NAZI checkpoint in New Mexico and Texas along IH-10: May I see your papers please?

[waldenbuilder]

The drug dealers travel these roads close to the Border. The dealer they bust may be the one trying to sell your son or daughter drugs.

[MadeByEduNotLaziness]

@waldenbuilder Shut up. You're such an enabler.

[waldenbuilder]

@MadeByEduNotLaziness ....I suggest to actually be able to use 'edu' , you drive down to South Texas late at night. Get on the backroads and when one of those stolen trucks runs your car off the road so they can sell it in Mexico, just tell those guys that "You know your rights."

[MadeByEduNotLaziness]

@waldenbuilder The point is it's 100 miles from the border. At the border is understandable, not 100 miles from it. Furthermore, the Texas government doesn't want Mexicans to leave. If it imposed North Dakota style deportations, they would all but leave.

[akaknocksville]

WASTE OF YOU-TUBE SPACE.. FUCKING WETARD

[dano7411]

How easily we toss around the term "nazi". Not saying this checkpoint stuff is right, but come on, nazis?

Once your yanked out of your vehicle, and had a gun shoved in your mouth, and basically told "comply or die", and every couple of vehicles they shoot someone to set an example, then call them nazis. Lets reserve the term for real brutality.

[yaahme]

It we the people have the right to inspect the inspectors then it's fair game, but who bends over first?

[supamat4u]

X ray scanner. they dont need to talk to u when they can see through u

[AstrophelTDeath]

Plus you want to talk about freedom and unconstitutional, what about seperation of church and state that one doesn't seem to matter, seeing that the pledge has the word god in it, our money has god on it thats governement taking one religion as their own which is against our constitution, you want to talk unconstitutional then tell me why can't fucking Atheist hold a public office without taking an oath on a bible. But thats all fine and this isn't, what a crock.

[AstrophelTDeath]

The thing that pisses me off the most is most of the people who seem to do these types of videos are Christians and thats fine I have no problem with that. But it just irks me a little bit that they acknowledge the fourth amendment just fine but the one about Free speech and religion just don't cut it for them, they don't want other religions in the country, they don't want us talking about science or evolution, because they believe only their religion and beliefs count and its bullshit.

[MadeByEduNotLaziness]

@AstrophelTDeath That's like saying all blacks like watermellon, jews are cheap, etc. When will you realize that you're racist?

[Fralcon]

You are hella dumb and ignorant as fuck, christ those barely qualify as checkpoints.  Talk about making mountains out of molehills, there are plenty of real problems you could complain about, rather than making shit up.

[MadeByEduNotLaziness]

@Fralcon I love how the real ignorant throw the word ignorant around. They often live their life believing politicains who tell them what's right and wrong whom don't actually do what they say they will do. How the color red is bately red and should be considered pink. You really just like to be told everything is ok. This is for your safety. Don't believe others. Listen to the news on tv. Starting war with all these foreign countries is good. Tax others and everything will be fine.

[Blahblobify]

Oh christ this is a state agricultural control checkpoint they've been around FOR A HUNDRED YEARS

[MrTuchingon]

I lived in a communist country for about 21 years. I remember this kind of check points.

[egupton]

I am very thankful that we have these checkpoints in America.....Keep it up BP...GREAT JOB!!!!!

[bryantjb]

I see nothing wrong with this

[AstrumSol]

@skcabtewon

I believe you are being paranoid.

I don't "fight" or insult people over the internet. If you want you can send me a private message and I'll let you know exactly where to find me.

[stewartx5]

Why don't guys just admit your protest is in favor of illegal immigrants entering the country? These checkpoints pose only a minor inconvenience, yet serve a worthwhile purpose. Since the intrusion is so darn minimal, an obsessive objection as fanatical as yours must be focused on the purpose instead.

[HONORYOUROATH]

@stewartx5 Incredible you as an American citizen have no problem getting stopped... absent suspicion,no probable cause,no warrant,only to be asked by an agent who is probably from Mexico if your an American citizen!!!Even if you are so inane to believe that these checkpoints "serve a worthwhile purpose" you should still have enough intelligence to discern the ineffectiveness of the tactics employed by these agents!

Crouch down and lick those boots you subject,you slave!

[stewartx5]

@HONORYOUROATH

Oh, good grief. Can't believe anyone would make such a fuss (accusing people licking boots, being a slave, and other such foolishness) over something so freaking petty. Most of these stops are only for a few seconds (much less time than a stop at a traffic light) and, as already said, serve a worthwhile purpose. Too bad some are unwilling to be put out even that much for something so important to this country.

