illegal per Indianapolis V Edmond.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
@CheckpointUSA
Non-immigrant visa holders are required to apply for a permit to enter the interior (Beyond 25 miles [75 in Arizona]). This permit is called an I-94 temporary permit. This applies to all non-immigrant visa holders. The check points are to verify citizenship and compliance with immigration laws.
Indianapolis vs Edmond only applies to unreasonable detention during the course of a check point ect. Once again continued due to lack of space.
synweb 10 months ago
Thank you for admitting that these checkpoints are not limited in scope to only looking for illegal aliens but also to enforce an immigration regulatory scheme absent individualized suspicion synweb.
Indianapolis V Edmond applies to any checkpoint that contains a primary purpose of general law enforcement and/or drug interdiction and is not limited to only those cases where an unreasonable detention occurs during the course of the checkpoint. Good try though
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
@synweb
Immigration check points are in place to ensure that all immigration laws are being complied with by non-immigrant aliens and immigrant aliens alike.
As far as the k-9 sniff. Look up State of Florida v. John Steel. During the course of inspection a K-9 officer can be utilized to search for ambient odors of narcotics emitting around the vehicle. Since the odor is outside of the vehicle it is legal and not a violation of your 4th amendment rights or your Reas. Expectation of Privacy.
synweb 10 months ago
Actually, in U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte, the court only upheld permanent immigration checkpoints as a mechanism to assist the Border Patrol with stemming the flow of illegal aliens across the border, not as a general enforcement tool for immigration law withsynweb.
Don't know why you refer to FL V Steel here. It's a FL court case dealing with a state traffic stop based upon probable cause, not a suspicionless federal checkpoint based upon no cause. Apples & oranges.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
@CheckpointUSA
K-9 sniffs during the course of an immigration inspection and do not increase the time of being detained are not in violation of Ind vs Edmond.
U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte clearly states that these sites (Fixed and Non-fixed [permanent and non permanent]) are legal and not in violation of the 4th amendment. You are trying to pick and choose what you find out of these laws to justify yourself without using the entire ruling as it was intended. Not telling the whole truth is a lie.
synweb 10 months ago
You should take your own comments to heart before making accusations against others synweb. SCOTUS made it clear Martinez-Fuerte ONLY applied to permanent checkpoints:
"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"
Next time apply the entire ruling instead of just the sections you like.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
* Checkpoints with a primary purpose of drug interdiction or general law enforcement are illegal synweb.
* Checkpoints can have multiple primary purposes.
* Border Patrol agents routinely extend detentions at these checkpoints for the sole purpose of allowing K9s trained to detect narcotics an opportunity to sniff vehicles.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
BTW synweb, in case you hadn't noticed Youtube isn't setup to be a discussion forum. It's setup to serve videos with brief comments of 500 characters or less allowed for those who want to leave brief comments. This is why I specifically refer to my website & blog in all my videos where I write about & analyze these issues in much greater detail.
As such, I suggest you refer to the articles I've written about these videos before accusing me of not analyzing these rulings in greater detail.
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
"We have also upheld brief, suspicionless seizures of motorists at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz...In none of these cases, however, did we indicate approval of a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." - City of Indianapolis v Edmond
CheckpointUSA 10 months ago
What? You got something to hide? Looks like it barely even slowed you down... Relax.
GVMeNProDucTionS 1 year ago
What? You got something to prove? The amount of time I was seized matters little here. What matters is the seizure itself GVMeNProDucTionS. Individuals shouldn't be required to prove their innocence while driving down the road inside the country.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Don't make any sense they don't check both directions if they're going through all that bother, the smugglers just head west bound I'm sure then.
mrgoodvibrations 1 year ago
Too bad by doing these selfish closed-minded acts of "Know your rights" it gives criminals, illegal aliens, drug smugglers, etc the knowledge that by showing CBP officers that you can be a hard headed self absorbed person you can get any illegal things anywhere in the country. Kudos to dumb people
goodr14 1 year ago
Talk about closed-minded, you take the cake goodr14. Perhaps if these Border Patrol & Customs agents were doing their job patrolling the border & manning POE's, instead of harassing domestic traffic inside the country absent suspicion, there'd be less "illegal things" in the country.
