I admire you for standing up for your rights. I don't have the guts and would just comply. But as soon as you refuse they think you have something to hide and will usually harass you until you give in. I think the camera made all the difference.
Notice the way he phrases how he directs you to secondary. "Can I have you pull into secondary?" He's asking for your consent so it can't be challenged later in court. Always make them give you an ORDER, before you comply. Say, "Are you ordering me to secondary?" If he says something like "I'm just asking that you pull into secondary", tell him you will not voluntarily consent to any requests, but you will comply with lawful orders. Always clarify that it's an order before you do it.
@BigTuna77777 Because warrants need to come from a judge. This takes a lot of time and cannot be obtained without probable cause. There was no probable cause. If they wanted to get a warrant for every single person crossing the border, it would 1. be unconstitutional and 2. a total unnecessary waste of time and money.
This did not take place at the port of entry. "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search." U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)
@weinmanjoe said: "if they have reasonable suspicion they can search without consent"
The Supreme Court disagrees with you:
CITE: "...Border Patrol's routine stopping... for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants... any further detention or search must be based on [the greater showing of] consent or probable cause"
SOURCE: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
If you look in the rear view mirror @ :45 seconds, you can see a person on the bridge holding a weapon, and looking through a scope, Im assuming at the vehicles going in the opposite direction! Total POLICE STATE at its finest!!!!!
I NEED INFO ON CBP OFFICER EMERY ( FEMALE BRUNETTE) AT DETROIT TUNNEL, CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME PLEASE WHAT LEVEL OF EDUCATION DOES SHE HAVE? I WANT TO KNOW WHAT DID SHE TAKE IN COLLEGE ? ALSO I WANT TO KNOW IF SHE WAS ABUSED INA CHILDHOOD BY A WOMAN? WHO IS HER FAMILY DOCTOR AND WHEN WAS HER HORMONAL TEST LAST TIME TAKEN?
Dude you did fucking awesome, good job pulling over to secondary too and not losing your cool, keeping your calm and enforcing your rights calmly totally stumped the officers, God I love this tape man once again awesome job.
I'm 18. About 2 hours ago (3:30 in the morning) went to see a friend and her sister (both 16). I was going down the road, a cop turned onto the road I was on, I turned right to meet my friend. He "thought I was avoiding him." Asked to search my car, declined, and he said he was taking me to jail for "harboring two runaways" because they snuck out. I told him I was making one phone call (the watch commander for the PD who I've known since i was born) and he let me go with a "contact notification"
I'm a former police officer for both military and civilian law enforcement agencies. I passed through a border patrol check point 1 week ago and was detatined because their K9 got a "hit" on my vehicle. They conducted an illegal search into my pockets and the K9 and the 4 border patrol agents who went through my vehicle searching for illegal drugs found nothing! It's not enough to just know your rights, having video of their actions holds them accountable and keeps you safe! Way to go man!
@Blahblobify Your statement fails on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. It shows that you have no understanding of what America was built on both in theory and in physical and plitical scale. I pray you get some education sometime in the near future. Ignorant is no way to go through life
These idiots just don't want to be recorded for moving outside of their jurisdiction which is to find illegals into searches for drugs. Checkpoints for unwarranted drug searches are illegal period. Doesn't matter that I hate illegal drugs and the idiots that take them - the law is the law and these guys don't get to break it just cause they wear a DHS badge.
@superwilkes This video exemplifies citizens standing up for constitutional rights. If you don't believe in citizens having rights then move to North Korea.
Maybe you should pay attention. I did not object to the citizenship question but rather I refused to consent to a search. You're wasting your time by trying to insult me with words like "fuckshit".
Again, you're wasting your time trying to get under my skin. You're implying that the agent wanted to search my trunk based on what I look like? That's a pretty damning indictiment.
Why would saying that they wanted to look in your trunk because of what you look like be a bad thing? I don't buy the "derhh...profiling is racist an bad" bullshit. Do you?
@donhector87 Good job man, idiots like this who want to stay ignorant of the law and the rights that many men gave them through the sacrifice of their life don't deserve your time.
@donhector87 Besides, I'm pretty sure Blahblobify would feel a lot safer living in a country like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, I would suggest him to move to North Korea as soon as possible.
Yes thank you WE KNOW it doesn't happen right at the border. These are modern times, with highways and cars that go a mile a minute, crossing the border and getting to a road means we don't have checkpoints right the fuck on an imaginary line anymore. You sure do like letting mexicans into the country don't you?
At least you pulled over to secondary. But you have the right to refuse to be search without a warrant. You did well man! You have the right to record in your own personal property.
U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte (1976) Says that it is legall and not a violation of you 4th amendment rights to conduct "suspicionless searches and seizures" at fixed international checkpoints. Sorry, there was nothing wrong with this.
@Rangerfan41 No, guess again. Here is a direct quote from US vs Marinez-Fuerte: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search"
Donhector87, thank you for uploading this video and thank you for continuing to educate people on our constitutional freedoms and liberties. Also thank you for always recording, it is a necessity these days. Abuse of power is rampant.
this person shows how its done ! he was outstanding ! in the face of the beast he kept his composure ! I will share this video with every video activist I know ! thanks for standing up to the INS pigs ! I remember who was here first !
@donhector87 Your video exemplifies a man who is sick and tired of watching his fellow countrymen get shafted by money hungry bank-ruled governments. Good on yer.
Did the contents of the video not match the title? Your question exemplifies the ignorance, apathy, or fear that opens the way for government intrusion into our private lives to go unchecked.
@nate1980blood stop brown nosing those dirty fucking border patrol already those fuckers used to pull me over just because my car was too clean and they told this guy because it's too dirty!? they just make up excuses to waste our time and it's bullshit!!!!
Your stubbornness is sad. What you’re arguing is moot yet I’m willing to grant you every bit of it because it is irrelevant. Legally sending me to secondary does not create legal authority to search my trunk nor does it make it likely that my trunk will be searched (hence the failed attempts) which is why it is more of a nuisance to be sent to secondary rather than an invasion of privacy. While I understand you’re proud of what your professor taught you, your point is frivolous.
@Rangerfan41 said: "...suspicionless searches were found constitutional by the Supreme court...you have to let them search if they want at a checkpoint."
This is not true at this type of checkpoint. The court case you have cited actually affirms this:
CITE: "...Border Patrol's routine stopping... for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants... any further detention or search must be based on... consent or probable cause"
SOURCE: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
I thought I was fairly clear the first time. You’re making a straw man argument. Trying to prove legal authority to send me to secondary is inconsequential and useless to your position until you figure out a way to conjecture a violation of immigration law from the premise of a "dirty vehicle". I will continue to successfully deflect search attempts both at primary and at secondary and anywhere else. This video is merely one example of this. I am glad you enjoyed it.
Even if everything you stated was true, you still have not addressed the main issue of this video nor proved that I am wrong; searches are unconstitutional unless there is consent or probable cause to search. You’re making a straw argument. I have a very similar video where I do the exact same thing except I stay at primary. Again, I am let go in less than two minutes with my property unsearched. Your point is inconsequential at best.