[TheLibertylogs]

LOL one is a weigh station for trucks... come on man

[emonickiller]

Lol. Its funny how you guys say "protect our boarders" "our" you mean the native americans including mexicans (aztec indians) right? Haha "our boarders" and when i say native americans i dont mean those eastern natives in new york area that were so dumb that gave up our land. Real natives are from western US and Canada and we fought for what was ours.

[bj22488]

if this was really a Nazi checkpoint this video would have never made it on here and you would be dead nice try

[tonydoza6]

@Pafoofnik1 But the sad truth is you don't care about any of that. You are special, and only care about yourself, and don't want to be inconvenienced by those NAZI's at the CP's with a couple of simple questions or requests.

[Pafoofnik1]

@tonydoza6: Thanks you for telling me what I think. I'll be sure to give it all the consideration I deem it's worth.

[tonydoza6]

@Pafoofnik1 I find it reasonable to have these checkpoints and I'm sure you would agree if you fell victim to theft or rape by an IA or if you had a child that got hooked on meth or heroine or any other poison that is smuggled into the US.

[tonydoza6]

@Pafoofnik1 ...because I really don't care if it would be 200 miles away, because I know the purpose of these checkpoints, they are to stop the furtherance of terrorists, narcotics, and criminal illegal aliens into the US.

[tonydoza6]

@Pafoofnik1 because refusing to cooperate is an articulable fact that can be used to develop reasonable suspicion for further investigation till the Agent feels satisfied that your just someone who feels SPECIAL. Now the agent was wrong in his threat to have you arrested and was most likely some sort of scare tactic. And as far as the placement of that checkpoint, I find it trivial to argue it further...

[Pafoofnik1]

@tonydoza6: They need much more than reasonable suspicion.

"...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)

[tonydoza6]

@Pafoofnik1 Why didn't you want to?

[Pafoofnik1]

@tonydoza6: Because I didn't want to. I see no reason to explain my every action to you.

[tonydoza6]

@Pafoofnik1 also why would you refuse to roll down your window? Felt like being a smart ass? Or maybe you think only Hispanics should be questioned (if your white), or if your hispanic maybe you think your being profiled? Or maybe your a liberal?

[Pafoofnik1]

@tonydoza6: I declined a request to roll it down all of the way. Not because I 'felt like being a smart ass' but because I didn't want to. It was a perfectly legal response to this agent's request, yet some other agent decided to step outside of the law because of my lawful behavior.

The rest of your hypotheses about me are wrong as well.

[tonydoza6]

@Pafoofnik1 no some other dumbass was saying its 100 miles from the border. So please enlighten me as to the precise location of this checkpoint in Marfa, you have some grid coordinates to back up your claim?

[Pafoofnik1]

@Pafoofnik1: You are correct, you said "All permanent checkpoints are 35 miles our less" which is wrong.

I used Google Earth's distance calculator. If you have evidence that this checkpoint is less than 35.1 miles from the border, then please present it.

[tonydoza6]

39 is certainly less than 100. All permanent checkpoints are 35 miles our less, temp checkpoints may be different. And you got threatened, I'm sure you are stretching the meaning of the word since you felt offended that they actually took the time to ask you questions and do their job. But I take it that you didn't go to jail? Like I said you had nothing to worry about. So sorry you got your feelings hurt.

[Pafoofnik1]

@tonydoza6: You didn't say 100, you said : "all checkpoints are 35 miles or less from the border". Now you add: "All permanent checkpoints are 35 miles our less". So you are wrong twice.

Marfa is a permanent checkpoint.

This one didn't ask a question, he said: "If you don't roll down this window, I'm going to call the Sheriff and have him come down and arrest you". I was threatened with arrest and was not acting illegally. I was not arrested because they didn't have probable cause.

[tonydoza6]

You idiots that say these checkpoints are 100 miles from the border need to check a map, all checkpoints are 35 miles or less from the border, the border is not just at ports of entry dumb ass. And these are immigration checkpoints if you are a US citizen that is not transporting anything illegal you don't have to worry about anything. In case you haven't noticed or you've been spending too much time with your head up your liberal college professor's ass, we have an illegal immigration problem.