Since you're so disdainful of individual rights why don't you go live in a country where there aren't any & let us know how you like it there.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA
I come a cross this type of comment a lot, CheckpointUSA. If you know your Rights and teach other people to know their Rights, you, somehow are contributing to illegal activity, because people who would use their Rights to halt the Gov from illegally searching their person and effects are themselves in Some Cases doing illegal activity(without proof),too.It's up to the government to prove wrongdoing not the Citizen.
The Law must be obeyed by the law,if not, then what good is it?
josacape 1 year ago
As do I josacape.
It shows a lack of understanding regarding the proper role of government in society & is the basis of the authoritarian mindset. Perhaps the public schools have done too good a job preparing our children to be cogs in someone else's wheel....
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA I am not disdainful of individual rights, I don't like how American people do not want "illegal things" in the country but once it calls for the people to sacrifice 20 seconds of their time to help prevent the things they don't like from being in the country the people wine and give the CBP officers a hard time. I go through a checkpoint every day and I do not mind what-so-ever, I know my rights and respect what the CBP officers are doing. I am happy to do my part for this country
goodr14 1 year ago
Are you under the impression that the American people speak with one voice goodr14/ That the American people actually consist of millions of individuals. That this particular individual has never whined about "illegal things" in the country.
Why do you equate an individual who exercises his rights at such checkpoints with giving CBP officers a hard time? Could it be that CBP officers are giving people who exercise their rights a hard time or can CBP officers do no wrong?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA I am under the impression "That the American people - consist of millions of individuals." captain obvious. I am pointing out that by making a very simple, quick, and painless process that is there to help our country difficult is giving the CBP officers a hard time just because you are solely focused on what is happening to you here and now rather than what those checkpoints do for our country when you are not there doing your best to not help this country stop illegal activities
goodr14 1 year ago
What makes you think the process is painless or quick goodr14? There are several videos online making it clear agents routinely exceed their lawful authority, search absent consent or probable cause, detain for indefinite periods of time absent consent or probable cause or seek to intimidate & harass while ignoring the border they're paid to patrol.
In other words these checkpoints do very little for our country & a lot against it. See the town hall video series I uploaded for details.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA I know it's quick and painless because I have to go through a checkpoint almost every day and it takes me less than 10 seconds on average for the whole stopping, answering a few questions, and leaving.
goodr14 1 year ago
What makes you think your experiences are the same as everyone else's goodr14? I've created a playlist on my channel including quite a few other videos besides my own. Several of these videos show agents attempting to intimidate people into extending the detention or to search even though the individuals answered all their questions at primary.
Further, you miss the primary point. Individuals have no obligation to answer questions from gov't agents at internal suspicionless checkpoints.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA That may be true but by refusing to answer a few very simple questions makes you suspicious and shows that you do not want to help the government slow and/or stop illegal activities.
goodr14 1 year ago
What illegal activities goodr14? Are you accusing me of engaging in illegal activities because I respect the individual rights that so many have allegedly fought & died for in this country that I actually take the time to understand & exercise them?
Does this mean your comments show you do not want to help the people understand their rights, the proper role of gov't & their heritage? That you don't want to help stop wasteful & abusive gov't practices that do little to stop 'illegal activity'?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
I BELIVE DHS IS ALLOWED TO SET UP CHECKPOINTS WITHIN 100 MILES OF THE BORDERS. THE NEXT STEP IS TO START SETTING UP CHECKPOINTS ALONG THE COASTAL BORDERS WITHIN 100 MILES LIKE HIWAYS 1 AND 101 IN CALIFORNIA. THEY ALREADY DID ONE ON THE FREEWAY WAY NORTH OF SAN DIEGO. YOUR PAPERZ PLEEZE
NSA666999 1 year ago
The reality is this country is full of sleepers who have yet to wake up. There is no amount of safety worth giving up your rights for. The border agents should uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, but this is now and Oaths don't mean anything to most, just empty words that need to be repeated to get the job.
thewonderfrog 1 year ago
You could be of two minds about this issue.
You've said yourself in the video... 70-something percent of illegal border traffic is allowed through without adequate checking?
That's a government decision, but like it or not, it's a fact.
So, obviously these internal checkpoints are a "necessary evil" in order to keep the U.S. homeland secure.
If I were you, I'd lobby the government in some way to ask the question
"Is Commerce more important than adequate border security?"
It seems the $ wins.
DingisMcGee 1 year ago
Don't let me stop you DingisMcGee. Lobby away.