@donhector87 U.S. vs Martinez-Fruerte (1976) says what they did WAS constitutional...so try again sir. I am sorry, but in this case the agents were well withing the law. Don't forget, also, these guys get death threats, and dont like their faces all over the Internet, so show some respect, next time edit out their faces.
@Rangerfan41 =However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search". If they search my car without reasonable suspicion, I will paste there faces all over the internet!
@Pafoofnik1 gimme a break guy...being evasive in these particular field contacts should be enough for PC to arrest....in my opinion of course...good luck in any case bud.
Not only did I successfully deflect a search that I felt was unreasonable while filming it, I also was let go in less than two minutes. It was not I who was upset by the end of the video and there's no reason for me to go to court. More viewers have liked this video than not which is satisfying enough for me.
Does anyone besides me realize that they must fill these border patrol positions with embeciles who have no knowledge of contituional or common law rights. This means they are not qualified to fill the position. I personally think that we the People should excercise our "redress of grievance" until this mutation og government is changed. Very soon we must stop this horseshit.
is within my area of control and it just won't happen.. I'm not the bad guy, but I'm the presumed bad guy by them.. they don't like people rockin' the boat, ya know..
Well done my man. They are so used to sheeple being drones and just saying "sure, go through my stuff". People need to wake up, it is illegal to just pick people out and search their vehicles...it's called profiling.
@Je3Re3My55 basically, I don't need anyone to tell me what to say.. you won't look up my wifes dress, you won't watch me change my socks and you won't search my truck.. those are just the facts.. certain things go on in my area of control and my stuff bein' searched w/o probable cause based on oath or affirmation that I have committed a crime or I'm about to commit a crime, signed by a Judge and delivered to the place in question as they try and contest my 4th Amendment Right to be secure..
the technology of today is so sophisticated so they can see trace drugs or illegals, they should have pulled the dogs or ran x-ray on your car. It is simply, that they are trying to do their job and you should not interfere with them trying to protect the United States borders. I am a trucker and have to go thru the checkpoints all the time and I do comply,Do not deter them, they have a very hard job. Want you put the camera down and apply for their position, they are trained this way.
A stop is always based on reasonable suspicion. Then entry is based on probable cause. When an officer of the law is able to properly articulate these standards of law based on his training and observation, he is doing what he is supposed to do. The standards and training are set by common law rulings. These officers must not have had enough R.S. of P.C. to continue. Fellow law men, be vigorous and energetic, but respect the Constitutionl-always.
Anybody and everybody who travels along a road that a checkpoint is on is NOT giving off "reasonable suspicion", they're just going from point A to point B, which is 100% LEGAL
Using that forced stop that has no reasonable suspicion to generate some kind of probable cause is 100% pure unadulterated BULLSHIT because it presumes guilt before innocence, which is NOT the way it works.
@NinjaRider777R I understand your ideas. I have seen border checkpoints at I 5 in San Diego and also near Laredo. The youngsters ran a dog around my van at Laredo. They never took me out of the Van. And we probably look more Hispanic than Anglo. Of course we are completey law abiding. We made out fine but we don't start shouting at agents either.
It's hard to argue there was any shouting in this video or that I was even slightly disrespectful. You must have your speakers up way too high. I did what I had to do and anyone who cares about privacy would have done the same.
@lonerangersheriff None of these checkpoints is effective at catching the illegals and drug dealers they say they're trying to catch because they stay in one place for months at a time. Long term checkpoints are counterproductive.
With the license plate recognition scanners and facial scanners running at all these checkpoints, stopping people to find out citizenship is useless, they already know who you are by the time you reach the point man.
Today's, atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists, are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
you are a dush bro, we have border patrol for a reason, their was no reason to give them a hard time, their doing their jobs. you should at least be happy they are checking vehicles instead of letting the whole world in the U.S.
You moron. There is NOTHING illegal about this. You should probably learn a few things about the United States Code, the CFR, and the Immigration and Nationallity Act. Also, I would've taken your ass out of the car, and taken your camera which is legal and has been held up in the courts. Shmuck.
You're obviously not aware of the constraints placed on agents working at these types of checkpoints are you? Do you know that immigration checkpoints were upheld purely for immigration purposes? Are you aware that crime control checkpoints are unconstitutional? Do you know why I made sure I caught on tape the agent failing to indicate there was any reason to believe I was breaking immigration law? I think it is you who needs to study the law in its entirety.
@donhector87 I am more aware than you will EVER be. A Federal Agent doesn't need to tell you SQUAT. You should be thanking him. They deal with terrorists, Barrio Atzteca, MS 13, and cartels. The last thing they need is to be bothered by some spoiled kid with too much time, and too few brain cells. Get a clue. Where is it that YOU studied law? How do you know that he was sure you weren't in violation of 8 USC 1325? You don't. Also, a resonable person doesn't act like an ass at a checkpoint.
While a federal agent doesn't need to tell us squat iamslknick78, neither do we have to tell a federal agent squat - especially when that agent has seized us at a suspicionless checkpoint along a public highway inside the country. See how that works?
BTW, federal agents who so seize individuals inside the country while failing to do their job securing the border don't deserved to be thanked, they deserve to be chastised for their contempt of individual rights.
"Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status" - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte
"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
"any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause.” - U.S. v Brignoni-Ponce
@donhector87 1. Martinez is the case that UPHELD the legallity of checkpoints, drop that one. 2. Edmond is irrelevant as it is NOT based on Federal law. 3 Brigoni has NOTHING to do with checkpoints, it has to do with patrol stops, HUGE difference. An agent doesn't need probable cause to send you to secondary at a checkpoint even if he believe you are a US citizen, he needs resonable suspicion. You have NO idea what you're talking about. FYI, Google and Wikipedia is NOT an education. You're dumb.
You call that a counterargument? Just because a case upholds something does not mean it does not place restrictions. City of Indianapolis was decided by the Supreme Court. The "any further detention" piece was reiterated in Martinez-Fuerte because it is relevant or at least the Supreme Court felt it is. You should take the time to read these cases. You should try to learn how to argue because you are doing a very very weak job; hence the constant ad-hominem.
@donhector87 I have read the entire decisions. You don't understand them. A border patrol agent needs reasonable suspicion, NOT probable cause of criminal activity to hold you at a check point. When you understand the difference between mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause, then we can talk. The FACT is that I'm right. All of you silly twits put these videos online saying you were illegally searched, but why not go to court? Where is it that you studied law? Nowhere?
@donhector87 Indianapolis has NOTHING to do with this because state, local, and federal authorities are different. Furthermore they don't want you taping because there's a bounty on BPAs from the cartels. Like I said before, I would take your camera for officer safety. Quit being an instigator and do something with your life. When you go to court and win let me know. You won't. The problem with YouTube is that people like you get on here and spread stupidity and ignorance, selling it as fact.
Go to court? I successfully deflected a search I felt was unreasonable. If "the fact is" that you're right and i'm wrong, why is it that I left with my camera in my possession and my privacy uninvaded? This is not my only video where this happens. Do you know something these agents do not? If so, what is it?