[Pafoofnik1]

@tonydoza6 said: "all checkpoints are 35 miles or less from the border"

This is a false statement. The Marfa, TX checkpoint is greater than 39 miles for the nearest border, as the crow flies.

And said: "if you are a US citizen that is not transporting anything illegal you don't have to worry about anything. "

This statement is also false. Last time I went through a temp checkpoint, I was threatened, twice. I am A citizen and was doing nothing illegal.

[Dewdaahman]

we all know if there IS NO border within sight it's NOT a border check point.. I don't even know if check point is one word or two.. I never studied that/those words in school together like that..

[Spytheweb]

We would not have this if illegals were not flooding our country. I see no problem if you are legal.

[PyroPortrayal]

@Spytheweb

You see no problem with the destruction of the rights that made our country great, that set the foundation for the rest of the world to revolt against their masters and built the civilization that we now enjoy without thought?

Couldn't a illegal immigrant just say "yes" at these checkpoints?

If the politicians were serious about protecting the border we would have militarized it (im not talking 25, 50, 100 miles away from the border like these checkpoints are) a long time ago.

[icrails]

BUT YOUR ON THE HIGHWAY STUPID AND IF YOU DONT BELONG HERE THEN GET OUT

[josephericlopez]

@icrails These so called check points are 100+ miles away from the border. They should be at the border. Read through the text that is in the clip.

[Travincall]

Very simple....WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS IN A TIME OF WAR. If you cannot understand that you need to have your family killed by a Muslim and then when your crying in your bed I can laugh at you and make a video showing how once you were bitching about border control and Nazi crap and now your wishing you weren't so stupid.

[Pafoofnik1]

@Travincall:Well, thank goodness we're not in a war then.

[aviomaster]

In Fascism there are no personal freedoms.

If you do not obey the Fascist regime you go to prison or get killed.

Very simple, and USA is heading towards fascism.

[29tino]

As you know those bp checkpoints are only seem on those border states with mexico. check out securteborderintel page supposedly they have drug smugglers walking 75 mile north of the border how did they get the far i dont know. is it true? i dont know but anything is possible, dont you think. and the scary thing is they have 2 armed men with semi-automatic weapon as an escort.

[chamsdropz24]

@29tino Yes it is true. I have personally found sign at the river that people crossed and after about a 42 mile ride on an ATV following the sign, arrested illegal aliens carrying drugs and AK-47's. There is another place about 90 miles from the border where agents catch aliens, drugs etc...all the time.

[Pafoofnik1]

Mr Chamzdropz24. Please quote the parts of your cites that support your statement that: The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US and not in violation of any Immigration laws. Just rattling off the case numbers is worthless.

That's all I ask, that you support your claims with the facts.

You pulled this same stunt some 4 months ago. People on your channel are still waiting for your proof that CheckpointUSA said these checkpoints are illegal.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 The same things you agree that we cannot do. Did you ever stop to think why that is or do you turn a blind eye to it? Brigone Ponce - the officer may question

the driver and passengers about their citizenship, imm.

Status, and he may ask them to explain suspicious

circumstances, but any further detention must be based

on consent or probable cause. Says it right there. I'm sure you'll chime in and say, "oh it doesn't say it specifically the way you said it" like you always do

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Please stay on topic. Your comment here does not support your statement that: [The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US and not in violation of any Immigration laws].

According to the court,s, it applies after a brief questioning.

If you have proof otherwise, then please present it.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 Exactly as I stated you would do. Common sense tells you that the SC says at a checkpoint, the agent may question the driver and passengers about citizenship etc... 428 US 564-564, without articulable suspicion we may refer you to secondary for further inspection. If we want to detain you once the Immigration portion of our job has concluded, the seizure must be based on the same factors that would constitute reasonable suspicion in a roving patrol stop. Simple, easy and clear.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 The case that you cite, Martinez-Fuerte actually tries to argue the same moot point that you're trying to argue here, the intrusiveness of a checkpoint stop against the 4th amendment. Again, try actually reading it and you will see how wrong you are. The consent or PC requirement is AFTER the Immigration Inspection has concluded, and YOU don't get to decide when that encounter is over, that is the officers discretion. The SC does not support YOU deciding a lawful seizure is over.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 So what a competent person would conclude from this is very clear. Brief questioning refers to the Immigration Inspection. The Inspection can include a referral to secondary, request for documents and checks run against the occupants amongst many other things. The Agent determines when the inspection is over, not you, based upon him resolving any suspicions he may have. If he wants to detain you further, the same requirement for a roving patrol stop seizure applies, PC or consent.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 and that's perfectly ok. If ignoring the obvious, the fact checkpointusa hasn't won a single suit against BP, the fact that I post for you NUMEROUS Cases you refuse to read, there is no hope for you like the months ago we went at it and you were proven ignorant, liar, and only god knows what else.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Has the Border Patrol itself has actually ever field suit against CheckpointUSA,? He's won all the other cases though.