Here's another fact for you. Individuals have a right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure. Individuals also have the right to remain silent while being seized & interrogated by gov't agents. They also have a right to privacy & to travel freely within their own country without being molested.
I think I'll continue exercising those rights & show others how they can to while pointing out the government's hypocrisy as you did here.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@checkpointUSA...do you have any suggestions on how these officers could perform their job and not hurt your feelings?
We are at war; in case you don't read the news. We are getting screwed because of people like you. I hope you never have to call upon the people that is trying to protect us all. If you feel you can do a better job, you might want to join the force and do the job yourself.
pajuash 1 year ago
Golly pajuash, I was going to ask you how I could exercise my rights without hurting your feelings.
With regards to the news, I've been watching for over 9 years waiting for that declaration of war everyone keeps yapping about. It seems Congress has better things to do with its time than declare war however..
With regards to those people you claim are just trying to protect us, perhaps they should try protecting us down along the border instead of harassing us along public highways.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA
["There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore." -Henry Hyde]
Great, eh?
josacape 1 year ago
Thanks for the Hyde quote josacape. I remember reading about it when Ron Paul pushed the issue in Congress way back when. Nothing like hearing Congressional representatives overtly thumb their nose at the very document that provides them with legitimacy in the first place. Of course it's ignorant people like pajuash who allow them to get away with it.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
I wonder, with your seemingly learned understanding of "the law", have you any knowledge of the term "Border Nexus"
You might want to look that up.
I must admit though, a very large part of me wants to see you stripped of your citizenship, and dumped in a Juarez shanty town until your small mind has come to terms with the reality of the situation your country is facing.
borderbob1000 1 year ago
Of course you want to see me stripped of my citizenship & dumped in Juarez somewhere borderbob1000. All violent authoritarian punks like you can't stand to see individuals successfully exercise their rights.
Regarding border nexus, if you had a clue you would know this wasn't one. Why do you think I've been able to pass through this checkpoint for the better part of 3 years without stating my citizenship & without going to secondary? Really borderbob, get a clue.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
It seems to me that, often, if we do not keep 'law enforcement' honest, nobody will.
anonymouse14 1 year ago
If the port of entry does not have enough capacity build 300 % more capacity at each and plan to double that also. Not only that but hire another 10,000 BP for the border to work on the border with in a mile.
samten10a 1 year ago
Wow...just....these people, DHS are INSANE! Now, Terry, can BP agents pull you over beyond the 100 miles?
HappyHookerTV 1 year ago
I'm not sure why you feel you have a right to make hard work for the agents whom I think you will find the vast majority support. Only in America will people complain about drug searches being conducted, so stupid... Also why do you feel the need to publicise the names and faces of those agents putting them at risk. It doesn't help your cause but may do great damage
tomminty 1 year ago
I'm not sure why you think government agents have the right to stop, seize, detain, interrogate & search hard working people inside the country absent any individualized suspicion tomminty?
Oh wait, you're from the United Kingdom. That explains your love affair with big government & your contempt for those willing to stand up for their rights.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago 11
I would love to see one of these stunts perform down on I-35 Laredo Tx Checkpoint.
wawover 1 year ago
No stunts or stuntmen were used in the production of this video wawover. Additionally, if the I-35 Laredo TX checkpoint agents need a lesson in individual rights, they're welcome to come on over to the SR-86 Arizona checkpoint for a few sessions instead. I'm an equal opportunity rights activists but Laredo TX is little bit out of my way.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA All I'm saying is that they need a lesson down there too. I'm all against checkpoints too. But I need to educate myself, I admit I'm not as informed about all the laws and how to defend myself if I come acccross one of these checkpoints.
wawover 1 year ago
I'd like to invite everyone to Google the case in question (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte). There is an entire Wiipedia page about it, and it is in NO way clear that the CBP needs some ultra-high probable cause to search. In fact not only did the court rule that these checkpoints do NOT violate the 4th amendment, they specifically said that their PC bar for searches was LOW. CheckpointUSA obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is to undermine the security of the US.