@donhector87 You're all over the place. The fact that you left with your camera is relevant to what? What did you deflect? He asked for consent and you said no. What exactly was illegal?
You said "Indianapolis has NOTHING to do with this because state, local, and federal authorities are different." It absolutely does affect these checkpoints because it is a Fourth Amendment issue. There are many scholarly articles that discuss this case. Some argue that the decision was erroneous because it opens the door for more problems. One fact remains: CHECKPOINT SEARCHES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THERE IS CONSENT OR PROBABLE CAUSE. Show me where it says otherwise.
@donhector87 You don't even know what you're arguing. These agents did NOTHING wrong. They asked for consent, you said no, they didn't search your car. So what "illegal" happened? It's not illegal for an agent to ask for consent. So what was "illegal"? You gave them reasonable suspicion to send you to secondary. Why is it that you stopped the camera? My guess is that you started to cry. You still didn't tell me where you studied law. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Do you know the definition of attempt? I was sent to secondary after the agent admitted there was no reason to believe I had broken immigration law and after I declined to consent to a search. This is an immigration checkpoint, not a crime control checkpoint. The second agent insisted on searching my trunk when there was no consent or probable cause. I stopped the camera because it was time for me to drive away obviously.
@donhector87 They asked for consent. That's it. Nothing illegal happened. The agent admitted NOTHING. If your car is dirty like you've been driving through the desert, that's enough articulatable facts for reasonable suspicion to send you to secondary. What do you do for a living? It's not law or law enforcement. I'm guessing you sit at home (with your parents) and play on your computer all day. If you're right, WHY does this happen, WHY hasn't it been shut down in the courts? Get an education.
Agents need consent or probable cause to either extend a detention or search at these checkpoints iamslknick78. If the agent directed the vehicle to secondary because he thought the driver had driven in the desert, a perfectly legal & common activity in Southern AZ, then the agent impermissibly extended the detention & it's scope. So says Scotus with quote to follow...
In U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte, SCOTUS considered what conditions a vehicle could be sent to secondary for iamslknick78. In the court's own words, here it is:
"We think defendants overstate the consequences. Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine & limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy.”
You'll notice no reference to 'driving in the desert' as being a legitimate reason for diverting to secondary.
The court also stated: "...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....& 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.'"
You see if the secondary diversion isn't to check immigration status, then it represents an extended detention requiring consent or pc - neither of which the agents had here iamslknick78
Your frustration after seeing people assert their rights sends a thrill up my spine and puts an enormous smile on my face. You completely ignored my point about indianapolis being a fourth amendment case yet I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about? Your arguments, if I can even call them that, are not worth trying to refute. THOSE OF US WHO BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY WILL CONTINUE TO ASSERT OUR RIGHTS. IF THAT BOTHERS YOU, THAT'S JUST TOO BAD.
@donhector87 You're an idiot. WHERE did you study law? You didn't. Like I said Google is not an education. You're not asserting your rights, you're being a pain in the ass to the people that make sure you sleep well at night.
Armed Border Patrol agents harassing & intimidating domestic traffic inside the country at suspicionless checkpoints no where near the border they're paid to patrol aren't making sure we sleep well at night iamslknick78, they're walking all over the very rights these agents allegedly exist to protect. Good try with the newspeak though.
Actually SCOTUS did link internal immigration checkpoints to the Indianapolis V Edmund case iamslknick78 by specifically referring to U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte in it. See SCOTUS quote to follow....
"We have also upheld brief, suspicionless seizures of motorists at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, Martinez-Fuerte, supra, & 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
Furthermore iamslknick78 it couldn't possibly matter less whether or not the BPA's want him to tape them. They don't have a choice in the matter. If they don't like being taped then maybe they should stop harassing domestic traffic inside the country & patrol the border like they're paid to do.
BTW, if you ever did try to take someone's camera under these circumstances, you'd be breaking the law & if it was me, I'd make sure you were held fully accountable.
iamslknick78 1. Martinez-Fuerte upheld the legality of brief limited scope immigration queries at permanent checkpoints setup along nexus points for border traffic while making it clear any further detention after the initial inquiries or searching had to be premised on consent or pc. 2. Edmond is quite relevant & made general law enforcement & drug checkpoint illegal by whatever agency conducts them. 3. Brignoni-Ponce was specifically referred to in Martinez-Fuerte making it relevant here.
Here's the part of Brignoni-Ponce that SCOTUS made relevant by incorporating it into Martinez-Fuerte iamslknick78:
“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." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 882. None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations.”
Guess what - the driver is asserting the agents exceeded these limitations here.
Are you starting to get it yet iamslknick78? When the Supreme Court specifically references other case law within the context of a ruling, those cases & the circumstances surrounding them become relevant to the overall picture as is the case with Martinez-Fuerte, Brignoni-Ponce & Edmund (not to mention Terry V Ohio).
FYI - judging from your comments, whatever schools you've gone to provided even less of an education then Google or Wikipedia.
"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"
Hey punk, why don't you try taking my camera from me the next time I go through an immigration checkpoint iamslknick78. You shouldn't have to wait to long, I'll be going through later this week.
according to the Supreme court, they can inspect anyone for any reason even if your car is dirty when entering the United States by Land, Sea or Air. So they DID NOT break the law.
@ragazzosogn You obviously have nothing better to do with your time. You can google all you like, but you don't understand what you're reading (ie resonable suspicion vs probable cause, 4th amendment exceptions, ect;). Just because a ruling references another case doesn't make it relevant, it's just a reference. If you go through a checkpoint and act resonably, you have nothing to worry about. If you're right, WHY hasn't OIG or anyone else shut checkpoints down?
He addressed all his comments to the wrong person donhector87 He assumed we were even more ignorant then him regarding the legal issues surrounding these checkpoint stops.
Why the hell did you pull into secondary?! Just ask if your being detained over and over until they let you go. Do NOT move so you build up traffic and they will have no choice!
Great job man! That's impressive. Keep standing up for your rights, as I do, and try and get others to do the same. If we can get more and more people to stand up for their rights, even though there may be consequences, we'll be making a difference!
@apekillssnake says: "It would not bother me -checkpoints- I would engage with them, have a bit of a chat and a laugh, Its not like they were strip-searching your anus!!" <----- Somehow, I have a feeling that this is what you're hoping for.
@apekillssnake I think you should move to the Soviet Union so you can do some greasing up and ankle grabbing. Oh, wait--The Soviet Union stopped the roadblocks decades ago, and their citizens now live in greater freedom than the USA. Oh the irony....
@lizard944 I think these comments are very dumb! you sound like a real extremist! Again I dont see a problem in them trying to protect Americans. If you had a house party and you got wind someone had brought a knife and was going to stab someone- you'd ask everyone to see who had a knife- right? Or would you just let someone get stabbed! It would not bother me -checkpoints- I would engage with them, have a bit of a chat and a laugh, Its not like they were strip-searching your anus!!