You post cases, but they don't support your claims.

You call me a liar now. I ask you to quote any statement I've made here that is a lie, and a citation to independently verifiable facts that proof it is a lie.

And, no "I already did" doesn't cut it here. If you have before, then you should be pleased to throw it in my face again.

But you can't.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 Describe to me what legal grounds the BP would have to support a suit against Terry and the reasoning behind such a wild question. My cases always support my claims. The daily operations of the checkpoints that continue doing exactly what you say they can't supports my claims. The fact Terry has lost every single suit against CBP supports my claim. The fact that M v. F argues the same crap point you're trying to and the SC ruled against him supports my claim.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Like I said earlier, I don't think the BP hase ever filed suit against Terry. If you have evidence that they have, then please cite it.

Stating that "Terry has lost every single suit against CBP" is an outright lie, unless the filed a suit to begin with.

It's like last time when you said that CheckpointUSA said these checkpoint are illegal. We're all still waiting for your proof...

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 I never once stated BP did file suit, I said Bressi has filed suit and all of them were thrown out as hogwash. "Illegal Homeland Security Drug Checkpoints" the title of Mr. Bressi's report. There is your proof. Read it for yourself.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: My goodness, you're right. Imagine that. So you're only half wrong.

Please show me in that report where it said that Terry filed suit, and that all of them were thrown out...

Because I sure can;t find it in that source you cited.

Maybe this is why you won't sources and, insted, only opinion about them.

[Pafoofnik1]

@Pafoofnik1 ... won't 'quote' sources. (Sorry, I'm on a computer that doesn't spell check and whatnot).

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 You asked for proof that he said checkpoints are illegal. You have your proof. You asked for proof that his lawsuits have been thrown out. Terry himself has admitted that the only suit a judge has accepted is the one on the back of another agency. I don't have to provide proof...it came from the horses mouth.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Well, I just re-read that link "Illegal Homeland Security Drug Checkpoints"... Are you sure you want to use that article?

OK.

You said: "You asked for proof that he said checkpoints are illegal."

It's not in that article.

Sorry. There is not one instance in that article where he said that internal checkpoints are illegal. If you disagree, then simply quote where he said it in that article.

I'm sure glad I'm not you right now.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 It says it in the title. The self written title that he chose to describe the content of the report. Damn, you can't even comprehend simple things like that and want to argue law with me.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24 Drug checkpoints are illegal. City of Indianapolis v. Edmund

I'm not arguing. I'm asking you to prove something you said was true.

Sorry you can't. Tough luck old chap.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 Immigration Checkpoints are NOT Illegal and that is exactly what he said they were. So yes, I will use that specifically to prove my point. You just refuse to admit when you're wrong, when presented with irrefutable proof that you are wrong, you request things that are just plain stupid and that is your way of attempting to maintain your baseless argument.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24:@chamsdropz24: Of course immigration checkpoints aren't illegal, sport. I never said they were. And neither did CheckpointUSA.

"and that is exactly what he said they were." Then how come you've never been able to show anyone where he said that there, dude?

i am wrong about what, bud? I'm asking a question, not making any statement.

Who's arguing, dude? I asked a question.

You might want to settle down a bit. All this frustration can't be good for you.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1Not frustrated at all. People on here can see for themselves who the person that's FOS is. You deny common sense principles, refuse to accept when you're wrong and that is enough for me. Nobody agrees with you except the other dimwit that thinks he knows the law.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: I'm gong through your little case now. The word "satisfied" is not there...

"We note initially that our inquiry considers only Agent Holt's questioning of Machuca-Barrera up to the point at which Machuca-Barrera consented to a search of his car. After Machuca-Barrera consented to a search, Agent Holt needed no justification to prolong the encounter."

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 This would include the time necessary to ascertain the number and identity of the occupants of the vehicle, inquire about citizenship status, request identification or other proof of citizenship, and request consent to extend the detention.