ericcox2 1 year ago
If the Supreme Court did indeed state there is a lesser standard for probable cause at these checkpoints, it should be easy enough for you to cite the pertinent part of the ruling ericcox2. The fact that you didn't makes it obvious as to what your agenda is. Nonetheless, I'll give you a second bite at the apple. Post your evidence for all to see.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Don;t forget to address U.S. v Ortiz while you;re at it ericcox2:
“The 4th Amendment held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from the border & its functional equivalents, & for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint & a roving patrol.” - U.S. V Ortiz
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
"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
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
And just so that we're clear on the court's intent in Martinez-Fuerte ericcox2:
"The principal protection of Fourth Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop." - Justice Powell U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte
So would it be safe to say that your agenda is to undermine the security of the US by ignoring the actual border in favor of harassing domestic traffic absent suspicion inside the country instead?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Gosh ericcox2, you've had well over a week to respond to my comments and prove your allegations. What's the holdup?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
I wish you would upload more. My heroes are normal ppl, and your one of em. It takes guts to do what your doing, and we should all be doing it. I do agree with 4409 tho, this is not about fear of mexicans, it's another attempt at an federalized national ID card.
snowfallzz 1 year ago
I would only like this video cause im a CBP officer and this guy is a d bag who has no idea about CBP federal authority
agallor6 1 year ago
@agallor6: The CBP officer here must also has no idea about his federal authority, since he's trying to exceed it.
Pafoofnik1 1 year ago
just remember, it's public outrcry that has caused so much focus to shift to the southern border to look for illegal migrants. That public outcry is loudest in Arizona -- where you shot this video.
MatxoMan 1 year ago
your organization are a bunch of commies who should be jailed and put away as american traders....why don't you to a mexican checkpoint and try the crap you tried at the given checkpoint!!!! You will be arrested or even killed!!!
airvaz03 1 year ago
For someone claiming to be 49 on his YouTube channel, you sure don't have a clue about communism or what it means to be an American airvaz03. Imagine being accused of being a communist for exercising one's rights while being seized absent suspicion by armed federal agents at an internal Homeland Security checkpoint setup along a public highway.
BTW, you should learn to spell airvaz03. When you accuse someone of being an 'American trader', it makes you look more ignorant than you obviously are.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago 5
@CheckpointUSA: Maybe airvaz03 thought you were like Michael Milken...
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Michael Milken the junk bond king? I must be slightly obtuse tonight since I'm not making the connection...
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Michael Milken, the 'American trader' (in junk bonds).
DavidForthoffer 1 year ago
Now I get it - that's good....
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
i wish you would come to houlton maine! if you tried this stuff here they would cuff you stuff you and really man handle you while getting away with it ! They have had their dogs really hurt other animals who where with their elderly owners on vacation ! They have arrested people and tased them for simply asking to not infringe on their rights !! PLEASE come to maine with your campain and help us mainers who need the outside help !! I will pay your expenses !!!
daveancrystal 1 year ago
I've been following a story from your neck of the woods where a Maine citizen by the name of Neal Begin was recently shot & killed by 2 Border Patrol agents & a Maine state trooper at his house close to the border. Both DHS & the State of Maine refuse to release any additional information about the incident - at least until their 'investigation' is complete.
Did you hear about this incident and/or have any additional info?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
BTW daveancrystal, I've written a few articles about checkpoints in Northern Maine. You can find them on my website and blog.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
bravo!
someone has to keep watching these fukn pigs.
these asholes are all smiles now, but wait until their usefulness to the new world order is done.
the new world order will treat them like the guys were treated at the end of the movie "casino."
BernieMadoffLMAO 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shamz24 1 year ago
As far as 1070....dont make shit up. The law is very clear. An officer MUST have PROBABLE CAUSE to stop a vehicle or engage in dialouge with a subject. ONCE PC HAS BEEN MET, the officer, if in the scope of his investigation of a crime ALREADY IN PROGRESS, determines a person to be illegal, then he can arrest...continued...
Shamz24 1 year ago
What did I make up about Arizona's SB 1070 Shamz24? Please quote what I said that you claim is wrong along with the source so we're all on the same page.
With regards to your false claim that probable cause is required under SB 1070, you may want to actually read it. I have. Here's the pertinent section:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL ...WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES..."
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@Shamz24 Boot licking govt trash. LOL. You are a slave. Border patrol is dumbed down unconstitutional trash
ryno99 1 year ago
What they did was wrong. But what Border Patrol does is not wrong AT ALL. And to try to suggest so is just irresponsible. Just tell people how it is. You were mistreated once by law enforcement and now you want to cry about it for the rest of your life...continued...
Shamz24 1 year ago
Here's your chance Shamz24. Please point out which statements in this video are wrong. I notice that you've failed to refute any specific thing that I've actually said.