@donhector87 That is right you're the smart one, I'm thick. I bet I am smarter than you on the arguments- you just think you are superior. I'd love to live in a world made up by your rules- NOT! You're just another Nazi rapped up in anti-law. I bet you are a socialist!
Sorry I can't see anything wrong with this, They seemed to be reasonable. What does it matter regarding the law, seems like you created that situation. I am normally very much for the person in these cases but with this it was routine they were polite, so I dont get it, the officers were trying to protect against criminality. Unless I'm missing something!?
The only situation I created was one where I avoided having my car and trunk searched for approximately 20 minutes for no reason; it has happened before. Criminality = violation of law. A search without consent or probable cause = violation of law. I think it's fair to say my assertivenes and/or the fact that I was recording protected against some sort of criminality. But then again it might just depend on your perspective and philosophy towards civil liberties.
@donhector87 Hi, well I agree with you about civil-liberties 100% but I dont know if it was nerves or something by you came across as hostile. The poor guy first was just doing his job and you made him nervous. If he was being a pig then you would have had every right to act the way you did.Otherwise it just creates a division and perpetual separation by the police and public. Perhaps a note for next time otherwise that officer may evolve into a pig from being treated so disrespectfully always.
@apekillssnake Maybe you don't like the thought of individual civil rights, but go take a visit to Arlington Cemetary or Gettysburg where millions lost their lives fighting for our freedoms and constitutional rights. We citizens do NOT have to prove our innocense, the gov't has to prove our guilt and CANNOT do that lacking a reasonable suspicion or probable cause. P.S. Refusing to answer questions is NOT probable cause--Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Bill Of Rights.
@lizard944 I think to compare a boarder-gate to what you have said is extreme to say the least. I would think being stopped is a minor consession to maybe to stop something illegal and is constitutional. Of course if your argued that you were being stopped as a man and women were not being stopped- you would have a point regarding officers profiling-beliefs and there is to it also being set up for crime by dishonest police I suppose, or minor offense's being performed instead of larger crimes.
@apekillssnake Police cannot go on a fishing expedition in order to find criminal activity. There MUST be probable cause and reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong. You have Fouth and Fifth Amendment rights. You do not have to make a case against yourself. In short, they have the authority to stop you, and you have the autho
Awesome!
rotnaple 2 days ago
Beautifully done!!
2hambonemcgee 3 days ago
Your cars dirty
nando89l 1 week ago
bravo sir...
13sam2lucky 1 week ago
I admire you for standing up for your rights. I don't have the guts and would just comply. But as soon as you refuse they think you have something to hide and will usually harass you until you give in. I think the camera made all the difference.
dasritebeotch 1 week ago
if border patrol agent thinks i have something is that probable cause
ovidiogjr 2 weeks ago
@ovidiogjr "thinking" is not probable cause
Alphabetme123 4 days ago
Notice the way he phrases how he directs you to secondary. "Can I have you pull into secondary?" He's asking for your consent so it can't be challenged later in court. Always make them give you an ORDER, before you comply. Say, "Are you ordering me to secondary?" If he says something like "I'm just asking that you pull into secondary", tell him you will not voluntarily consent to any requests, but you will comply with lawful orders. Always clarify that it's an order before you do it.
greggh 1 month ago
FUCKIN PABLO Y JOSE NOW YOU GAYS WORK FOR THE BORDER PATROL TO YA NILA CHINGAN JAJAJAJA NO PICTURE NO JAJAJAJAJA
soldier6450 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why don't the border patrol get authorized warrents so they have to deal with confrontations like this.
BigTuna77777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why don't the border patrol get authorized warrents so they have to deal with confrontations like this.
BigTuna77777 1 month ago
why don't the border patrol get authorized warrents so they have to deal with confrontations like this.
BigTuna77777 1 month ago
@BigTuna77777 Because warrants need to come from a judge. This takes a lot of time and cannot be obtained without probable cause. There was no probable cause. If they wanted to get a warrant for every single person crossing the border, it would 1. be unconstitutional and 2. a total unnecessary waste of time and money.
MrFriendbro 4 weeks ago
@MrFriendbro ooo, then they need to change state law or something
BigTuna77777 4 weeks ago
driver is an ass hole......you little punk......
915buck 1 month ago
@915buck dont worry when you get raped by ten cops I will laugh and call you a punk as well
WarThug13 3 weeks ago
Searches of persons and property at border checkpoints
and entry ports do not require probable cause,reasonable suspicion,or a search warrant.Federal border officers may search persons
and property virtually at will.This power is granted to border
security personnel by both legislation and case law.Consent of the
person to search is not necessary because persons do not have the right
to refuse to be searched.
Ryanchiller 1 month ago
@Ryanchiller
This did not take place at the port of entry. "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search." U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)
donhector87 1 month ago 3
@donhector87 if they have reasonable suspicion they can search without consent
weinmanjoe 1 month ago
@weinmanjoe said: "if they have reasonable suspicion they can search without consent"
The Supreme Court disagrees with you:
CITE: "...Border Patrol's routine stopping... for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants... any further detention or search must be based on [the greater showing of] consent or probable cause"
SOURCE: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
Pafoofnik1 1 month ago 2
@Ryanchiller Well stating this can you please provide the legal definition of Person" in these legislative bodies?
Alphabetme123 4 days ago
If you look in the rear view mirror @ :45 seconds, you can see a person on the bridge holding a weapon, and looking through a scope, Im assuming at the vehicles going in the opposite direction! Total POLICE STATE at its finest!!!!!
acetow100 1 month ago in playlist U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoints
@acetow100 Looks like a radar gun to me,
stevemccollum2011 1 month ago
I NEED INFO ON CBP OFFICER EMERY ( FEMALE BRUNETTE) AT DETROIT TUNNEL, CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME PLEASE WHAT LEVEL OF EDUCATION DOES SHE HAVE? I WANT TO KNOW WHAT DID SHE TAKE IN COLLEGE ? ALSO I WANT TO KNOW IF SHE WAS ABUSED INA CHILDHOOD BY A WOMAN? WHO IS HER FAMILY DOCTOR AND WHEN WAS HER HORMONAL TEST LAST TIME TAKEN?
detroitcarshow 1 month ago
Dude you did fucking awesome, good job pulling over to secondary too and not losing your cool, keeping your calm and enforcing your rights calmly totally stumped the officers, God I love this tape man once again awesome job.
trunkzdbz 1 month ago
I fucking love it, great job bro. More people need to do this to keep crooked ass cops in line
booyahoo00 1 month ago
I'm 18. About 2 hours ago (3:30 in the morning) went to see a friend and her sister (both 16). I was going down the road, a cop turned onto the road I was on, I turned right to meet my friend. He "thought I was avoiding him." Asked to search my car, declined, and he said he was taking me to jail for "harboring two runaways" because they snuck out. I told him I was making one phone call (the watch commander for the PD who I've known since i was born) and he let me go with a "contact notification"
lpundr1 1 month ago
I'm a former police officer for both military and civilian law enforcement agencies. I passed through a border patrol check point 1 week ago and was detatined because their K9 got a "hit" on my vehicle. They conducted an illegal search into my pockets and the K9 and the 4 border patrol agents who went through my vehicle searching for illegal drugs found nothing! It's not enough to just know your rights, having video of their actions holds them accountable and keeps you safe! Way to go man!