Says it right there. The detention is legal so long as Immigration matters are the scope. In other words, once you've satisfied the agent, the scope of the detention is over. COMMON SENSE!! It eludes you, I know.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Where did it say that "The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US and not in violation of any Immigration laws" again?

I sure don't see it in that comment you just made. Let me look again...

Nope satisfy isn't there. Nothing at all about having to prove a thing.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Oh, here's another quote:

"the permissible duration of the stop was the amount of time reasonably necessary for Agent Holt to ask a few questions about immigration status."

See what quotes do? They answer questions. Interesting concept, that.

Maybe I'll have leftovers for lunch.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 To scrutinize too closely a set of questions asked by a Border Patrol agent would engage judges in an enterprise for which they are ill-equipped and would court inquiry into the subjective purpose of the officer asking the questions

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable seizures, not unreasonable questions, and law enforcement officers are always free to question individuals if in doing so the questions do not effect a seizure

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Sure does. Don't know why you are bringing it up though.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Wow! Gold mine!

"Likewise, while a drug-dog sniff is not a search, see Edmond, 531 U.S. at 40, it is beyond the justifying scope of an immigration stop."

Thanks so much for finding that little tidbit for me.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 PERFECT!! This explains exactly everything I've stated before. You take a PIECE of the law and ignore all teh rest. Just underneath that quote it reads as follows; "Thus, border patrol agents may only conduct a drug-dog sniff if it does not lengthen the stop or if they obtain consent." Now I'm done arguing with you. You've proven my point that you don't know the law, are a deceiver and a liar. There is the proof you asked for, from your own words! Thanks again!

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: I never said they couldn't . Are you in alternate reality where you see thing that I never actually wrote here in the real world?

"Now I'm done arguing with you" Who's arguing? I'm just playing with the toys. Glad to hear your done though. I imagine everyone here's quit reading our comments days ago as it is.

[CheckpointUSA]

And this one:

"The mere fact that a person refuses to consent to search cannot be used as evidence in support of reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (10th Cir. 1998) (noting that it "would make a mockery of the reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements . . . if citizens' insistence that searches and seizures be conducted in conformity with constitutional norms could create the suspicion or cause that renders their consent unnecessary"

[CheckpointUSA]

Actually what I've said is that drug checkpoints are illegal chamsdropz24. If I've stated immigration checkpoints are illegal, it should be really easy for you to quote me, the context & reference where I said it.

Good luck with that.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 US v. Miguel Machuca-Barrera/261 F.3d 425

Read this case in it's entirety because it is far too much to post. This covers the PC or Consent rule which the court states applies after an Agent has determined citizenship, and it also addresses drug checkpoints. Good reading for someone who refuses to admit he's wrong. The court does it for you. So don't take snippets out of it to try to say they didn't address it, cause that would be a lie.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Sorry chum. I'm not going to wade through some court case to prove your point for you.

Now you just find the cite, that confirms your comment that "The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US and not in violation of any Immigration laws" in that there case of yours.

Until then, it's about time for lunch here...

[CheckpointUSA]

Are you trying to claim that Homeland Security Drug Checkpoints inside the country are legal chamsdropz24?

How about that list of cases against CBP that you keep claiming I filed that have allegedly been thrown out of court? I'm still waiting with baited breath to read about all these courtroom experiences I've had that I just can't remember.

If you want to read about the ones I can remember, you can find them on my website and blog.

[CheckpointUSA]

You keep making this ridiculous claim that I've lost every suit against the CBP chamsdropz24. Why don't you list the case numbers associated with the cases I've lost against the CBP that support your statement? It should be relatively straight forward for you to do so if indeed I have lost any cases against the CBP.

I can hardly wait for your response to this one....

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 Again, read Martinez v. Fuerte in it's entirety instead of quoting parts that appear, but in fact do not support your ideas. Because that's all you really have are ideas about how you want to law to work...but the proof is in the pudding and that pudding is all the cases brought against the checkpoints where defendants argue the same ignorant points you do and lose.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Thanks for all of your opinions.

Please stay on topic. Please quote quote the law that supports your statement that: [The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US and not in violation of any Immigration laws].

According to the courts, it applies after a brief questioning.

If you have proof otherwise, then please present it. Don't use your opinions, I have to follow what the law says, not your idea of what the law says.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 I quoted specific findings regarding the exact thing you are requesting, and just like the last time you were caught being a liar, you dismiss it because admitting you're wrong would prove everything you've stated to be the bullshit that it is. Brief questioning regarding your right to be in or remain in the US. If the agent suspects a violation...what happens next? Surely he just releases you since it's just for brief questioning...