I on the other hand have gone to great lengths to document my experiences & back up my statements with independently verifiable facts on my website & blog along with these videos wherever possible.
So please, enlighten us as to what I've stated that is false while backing it up with your own independently verifiable facts.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shamz24 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shamz24 1 year ago
CheckpointUSA, this takes place in Arizona, yes? Will you be making a video in response to the new law that was just passed in your state that gives broad power to law enforcement to check for immigration status? Since it is (apparently) illegal to remain silent when asked about your immigration status now, how will this effect how you handle the checkpoints?
One more thing: You are awesome. I hope all is well, brother.
Mekel343 1 year ago
If I'm stopped by an officer in relation to the statute you refer to, you can be sure I'll make a video of it Mekel343.
It's my understanding the statute will empower state enforcers to stop individuals for immigration queries when there is reasonable suspicion to believe an individual is here illegally. The statute cannot lawfully compel an individual to answer such queries. As such, the situation would be analagous to these checkpoints. They can briefly stop but they can't compel compliance.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
CheckpointUSA, Thanks for posting these great videos and for 'attempting' to educate the masses. Unfortunately, some just don't 'get it'! Why argue with them? Let them learn the hard way! THANKFULLY, their refusal to take advantage of the education you provide free of charge, doesn't impact our Rights i.e. cannot be taken away collectively! Beautiful thing is, we can still volunteer our rights away if we so choose! That's the double edge sword of freedom! Ignorance and freedom cannot co-exist!
bythedog 1 year ago 11
Usually my responses aren't so much geared towards the original commenter but for readers in general. By engaging & debunking the arguments of those who callously disregard individual rights, I not only educate myself but others who aren't necessarily familiar with the issue.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
The blue uniformed personnel are known as US Customs and Border Protection officers rather than "agents". The uniformed personnel in green are known as border patrol agents rather than "officers".
fake1009 1 year ago
Thank you CheckpiontUSA for standing up for our rights! Even for these people that doesn't deserve them. A lot of people wouldn't have the guts to do what u do.
Sharky8186 1 year ago
unfortunately, the people who are most likely to be caught at a USBP checkpoint are those who are least likely to have the money or expertise to know and defend their const. rights.
FishscaleRaw 1 year ago
you sir are my hero
viva la raza (just kidding)
FishscaleRaw 1 year ago
Just for the record, if they are in green they are agents, if they are blue they are officers So it's Officer Ballentin and Officer Unyor.
G19PX4 1 year ago
A giant, gaping asshole....
Who just happens to have no life. Why aren't you at work? It's funny when you think about it. These officers have a great job, great benefits, and a life outside of work. They go home to their families and forget about the day.
You, OTOH, spend all of your time and energy recording checkpoints. It's obvious that this consumes your life and causes you much grief.
Really funny, actually.
drbne313 1 year ago
@drbne313 Actually, I have a very full life, thanks for asking.
Unfortunately, agents of the govt keep on interfering with it by seizing me absent suspicion & demanding I answer investigatory questions I have no legal obligation to answer.
Why do you hate to see individuals exercising their rights anyway drbne313?
Do you hate individual rights? How about the principles this country was founded on? Why are you incapable of expressing yourself without resorting to vulgarities?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago 2
Part 4
By you refusing to answer immigration questions, you are opening yourself up to suspicion, which would allow them to detain you further. You're lucky that they don't and let you on your way, even though you refused to answer a lawful question.
In the time that it takes to answer simple, brief questions, a dog could sniff your car legally without suspicion.
Their conduct just happens to be well within the law. You sir, just happen to be a giant, gaping asshole.
drbne313 1 year ago
@drbne313 Looks like your true nature is coming out with your reliance on profanity to make your point. Nonetheless, let me help relieve you of your misconceptions:
U.S. vs 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 1 year ago
@drbne313 invoking your right to remain silent would be suspicious? Wow Im pretty sure ive seen case law that says otherwise.
Yeah Im right. Invoking your rights is not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity nor probable cause to detain or search
YllwFvrPB 1 year ago
Part 3
These officers aren't intimidating anyone. According to all of you're videos, the officers were polite and professional. They continuously repeated questions to you. All you have to do is say "U.S. Citizen" and you're on your way. The checkpoints are absolutely legal and within the law. Until they are not, you are required to stop your vehicle, and answer simple immigration questions.
drbne313 1 year ago
@drbne313 Actually, I don't have to say anything at all.