David7e1 2 months ago
are these mexican border patrolers ? looking all like mexican latinos...
tausendstein 2 months ago
Good job bro....never let anyone violate your rights.
rstscott 2 months ago
Sir..You are my hero! Keep protecting our rights from those goons!
user7897 3 months ago
@Blahblobify Your statement fails on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. It shows that you have no understanding of what America was built on both in theory and in physical and plitical scale. I pray you get some education sometime in the near future. Ignorant is no way to go through life
macchef01 3 months ago
These idiots just don't want to be recorded for moving outside of their jurisdiction which is to find illegals into searches for drugs. Checkpoints for unwarranted drug searches are illegal period. Doesn't matter that I hate illegal drugs and the idiots that take them - the law is the law and these guys don't get to break it just cause they wear a DHS badge.
PullenJoe 3 months ago
@superwilkes This video exemplifies citizens standing up for constitutional rights. If you don't believe in citizens having rights then move to North Korea.
snarky77005 4 months ago
He asked whats wrong with you? Fuck that. I would have flew off the handle at that.
ElGatoLoco698 4 months ago
GOOD FUCKING JOB MAN THAT WAS NICEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WHAT U DID
coolmarck 4 months ago
Nice work brother. I can't believe you still have to defend yourself from all these sheep after this vid being up for 2 years.
Stay strong.
knewcomb 4 months ago
great video but... next time don`t tell them your a u.s citizen. tell them your a american !!
akaknocksville 4 months ago
@donhector87
LOL "stepping on your rights" hey fool asking you if you're an American isn't violating your rights. Stupid fuckshit.
Blahblobify 4 months ago
@Blahblobify
Maybe you should pay attention. I did not object to the citizenship question but rather I refused to consent to a search. You're wasting your time by trying to insult me with words like "fuckshit".
donhector87 4 months ago 5
@donhector87
So you objected to the search because you are mexican-american and it makes you mad that you look like a coyote?
Blahblobify 4 months ago
@Blahblobify
Again, you're wasting your time trying to get under my skin. You're implying that the agent wanted to search my trunk based on what I look like? That's a pretty damning indictiment.
donhector87 4 months ago 4
@donhector87
Why would saying that they wanted to look in your trunk because of what you look like be a bad thing? I don't buy the "derhh...profiling is racist an bad" bullshit. Do you?
Blahblobify 4 months ago
@donhector87 Good job man, idiots like this who want to stay ignorant of the law and the rights that many men gave them through the sacrifice of their life don't deserve your time.
MaxPlayne87 4 months ago
@donhector87 Besides, I'm pretty sure Blahblobify would feel a lot safer living in a country like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, I would suggest him to move to North Korea as soon as possible.
MaxPlayne87 4 months ago
@donhector87
Yes thank you WE KNOW it doesn't happen right at the border. These are modern times, with highways and cars that go a mile a minute, crossing the border and getting to a road means we don't have checkpoints right the fuck on an imaginary line anymore. You sure do like letting mexicans into the country don't you?
Blahblobify 4 months ago
At least you pulled over to secondary. But you have the right to refuse to be search without a warrant. You did well man! You have the right to record in your own personal property.
mycatpumpkinful 4 months ago
@mycatpumpkinful
Thank you.
donhector87 4 months ago
@superwilkes I guess you like to be checked.
GUALLACOL 4 months ago
U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte (1976) Says that it is legall and not a violation of you 4th amendment rights to conduct "suspicionless searches and seizures" at fixed international checkpoints. Sorry, there was nothing wrong with this.
Rangerfan41 5 months ago
@Rangerfan41 No, guess again. Here is a direct quote from US vs Marinez-Fuerte: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search"
snarky77005 4 months ago
Donhector87, thank you for uploading this video and thank you for continuing to educate people on our constitutional freedoms and liberties. Also thank you for always recording, it is a necessity these days. Abuse of power is rampant.
RJDyer16 5 months ago
@RJDyer16
Thank you for the comment.
donhector87 4 months ago
Yeah buddy you tell em. Ask the last 3 henchmen . . . err i mean, officers for theyre green cards while your at it.
MrNWOtruthseeker 5 months ago
Well done, thanks for standing up for our rights. All those who summit to authority and forfeit their rights should be ashamed of themselves.
theyalllied 5 months ago
this person shows how its done ! he was outstanding ! in the face of the beast he kept his composure ! I will share this video with every video activist I know ! thanks for standing up to the INS pigs ! I remember who was here first !
vivavasquez 5 months ago
hey dude so they did the search or they told you to go or what?
yedesmir1 5 months ago
@yedesmir1
They told me I was free to leave.
donhector87 4 months ago
@superwilkes
What an empty little mind you must have.
donhector87 5 months ago 4
@donhector87 Your video exemplifies a man who is sick and tired of watching his fellow countrymen get shafted by money hungry bank-ruled governments. Good on yer.
wesmatron 5 months ago
@superwilkes
Did the contents of the video not match the title? Your question exemplifies the ignorance, apathy, or fear that opens the way for government intrusion into our private lives to go unchecked.
donhector87 5 months ago 7
@donhector87 you stuck to your guns well done buddy
matthewchops 5 months ago
@nate1980blood stop brown nosing those dirty fucking border patrol already those fuckers used to pull me over just because my car was too clean and they told this guy because it's too dirty!? they just make up excuses to waste our time and it's bullshit!!!!
MEXICANPACHUCO14 6 months ago
@nate1980blood
I bet I can guess what your next comment will be.
donhector87 6 months ago
@nate1980blood
Your stubbornness is sad. What you’re arguing is moot yet I’m willing to grant you every bit of it because it is irrelevant. Legally sending me to secondary does not create legal authority to search my trunk nor does it make it likely that my trunk will be searched (hence the failed attempts) which is why it is more of a nuisance to be sent to secondary rather than an invasion of privacy. While I understand you’re proud of what your professor taught you, your point is frivolous.
donhector87 6 months ago
@donhector87 But suspicionless searches were found constitutional by the Supreme court...you have to let them search if they want at a checkpoint.
Rangerfan41 5 months ago
Comment removed
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Rangerfan41 said: "...suspicionless searches were found constitutional by the Supreme court...you have to let them search if they want at a checkpoint."
This is not true at this type of checkpoint. The court case you have cited actually affirms this:
CITE: "...Border Patrol's routine stopping... for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants... any further detention or search must be based on... consent or probable cause"
SOURCE: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@nate1980blood
I thought I was fairly clear the first time. You’re making a straw man argument. Trying to prove legal authority to send me to secondary is inconsequential and useless to your position until you figure out a way to conjecture a violation of immigration law from the premise of a "dirty vehicle". I will continue to successfully deflect search attempts both at primary and at secondary and anywhere else. This video is merely one example of this. I am glad you enjoyed it.
donhector87 6 months ago
@nate1980blood
Even if everything you stated was true, you still have not addressed the main issue of this video nor proved that I am wrong; searches are unconstitutional unless there is consent or probable cause to search. You’re making a straw argument. I have a very similar video where I do the exact same thing except I stay at primary. Again, I am let go in less than two minutes with my property unsearched. Your point is inconsequential at best.
donhector87 6 months ago 2
@donhector87 U.S. vs Martinez-Fruerte (1976) says what they did WAS constitutional...so try again sir. I am sorry, but in this case the agents were well withing the law. Don't forget, also, these guys get death threats, and dont like their faces all over the Internet, so show some respect, next time edit out their faces.