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: No, you cited a law or statute. What you failed to do was quote that part of it that supported your statement. Instead, you just opinioned... just like last time.

Still waiting for any statement of mine that was a lie and the quote from an indepentantly verifiable source that proves it a lie.

You just keep forgetting that part...

We'll get around to your next questions once we clean up the mess you've left on the table...

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 I don't have to cite it. You remember it clearly, I told you that you were no longer worth responding to because you did lie. Interestingly enough I cannot find that exchange...wonder what happened to it? Did you erase your comments? Tell you what, find it, link to it for me and I'll point out all the lies you told. I cited case law that supported my claim, and I can tell you didn't actually read the case because you'd have known it was not a statute.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Of course you have to cite it, if you want people here to believe you.

Are you expecting everyone here to think that "The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US and not in violation of any Immigration laws" just because you say it's so?

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 You're too stupid to even understand that I am agreeing that a detention beyond Immigration related questioning, and the result of that questioning not arousing suspicion in the agent, would have to be legally justified by PC or consent. Idiot. Find me a case where an agent developed suspicion and it was thrown out because he failed to only briefly question the occupants of the vehicle.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Thanks for your opinion.

No thanks on your request. I'm not stupid enough to say such a thing without knowing it was true to begin with

No need for me to prove something I never said, dont't-cha-know?

Still need to clean up your own mess.

[CheckpointUSA]

Once again with the false claim that I've lost every single suit against the BP chamsdropz24. Where's that list of cases I've lost against CBP or the BP? I'm still waiting.

If you can't get something as straightforward and independently verifiable as this straight, it's no wonder you're hopelessly confused about the application of case law at suspicionless Border Patrol checkpoints inside the country....

[Pafoofnik1]

Stupid brain dead YouTube auto spambot can't understand that commenters sometimes repeat parts of their comments to keep the discussion on topic...

Please click on the "show all" button to read where I asked chamsdropz24 to provide proof of his incorrect statement.

Thank you.

Hey, Youtube, fix your software.

[BlueCloneTrooper521]

ehh.. the second one was a wheigh station... yes.. you do have to stop for that..

[josephericlopez]

@BlueCloneTrooper521 I know the second one has that sign, but when you pull up it is a checkpoint just like the other one. It was converted into a checkpoint. It had the same Homeland security employees there with the same uniforms on, asking the same questions.

Weight Stations don't ask if you are a US citizen, checkpoints do.

[Mooseboy240]

I don't believe the stop is unreasonable seizure to my knowledge it is actually considered a detention without reasonable suspicion also unconstitutonal but as opposed to a unreasonable seizure where an item or belonging would be taken it is in fact a detention or stopping of the person(s) for the investing of a crime that is being suspected by the officers (unreasonably at this point of course)

[chamsdropz24]

@Mooseboy240 Detention, seizure...same thing. The seizure at a checkpoint is constitutional because the SC has ruled that it is not unreasonable.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: Just as long as it's brief... Any further detention requires consent or probable cause.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 - Let's be specific about that portion of the law. The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US and not in violation of any Immigration laws, he wants to detain you further. Mere suspicion is the only requirement for a referral to secondary and the SC refuses to place a time limit on how long the agent has to resolve his suspicions and have stated only that due diligence be exercised.

[Pafoofnik1]

@chamsdropz24: "The PC or consent rule applies if after the agent is satisfied that you are legally in the US"

Please cite the source to this decision. Thank you.

I stand by my original statement, and so does the Supreme Court:

"routine stopping... for brief questioning... any further detention or search must be based on [the greater showing of] consent or probable cause." 428 U. S. 543 (1976)

Doesn't say anything about this being after the agents is 'satisfied' of a thing.

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 Taking portions of that ruling to try and make a point won't fly with me. As always I prove you wrong, so here goes again. US v. Sanders, US v. Rubio-Rivera, Martinez v. Fuerte. If an agent wants to detain you once the routine immigration inspection is over, it must be based on PC or consent. Mar. v. Fue. Until you satisfy the agent that you are in the US legally and not in any violation of law, you can be detained. Sanders, 937 F.2d at 1500, Mar v. Fue 428 U.S. at 558. Done and done

[chamsdropz24]

@Pafoofnik1 Also take time to read U.S. v. Juan Manuel Rascon-Ortiz and Edgar Rascon-Sotelo. You don't know or understand the law in it's entirety and continuing to post small portions of such a massive court ruling only proves that you lack the integrity to tell the whole truth. You take excerpts and try to use them to further your deceit in hopes others will follow. Just because you don't like checkpoints doesn't mean you can falsify statements hoping they will be advantageous to your agenda.