There is no law that compels me to answer investigatory questions from armed agents of the government who have seized me absent suspicion no where near the border.
The 4th & 5th amendments explicitly protect me from being so compelled as do various Supreme Court rulings.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Part 2
30% of illegal activity at the border is a huge number. It would be literally impossible to catch 100% of illegal activity at a POE. That would involve stopping and physically searching every traveler, and every vehicle, and also x-raying every vehicle. It is unconstitutional to physically search an individual's person at the border without suspicion (one articulated fact).
drbne313 1 year ago
@drbne313 It's literally impossible to stop 100% of any criminal activity anywhere. Nonetheless, these agents have far more leeway at the actual border than inside the country to detain and search.
As such, if they really want to secure the border, it should be done on the border or its functional equivalent, not along highways inside the country no where near it.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Well sir, you have a poor grasp of law and SOP, as apparent by --all-- of your videos.
A dog sniff is not a search and the supreme court has ruled it requires zero suspicion, let alone probable cause. Federal laws allow checkpoints within 75 miles of an international border. The checkpoint need not be a direct road from the border, only a route.
The officer was not attempting to open the compartment, according to your video. The officer was tapping the object per SOP. Not a search.
drbne313 1 year ago
@drbne313 Perhaps you should go back & re-read those SCOTUS cases.
The court has never upheld the use of drug sniffing dogs at suspicionless immigration checkpoints. Rather, they've upheld their use by police during traffic stops based upon probable cause as long as the length of the stop isn't increased due to the use of the dog.
Additionally, the court has struck down the use of general law enforcement & drug checkpoints in Indianapolis v Edmond.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
As a US citizen, and of minority decent, I am fine with CBP asking me questions (and for my citizenship).
I'm tired of all the illegals in Tucson! There is too much violence! If we are sheep, then the bad people are wolves! And if the sheriffs/police/law enforcement officials are the "sheepdogs," then let then go after the wolves. Sometimes they hide behind sheep's clothing. And if its CBP, what do I have to hide? What is the price of my freedom?
congabeat 2 years ago
You're perfectly welcome to waive your rights & submit to unreasonable searches & seizures as often as you deem appropriate congabeat.
You have no right to demand the same of others however & doing so will have no effect on the level of violence in the Tucson area.
Indeed, the very agency you're willing to surrender your rights to for the illusion of increased security routinely allows over 70% of major illegal activity to pass through ports of entry so as to not inconvenience border commerce.
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
Okay, let's use your line of thought. "Constitutional violation" occurs when gov't goes against the laws they create.
Currently, they only need 'mere suspicion' to pull me over (Title 19). If your info is correct on percentage "of major illegal activity to pass through ports of entry..", probable cause only increases the %. If you & i can't search people (unless you're an agent), what would you propose in preventing the "70%" of illegals from getting in to the U.S.? People who breaks laws- lie.
congabeat 1 year ago
Actually, Constitutional violations occur when govt goes against the Constitution. When govt goes against laws its creates, hypocrisy & illegal acts occur.
Inside the country, agents need rs to conduct roving patrol stops & no suspicion for checkpoint stops. Agents can divert to secondary on mere or no suspicion for the sole purpose of brief immigration queries that can't be made at primary due to heavy traffic. Any further detention or searching requires consent or probable cause however.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Illegal acts against the constitution is a violation- it's the same thing.
But you need to clarify- everyone knows where the checkpoints are, even the illegals. Agents enforce drugs and smuggling laws (illegal crap). What smuggler is ever going to consent to a search? "No suspicion" at a checkpoint can't go backwards to probable cause. PC has to be established first (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S.). We all have to stop at the checkpoint and they only need mere suspicion to search.
congabeat 1 year ago
I don't know where you're getting your info congabeat but it's wrong. SCOTUS has made clear that consent or probable cause are needed to search at internal checkpoints:
The 4th Amendment held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from the border & its functional equivalents, & for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint & a roving patrol - U.S. V Ortiz
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Well, I got my info from your statement a day ago when you said, "... agents need rs to conduct roving patrol stops & no suspicion for checkpoint stops." If you're wrong, you tell me?
Looking at CBP's website, BP celebrated its 85th Anniversary. Quote from site," The Purpose: To combat the illegal entry of aliens, contraband, and the flow of illicit liquor from Mexico and Canada into the United States."