Rangerfan41 5 months ago
@Rangerfan41 =However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search". If they search my car without reasonable suspicion, I will paste there faces all over the internet!
Hughster49 4 months ago
Nicely done Sir!!!
jvangurp 6 months ago
Good shit bro.
chenchamexica13 6 months ago
just let the agents do what they ask...if you havent done anything, wtf is the problem?
k129h8 6 months ago
@k129h8: Some people are not so quick to give up their rights.
Pafoofnik1 6 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 gimme a break guy...being evasive in these particular field contacts should be enough for PC to arrest....in my opinion of course...good luck in any case bud.
k129h8 6 months ago
@k129h8 said: "being evasive in these particular field contacts should be enough for PC to arrest"
The laws and the courts disagree with you.
Pafoofnik1 6 months ago
@k129h8
"Good luck in any case"
Not only did I successfully deflect a search that I felt was unreasonable while filming it, I also was let go in less than two minutes. It was not I who was upset by the end of the video and there's no reason for me to go to court. More viewers have liked this video than not which is satisfying enough for me.
donhector87 6 months ago
@k129h8
its the fact that us citizens are being treated like criminals
CrazyItalian992 6 months ago
@CrazyItalian992 if thats how you see it, then i feel bad for you....
k129h8 6 months ago
Does anyone besides me realize that they must fill these border patrol positions with embeciles who have no knowledge of contituional or common law rights. This means they are not qualified to fill the position. I personally think that we the People should excercise our "redress of grievance" until this mutation og government is changed. Very soon we must stop this horseshit.
mozartgenetics 6 months ago
people like this piss mee the fuck off >:( they trreated me like shit just because i used my phone
YCTsnoopy 6 months ago
Since when did having a dirty car become "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" to search a vehicle???
I guess 99% of American drivers are suspicious then.....
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R
Very good question.
donhector87 6 months ago
is within my area of control and it just won't happen.. I'm not the bad guy, but I'm the presumed bad guy by them.. they don't like people rockin' the boat, ya know..
Dewdaahman 7 months ago
Well done my man. They are so used to sheeple being drones and just saying "sure, go through my stuff". People need to wake up, it is illegal to just pick people out and search their vehicles...it's called profiling.
Je3Re3My55 7 months ago
I do NOT consent to searches..
Dewdaahman 7 months ago
@Dewdaahman Exactly what the ACLU tells you what to say. Well said.
Je3Re3My55 7 months ago
@Je3Re3My55 basically, I don't need anyone to tell me what to say.. you won't look up my wifes dress, you won't watch me change my socks and you won't search my truck.. those are just the facts.. certain things go on in my area of control and my stuff bein' searched w/o probable cause based on oath or affirmation that I have committed a crime or I'm about to commit a crime, signed by a Judge and delivered to the place in question as they try and contest my 4th Amendment Right to be secure..
Dewdaahman 7 months ago
nicely done
J3TPILOT1991 7 months ago
Well done, crooked cops fear cameras like vampires fear sunlight.
KEEP ROLLIN!!!!!!!!!
phillycopwatch09 7 months ago
"we got anything else on him?"
wow.
mofo09 7 months ago
fuck crakers...yah aint got nothing on mexican cartels.........
TheLuckytobe 7 months ago
the technology of today is so sophisticated so they can see trace drugs or illegals, they should have pulled the dogs or ran x-ray on your car. It is simply, that they are trying to do their job and you should not interfere with them trying to protect the United States borders. I am a trucker and have to go thru the checkpoints all the time and I do comply,Do not deter them, they have a very hard job. Want you put the camera down and apply for their position, they are trained this way.
ltlsmkys 7 months ago
AWESOME!!!
jay27cr 7 months ago
A stop is always based on reasonable suspicion. Then entry is based on probable cause. When an officer of the law is able to properly articulate these standards of law based on his training and observation, he is doing what he is supposed to do. The standards and training are set by common law rulings. These officers must not have had enough R.S. of P.C. to continue. Fellow law men, be vigorous and energetic, but respect the Constitutionl-always.
lonerangersheriff 7 months ago
@lonerangersheriff
Yes, let us all respect the Constitution. Thanks for watching.
donhector87 7 months ago
@lonerangersheriff "A stop is always based on reasonable suspicion."
The video you're commenting on proves otherwise
Anybody and everybody who travels along a road that a checkpoint is on is NOT giving off "reasonable suspicion", they're just going from point A to point B, which is 100% LEGAL
Using that forced stop that has no reasonable suspicion to generate some kind of probable cause is 100% pure unadulterated BULLSHIT because it presumes guilt before innocence, which is NOT the way it works.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R I understand your ideas. I have seen border checkpoints at I 5 in San Diego and also near Laredo. The youngsters ran a dog around my van at Laredo. They never took me out of the Van. And we probably look more Hispanic than Anglo. Of course we are completey law abiding. We made out fine but we don't start shouting at agents either.
lonerangersheriff 6 months ago
@lonerangersheriff
It's hard to argue there was any shouting in this video or that I was even slightly disrespectful. You must have your speakers up way too high. I did what I had to do and anyone who cares about privacy would have done the same.
donhector87 6 months ago
@donhector87 Ah-ite!
lonerangersheriff 6 months ago
@lonerangersheriff None of these checkpoints is effective at catching the illegals and drug dealers they say they're trying to catch because they stay in one place for months at a time. Long term checkpoints are counterproductive.
With the license plate recognition scanners and facial scanners running at all these checkpoints, stopping people to find out citizenship is useless, they already know who you are by the time you reach the point man.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R Ah-ite!
lonerangersheriff 6 months ago
They're just checking citizenship at these checkpoints?
youngdones 7 months ago
P.S. love how you handle them
"Yes i do mind. No Officer i dont have to. Do you have a court order to take my camera?" haha
sixsixsik 7 months ago
@sixsixsik
Thanks
donhector87 7 months ago
did he say his names Eric Foreman??
now we know what happened to him after that 70's show!
sixsixsik 7 months ago
Today's, atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists, are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
EasingDifficulties 8 months ago
For some reason I never had any problems with tsa or border patrol
Htown20XX 8 months ago
you are a dush bro, we have border patrol for a reason, their was no reason to give them a hard time, their doing their jobs. you should at least be happy they are checking vehicles instead of letting the whole world in the U.S.
carranza626 8 months ago
@carranza626
People going through these checkpoints are already in the U.S. It is an internal checkpoint.
donhector87 8 months ago
You moron. There is NOTHING illegal about this. You should probably learn a few things about the United States Code, the CFR, and the Immigration and Nationallity Act. Also, I would've taken your ass out of the car, and taken your camera which is legal and has been held up in the courts. Shmuck.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
Why don't you start citing some laws and try to prove your point instead of talking about what you would've done tough guy.