[josephericlopez]

After seeing some of the comments in here you guys had better wise up and go read your constitutions.

[acifreak]

Hows is that breaking the law. If I had ANY sort of suspicion I can ask you to get out of your veichle. Called probable cause. Just because the 4 admenment is there, didn't mean its going to be upheld by the judicial system.

[josephericlopez]

@acifreak The amendment provides for probable cause. I am not talking about that. A vehicle can be searched ANYWHERE there is probable cause. But they can't just randomly be searched, and the check points should be at the boarder not 100 miles in from the the boarder.

They get away with this because they have declared a constitutional free zone.

[Pafoofnik1]

@acifreak: "If I had ANY sort of suspicion I can ask you to get out of your veichle. "

Ask away. It doesn't mean I'll be getting out tho. Better be quick, the clock is ticking.

[acifreak1]

lmao, if they have probable cause, your fucked. Stop crying about it. If you don't have anything illegal in your car then your golden. If some dick comes to my checkpoint complaining to me about his 4admen right, i would just say. Probable cause bitch.

[Pafoofnik1]

@acifreak1: Then you would be breaking the law. You know what they call agents that break the law? First they call them defendants, then they call them criminals.

[josephericlopez]

@acifreak1 They tried that with Steven Anderson in court, and Steve Anderson WON his case. I hope he sues the pants off those jack asses that tazed him. I would personally like to taze those that tazed him so they can see what it feels like!

[jfs1988]

I passed through the NM one last year. I remember it used to be truck weigh station back in the 90s. I used to think that they were only in north/south highways like Interstate 5 and 15 in CA. I heard there is also a checkpoint at Interstate 8 east of San Diego and after passing Yuma.

[209075]

you dumb ass!  if your not illeagel to be here and you dont have a trunk load of wet backs whats the problem?

and the U.S. constitution only covers U.S citisens

[Pafoofnik1]

@209075: and the U.S. constitution only covers U.S citisens.

Proof? I've seen lots of people toss out this incorrect statement, only to disappear when asked to cite any proof to back it up. I seriously doubt that you will be any different.

[motionvision]

If it was a nazi checkpoint, you would have been pulled from your vehicle, marked, and forced into slave labor regardless of whether you had done anything wrong or not. And you had a good chance that you would never see freedom again until after you were dead.

[shippyshiphead]

oh brother. There are state checkpoints at every state border for a reason. They ask if you have any fruits are veggies, then they make sure you aren't acting suspicious, like carrying a load of drugs. Then you are on your way. But this helps control amber alerts and other potential problems.

State check points have been around for a LONG time.

[morfo1010]

This is nothing, traveling with a film production team from Texas to Florida, we where stopped 3 times and they ask us for our papers, "deep inside the US" even if the whole group was white, we are not free anymore, what if one of our guys was latin or asian? what if he forgot his paper in home, this is crazy, welcome to the land of freedom!

[candypeaches281]

I agree I live in TX and the cheak point leaving el paso back to san antonio is hell they ask so many ??? and your like wtf I cant wait to be back in san antonio

[1x93cm]

pretty soon it's gonna be like half life 2

"Pick up that can...."

and you BETTER pick it up

[SSWodzu]

xD Its not a nazi checkpoint, its a zionist one (jewish) Hope to see all pedros and juans dead soon...

14/88 European Pride

[josephericlopez]

@SSWodzu How in the world do you figure that? It is nazi in the sense that they had checkpoints in nazi Germany. So we have checkpoints here like they did there.

[SSWodzu]

@josephericlopez You get the same checkpoints everywhere in the Europe, get over it dude

[josephericlopez]

@SSWodzu Do you understand anything about the constitution or what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the document?

It's not as much the checkpoints that are alarming as is the police state that goes with it. Watch police state 1 through 3, and see Police State 4 when it comes out this month, April 21st.

[SSWodzu]

@josephericlopez How about i send you a ticket to a nice gas chamber so you can join your ancestors in my ashtray

[SSWodzu]

@josephericlopez damn i responded to wrong person :D my bad

[usergently]

@SSWodzu Excacly the best example of a sheep. Get over it dude!, yeah go back to your cage and watch t.v.