The only thing that is in addition to their jobs- they also have to look for terrorists.
congabeat 1 year ago
This really gets old after a while congabeat. Try to pay attention will you.
There's a difference between a stop at a checkpoint and a search at a checkpoint. A stop can be conducted at a reasonably located limited scope internal checkpoint absent suspicion. A search however MUST be premised on consent or probable cause.
You do understand the difference between a stop and a search don't you?
If not, I suggest you figure it out before leaving anymore comments.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Additionally, congabeat while the "jobs' of CBP agents may be all those things you list above, the Supreme Court has made clear that the primary purpose of an internal checkpoint MUST be limited to brief immigration queries with any further detention based upon that pesky consent and probable cause again.
If agents use the pretext of an immigration checkpoint stop to detain people to look for terrorists, drugs or illicit liquor, those agents are violating the law. So says SCOTUS.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Here's another SCOTUS quote to drive the point home:
U.S. vs 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.'"
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
"What smuggler is ever going to consent to a search?"
You have of course hit on an important point regarding this issue. For a checkpoint to have any chance of being effective, individuals passing through them must either be ignorant of their rights or intimidated into waiving their rights.
The 1st scenario doesn't speak well of individuals within society while the 2nd scenario doesn't speak well of government agents.
Anyway you slice it, checkpoints are a poor choice of enforcement tools.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
The info I posted regarding major illegal activity passing through ports of entry was from various studies conducted by the GAO. You can watch my checkpoint town hall meeting videos to hear it first hand from the horse's mouth.
At port's of entry, agents have far more legal leeway to seize, detain, interrogate & search then they do at checkpoints inside the country.
The GAO stated the only reason why they don't is because they don't want to burden border traffic & commerce.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Illegals prefer to avoid the port's of entry. That's why Border Patrol works outside of the port's of entry. So, do you think they'd be driving a car/truck between the ports? If not, their marching in the dry heat (and I see them)!
In the end, the deadly stuff is going to be brought across on land (north or south). It's not going to come on a boat or plane (too much security measures- w/help from other countries). Mexico & Canada doesn't want to help us. They want us to spend it first.
congabeat 1 year ago
Additionally, a GAO report revealed that border operations result in ~118 illegal border crosser interdictions per agent per year in the Tucson sector as opposed to ~6 interdictions per agent per year at internal checkpoints.
As such, the numbers speak for themselves. If the government was serious about border security, it would be beefing up actual border operations, not harassing domestic traffic inside the country.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
We have more freedoms here than in any other country. Better that other countries where the gov't can take everything (your family, your spouse, your land, your money) for the sake of politician's pocket books. Does it sound appealing to live in North Korea? Nigeria? Yemen? Somalia? Cuba? Venezuela? Colombia?
No offense to the people, just the hatred that is in those places. Americans are the most hated people on the planet. And they-non U.S.- still want to live here! Crazy!!
congabeat 1 year ago
yes we are the best place to live but we can't rest on our laurels. we must be ever vigilant of our rights as should you.
"Never should the Liberties of man be sacrificed in the name of Justice" -Andrew Jackson
macchef01 1 year ago
Apparently there is a Title 19 of the Codes of Federal Regulations- listed as "Customs Duties." There is more to Title 19 that we cannot see. Civilians cannot view this portion, but a request for public disclosure could be submitted. But in it, it talks about the extended jurisdiction, which is described as a "Border Nexus" in which it is legal for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to conduct searches. I am aware of this as I reside in the "zone" in which this Title 19 has designated.
congabeat 2 years ago
"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
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
Why aren't we reasearching the uses & effects of marijuana. Why do we continue the illegalization of it? Makes no sense. Because some cotton growers lobbied to stop hemp as a competative textile.
RikterZilla 2 years ago
The uses and effects of hemp have been researched.
You can't blame a cotton grower for trying to make money. You can blame a candidate for accepting the contribution though.
MyRanchMyRules 2 years ago
Research is minimul. It is known to helf people with Multiple Sclerosis, Glaucoma & recovering cancer patients. It remains illegal with benefits both medical & textile. As well it was a convenientently linked to african slaves to garner acceptance as an illegal substance.
RikterZilla 2 years ago
they do not have more discretion at border crossings...thats a lie!!! they feed on submisive races such as Mexicans to feed on their power.
pglorenap 2 years ago
You are a hero. thank you.