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 You might want to start with INA 287 and 8 USC section 1357. Until you've thoroughly studied the law and BP authority, shut it.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
You're obviously not aware of the constraints placed on agents working at these types of checkpoints are you? Do you know that immigration checkpoints were upheld purely for immigration purposes? Are you aware that crime control checkpoints are unconstitutional? Do you know why I made sure I caught on tape the agent failing to indicate there was any reason to believe I was breaking immigration law? I think it is you who needs to study the law in its entirety.
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 I am more aware than you will EVER be. A Federal Agent doesn't need to tell you SQUAT. You should be thanking him. They deal with terrorists, Barrio Atzteca, MS 13, and cartels. The last thing they need is to be bothered by some spoiled kid with too much time, and too few brain cells. Get a clue. Where is it that YOU studied law? How do you know that he was sure you weren't in violation of 8 USC 1325? You don't. Also, a resonable person doesn't act like an ass at a checkpoint.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
While a federal agent doesn't need to tell us squat iamslknick78, neither do we have to tell a federal agent squat - especially when that agent has seized us at a suspicionless checkpoint along a public highway inside the country. See how that works?
BTW, federal agents who so seize individuals inside the country while failing to do their job securing the border don't deserved to be thanked, they deserve to be chastised for their contempt of individual rights.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
"Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status" - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte
"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
"any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause.” - U.S. v Brignoni-Ponce
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 1. Martinez is the case that UPHELD the legallity of checkpoints, drop that one. 2. Edmond is irrelevant as it is NOT based on Federal law. 3 Brigoni has NOTHING to do with checkpoints, it has to do with patrol stops, HUGE difference. An agent doesn't need probable cause to send you to secondary at a checkpoint even if he believe you are a US citizen, he needs resonable suspicion. You have NO idea what you're talking about. FYI, Google and Wikipedia is NOT an education. You're dumb.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
You call that a counterargument? Just because a case upholds something does not mean it does not place restrictions. City of Indianapolis was decided by the Supreme Court. The "any further detention" piece was reiterated in Martinez-Fuerte because it is relevant or at least the Supreme Court felt it is. You should take the time to read these cases. You should try to learn how to argue because you are doing a very very weak job; hence the constant ad-hominem.
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 I have read the entire decisions. You don't understand them. A border patrol agent needs reasonable suspicion, NOT probable cause of criminal activity to hold you at a check point. When you understand the difference between mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause, then we can talk. The FACT is that I'm right. All of you silly twits put these videos online saying you were illegally searched, but why not go to court? Where is it that you studied law? Nowhere?
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@donhector87 Indianapolis has NOTHING to do with this because state, local, and federal authorities are different. Furthermore they don't want you taping because there's a bounty on BPAs from the cartels. Like I said before, I would take your camera for officer safety. Quit being an instigator and do something with your life. When you go to court and win let me know. You won't. The problem with YouTube is that people like you get on here and spread stupidity and ignorance, selling it as fact.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
Go to court? I successfully deflected a search I felt was unreasonable. If "the fact is" that you're right and i'm wrong, why is it that I left with my camera in my possession and my privacy uninvaded? This is not my only video where this happens. Do you know something these agents do not? If so, what is it?
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 You're all over the place. The fact that you left with your camera is relevant to what? What did you deflect? He asked for consent and you said no. What exactly was illegal?
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
You said "Indianapolis has NOTHING to do with this because state, local, and federal authorities are different." It absolutely does affect these checkpoints because it is a Fourth Amendment issue. There are many scholarly articles that discuss this case. Some argue that the decision was erroneous because it opens the door for more problems. One fact remains: CHECKPOINT SEARCHES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THERE IS CONSENT OR PROBABLE CAUSE. Show me where it says otherwise.
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 You don't even know what you're arguing. These agents did NOTHING wrong. They asked for consent, you said no, they didn't search your car. So what "illegal" happened? It's not illegal for an agent to ask for consent. So what was "illegal"? You gave them reasonable suspicion to send you to secondary. Why is it that you stopped the camera? My guess is that you started to cry. You still didn't tell me where you studied law. You have no idea what you're talking about.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
Do you know the definition of attempt? I was sent to secondary after the agent admitted there was no reason to believe I had broken immigration law and after I declined to consent to a search. This is an immigration checkpoint, not a crime control checkpoint. The second agent insisted on searching my trunk when there was no consent or probable cause. I stopped the camera because it was time for me to drive away obviously.
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 They asked for consent. That's it. Nothing illegal happened. The agent admitted NOTHING. If your car is dirty like you've been driving through the desert, that's enough articulatable facts for reasonable suspicion to send you to secondary. What do you do for a living? It's not law or law enforcement. I'm guessing you sit at home (with your parents) and play on your computer all day. If you're right, WHY does this happen, WHY hasn't it been shut down in the courts? Get an education.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
Agents need consent or probable cause to either extend a detention or search at these checkpoints iamslknick78. If the agent directed the vehicle to secondary because he thought the driver had driven in the desert, a perfectly legal & common activity in Southern AZ, then the agent impermissibly extended the detention & it's scope. So says Scotus with quote to follow...
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
In U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte, SCOTUS considered what conditions a vehicle could be sent to secondary for iamslknick78. In the court's own words, here it is:
"We think defendants overstate the consequences. Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine & limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy.”
You'll notice no reference to 'driving in the desert' as being a legitimate reason for diverting to secondary.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
The court also stated: "...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....& 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.'"
You see if the secondary diversion isn't to check immigration status, then it represents an extended detention requiring consent or pc - neither of which the agents had here iamslknick78
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
Your frustration after seeing people assert their rights sends a thrill up my spine and puts an enormous smile on my face. You completely ignored my point about indianapolis being a fourth amendment case yet I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about? Your arguments, if I can even call them that, are not worth trying to refute. THOSE OF US WHO BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY WILL CONTINUE TO ASSERT OUR RIGHTS. IF THAT BOTHERS YOU, THAT'S JUST TOO BAD.
donhector87 8 months ago
@donhector87 You're an idiot. WHERE did you study law? You didn't. Like I said Google is not an education. You're not asserting your rights, you're being a pain in the ass to the people that make sure you sleep well at night.
iamslknick78 8 months ago
Armed Border Patrol agents harassing & intimidating domestic traffic inside the country at suspicionless checkpoints no where near the border they're paid to patrol aren't making sure we sleep well at night iamslknick78, they're walking all over the very rights these agents allegedly exist to protect. Good try with the newspeak though.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
Actually SCOTUS did link internal immigration checkpoints to the Indianapolis V Edmund case iamslknick78 by specifically referring to U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte in it. See SCOTUS quote to follow....