LumpyRevolution 2 years ago 7
Keep up the good work !!!
Gestapo bullshit, I think these fuckers want a "Heil Hitler"
bigsammieking 2 years ago
oh my god...
justanothersheeple 2 years ago
Nazi Police at their best
sengoku17 2 years ago 3
keep up the good work exposing these fat coward bastards who stand around in their pathetic uniforms acting like the fucking nazis that they are!!
It takes a man of true courage and intellect to brazenly square off with these slugs in the middle of the desert and stand up for the rights and laws that thousands have died for. you are a true patriot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
anu60wds 2 years ago 4
This looks like a Nazi police state....the USA is becoming a huge police state and Americans are losing their "freedoms" and Constitutional rights. It makes me laugh when you hear those stupid Americans saying that their "beloved" U.S. troops are overseas fighting and dying to protect their constitutional rights and "freedoms". Such BULL SHIT....America is gone....America is dead.
1EarthCitizen 2 years ago 5
how do i do this and still take care of my family...im sure this is a question you get often......other than revolution how do us family men resolve this?
jknight1972 2 years ago 4
It's a tough question but for me not doing something is untenable. If we don't do something while something can still be done, what legacy will our children inherit?
May I suggest a combination of the following:
* Organize with like minded individuals
* Know who has your back
* Have a plan (you don't have to always follow it but you do need one)
* Know your rights & the law
* Exercise your rights within the law
* Document & publicize encounters with public servants
* Keep your cool
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
You are a man to be admired, Checkpoint USA . More importantly your stance against these power hungry officials should be the catalist to get people off their behinds, and follow your example.
I take my hat off to you!
Keep up the good work!
probrs 2 years ago 4
Thank you, CheckpointUSA, for warning people about these highwaymen.
TackleTheWorld 2 years ago 7
pluralize a word
ncmike36 2 years ago
I was linked to this video from elsewhere. Thought it would be interesting. I didn't watch it because you used an apostrophe to pluralize (Port's).
No person who uses apostrophes to pluralize a words has ever said anything worthy of consideration.
ncmike36 2 years ago
Has anyone who has ever pluralized a word incorrectly (words) ever said anything worthy of consideration ncmike36?
Looks like you fixed your mistake. So did I....
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
This is not a port of entry, why is customs in force? wow DHS has some things to get in order. Janet Napalitano needs to get off her fat ass and do something
jvorus 2 years ago 3
Good vids but the camera-snapshot effect is annoying and adds nothing.
RidleyReport 2 years ago
it takes still pictures. So it adds more evidence for him.
jvorus 2 years ago
This coming from the creator of the videos I can't even watch any more due to the absolutely ridiculous plugs you do before each video... how ironic. They bring nothing to the video but paint you as a clown void of any meaningful purpose. You can do it seriously as to not discredit yourself in the eyes of many.
teebteeb1268 2 years ago
FREEE KEEEENE DOTT COMMMMMMMMMM
RidleyReport 2 years ago
Hmm, gives me an idea next time I smuggle 6 kilos methamphetamine. Bring a video camera along to divert the attenton of "border" patrol into thinking I just want to harrass them when really I'm trying to make a hundred thou.
scwam 2 years ago
lol haha
jvorus 2 years ago
Awesome work you are doing. I have alot of family in the border patrol (one is even a judge for immigration) and should forward them your site and see what they have to say for themselves.
MujerWOW 2 years ago
you should inform them that they have an obligation to the constitution, not to their superiors. "following orders" or "just doing my job", is not an excuse for violating the rights of others. They need to question each order they are given. And THEY need to refuse it, if its not constitutional. Until they start to correct themselves this is going to get further and further out of control.
d3adp001 2 years ago 2
@d3adp001 Bring a lawsuit the cops can't do anything about it.
jackooboy1 2 years ago
I dont understand your reply.
d3adp001 2 years ago
How do you know his name is "Border Bob"?
kmikesell 2 years ago
He left a few comments on my blog and identified himself in a different encounter that I'll be posting sometime in the near future.
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
where is their traffic control permit, did they submit a traffic control plan to the county for approval? and did they pay for the permit? This always gets some fun interactions with the BP You need to come down to so cal, we have all kinds of fun, there is no way they would let you pass if you had a camera on them
d3adp001 2 years ago