CheckpointUSA 8 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, & 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 8 months ago
Furthermore iamslknick78 it couldn't possibly matter less whether or not the BPA's want him to tape them. They don't have a choice in the matter. If they don't like being taped then maybe they should stop harassing domestic traffic inside the country & patrol the border like they're paid to do.
BTW, if you ever did try to take someone's camera under these circumstances, you'd be breaking the law & if it was me, I'd make sure you were held fully accountable.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
iamslknick78 1. Martinez-Fuerte upheld the legality of brief limited scope immigration queries at permanent checkpoints setup along nexus points for border traffic while making it clear any further detention after the initial inquiries or searching had to be premised on consent or pc. 2. Edmond is quite relevant & made general law enforcement & drug checkpoint illegal by whatever agency conducts them. 3. Brignoni-Ponce was specifically referred to in Martinez-Fuerte making it relevant here.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
Here's the part of Brignoni-Ponce that SCOTUS made relevant by incorporating it into Martinez-Fuerte iamslknick78:
“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." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 882. None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations.”
Guess what - the driver is asserting the agents exceeded these limitations here.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
Are you starting to get it yet iamslknick78? When the Supreme Court specifically references other case law within the context of a ruling, those cases & the circumstances surrounding them become relevant to the overall picture as is the case with Martinez-Fuerte, Brignoni-Ponce & Edmund (not to mention Terry V Ohio).
FYI - judging from your comments, whatever schools you've gone to provided even less of an education then Google or Wikipedia.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
Been there, done that iamslknick78. So has the U.S. Supreme Court. This is what they had to say about INA 287 & 8 USC 1357 in U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte:
See next comment...
CheckpointUSA 8 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"
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
Hey punk, why don't you try taking my camera from me the next time I go through an immigration checkpoint iamslknick78. You shouldn't have to wait to long, I'll be going through later this week.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
@donhector87 ahuevo compa no se deje de estos putos,me gusto el video, que carro manejas?
ThePonciano2010 8 months ago
according to the Supreme court, they can inspect anyone for any reason even if your car is dirty when entering the United States by Land, Sea or Air. So they DID NOT break the law.
ragazzosogn 8 months ago
Uh, ragazzosogn? He wasn't entering the United States by Land, Sea or Air.
Read the description.
Pafoofnik1 8 months ago
@ragazzosogn
Do you know what a checkpoint is?
donhector87 8 months ago
@ragazzosogn You obviously have nothing better to do with your time. You can google all you like, but you don't understand what you're reading (ie resonable suspicion vs probable cause, 4th amendment exceptions, ect;). Just because a ruling references another case doesn't make it relevant, it's just a reference. If you go through a checkpoint and act resonably, you have nothing to worry about. If you're right, WHY hasn't OIG or anyone else shut checkpoints down?
iamslknick78 8 months ago
@iamslknick78
You addressed your comment to the wrong person genius.
donhector87 8 months ago
He addressed all his comments to the wrong person donhector87 He assumed we were even more ignorant then him regarding the legal issues surrounding these checkpoint stops.
CheckpointUSA 8 months ago
Why the hell did you pull into secondary?! Just ask if your being detained over and over until they let you go. Do NOT move so you build up traffic and they will have no choice!
TIKIMAN198 8 months ago
now try this if you're anything but white for much lulz
batmanpronz 9 months ago
Great job man! That's impressive. Keep standing up for your rights, as I do, and try and get others to do the same. If we can get more and more people to stand up for their rights, even though there may be consequences, we'll be making a difference!
hikerboy16 9 months ago
1:09 We can continue- what an ego-maniac! Man- Brit Cops would do an Orwellian number on your ass!
apekillssnake 9 months ago
@apekillssnake says: "It would not bother me -checkpoints- I would engage with them, have a bit of a chat and a laugh, Its not like they were strip-searching your anus!!" <----- Somehow, I have a feeling that this is what you're hoping for.
lizard944 9 months ago
@apekillssnake I think you should move to the Soviet Union so you can do some greasing up and ankle grabbing. Oh, wait--The Soviet Union stopped the roadblocks decades ago, and their citizens now live in greater freedom than the USA. Oh the irony....
lizard944 9 months ago
@lizard944 I think these comments are very dumb! you sound like a real extremist! Again I dont see a problem in them trying to protect Americans. If you had a house party and you got wind someone had brought a knife and was going to stab someone- you'd ask everyone to see who had a knife- right? Or would you just let someone get stabbed! It would not bother me -checkpoints- I would engage with them, have a bit of a chat and a laugh, Its not like they were strip-searching your anus!!
apekillssnake 9 months ago
@apekillssnake
That is the most ridiculous analogy I have ever heard. You really should educate yourself before you engage in these types of arguments.
donhector87 9 months ago
@donhector87 That is right you're the smart one, I'm thick. I bet I am smarter than you on the arguments- you just think you are superior. I'd love to live in a world made up by your rules- NOT! You're just another Nazi rapped up in anti-law. I bet you are a socialist!
apekillssnake 9 months ago
Sorry I can't see anything wrong with this, They seemed to be reasonable. What does it matter regarding the law, seems like you created that situation. I am normally very much for the person in these cases but with this it was routine they were polite, so I dont get it, the officers were trying to protect against criminality. Unless I'm missing something!?
apekillssnake 9 months ago
@apekillssnake
The only situation I created was one where I avoided having my car and trunk searched for approximately 20 minutes for no reason; it has happened before. Criminality = violation of law. A search without consent or probable cause = violation of law. I think it's fair to say my assertivenes and/or the fact that I was recording protected against some sort of criminality. But then again it might just depend on your perspective and philosophy towards civil liberties.
donhector87 9 months ago
@donhector87 Hi, well I agree with you about civil-liberties 100% but I dont know if it was nerves or something by you came across as hostile. The poor guy first was just doing his job and you made him nervous. If he was being a pig then you would have had every right to act the way you did.Otherwise it just creates a division and perpetual separation by the police and public. Perhaps a note for next time otherwise that officer may evolve into a pig from being treated so disrespectfully always.
apekillssnake 9 months ago
@apekillssnake Maybe you don't like the thought of individual civil rights, but go take a visit to Arlington Cemetary or Gettysburg where millions lost their lives fighting for our freedoms and constitutional rights. We citizens do NOT have to prove our innocense, the gov't has to prove our guilt and CANNOT do that lacking a reasonable suspicion or probable cause. P.S. Refusing to answer questions is NOT probable cause--Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Bill Of Rights.
lizard944 9 months ago
@lizard944 I think to compare a boarder-gate to what you have said is extreme to say the least. I would think being stopped is a minor consession to maybe to stop something illegal and is constitutional. Of course if your argued that you were being stopped as a man and women were not being stopped- you would have a point regarding officers profiling-beliefs and there is to it also being set up for crime by dishonest police I suppose, or minor offense's being performed instead of larger crimes.
apekillssnake 9 months ago
@apekillssnake Police cannot go on a fishing expedition in order to find criminal activity. There MUST be probable cause and reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong. You have Fouth and Fifth Amendment rights. You do not have to make a case against yourself. In short, they have the authority to stop you, and you have the autho