[SSWodzu]

@usergently Another great example of stupid North American's that listen to jewish propaganda, I just love when non-whites go around and cry how racist we whites are and how bad it is for them in Europe and North America, its simple if you don't like it here then get the fuck out of here, nobody wants non-whites in Europe anyway, its our land and you are not welcome

[notbarackobama16]

@SSWodzu Lmao... nazi's are fucking smart.. so smart the majority of them are in prison... fucking each other. Look idiot... this checkpoint shit is allot bigger than peoples skin color... the government doesnt give a fuck what color you happen to be... they only care about power and wealth.. so fuck a poor white person and a poor black person all the same.

This is a People vs Government problem... not a bullshit, retarded, neanderthal, imaginary color issue...

[josephericlopez]

@BoleroSonFan That is too bad that they do. The Supreme Court does not really uphold the constitution. It would not be the first time that they ruled against the US Constitution.

They tend to only rule in favor of the US Constitution when there would be such a public outrage if they didn't. But the public has become docile, and allows just about anything now.

[middsteve]

If it stops illegals from entering, I'm for it .If you do not have anything to hide,don't worry about it. Illegals are a bigger drain on this country than checkpoints.

[TheAbbott88]

hibraisil.. you are correct sir. I have a serious issue with the seatbelt & dui stops, too. Not only is it an infringement of the 4th, but also the interstate commerce act. I am a big proponent of secure borders, but this continual erosion of our rights is ridiculous.

[tdhill84]

THe only people that have something against border patrol checkpoints of these sorts are the ones who are hauling dope or money or illegals.....Why else would you have your panties in a wad? And dont give me this whole freedom thing, because if a cop pulls you over in the middle of the freakin USA and he wants to run a k9 on you, then it will happen! Hablo Ingles por favor....

[josephericlopez]

Well, it is exactly because of freedom. We should be able to travel freely through out the us.

Only under reasonable cause should a search be allowed. If a cop has reasonable cause, then it is okay to use a k9.

This is a dangerous precedent, as Nazi Germany had checkpoints.

[hibraisil]

Why did you comply and answer the question? You basically confirmed their right to stop and harass people.

[josephericlopez]

The first one I will do out of courtesy, and the rest after that I will say that they don't have the right to ask me.

But if you notice what was my answer to the second question? I said Texas. Did I really provide an answer? I was already in Texas. So I really didn't answer his question.

Next time I will be more bold and stick with "Am I being detailed?" & "Am I free to go?".

This was my first experience with it. I say this in the clip if you look at the text I put in there.

[josephericlopez]

I don't know about that 20-30 miles. The border is back in El Paso.  I question if those guards are us citizens. This is a dangerous precedent as Nazi Germany had in state check points. These check points belong at the border and that's it.

[tdhill84]

Nothing unreasonable about that....Border Patrol making sure no one illegal is taking advantage of US taxpayer money......and by the way if you turn to the right when you are in the checkpoint in texas the border is 20-30 miles away, not 100....However, If you are a citizen of the US and are not concerned about having to pay taxes while illegals don't, then disregard my statement. Only common sense.......................Un­less you are one of the criminals on I-10.

[hibraisil]

It IS unreasonable. The 4th amendment was created EXACTLY for the purpose of preventing the government from randomly stopping people. And they chose the word PEOPLE instead of the word CITIZENS. If they have reason to believe you are an illegal THEN they have a right to stop you. They don't have the right to go fishing. I'm sorry but they need to find a way to look for criminals that doesn't include violating the constitution.

[josephericlopez]

Exactly. They are not permitted to go on a fishing expedition. They have to have probable cause.

These check points are through out Arizona, and other parts of the country. I just happen to hit those two on my trip.

[GodGunsGutsGlory777]

AMEN brother. The 4th Amendment is supposed to guarantee us form being victims of random search and seizures.

Thanks to FALSE FLAG threats like 9-11 and the latest "Underwear bomber", we get our rights bypassed and violated.

[josephericlopez]

That is the one thing we need to get the general public to understand, then they will see a lot of other things after that.

[GodGunsGutsGlory777]

Yup!

And the FACT that there are not checkpoints for illegals. K-9's can't tell if someone has a green card.

I think they have LICENSE PLATE READING SOFTWARE on those cameras.

I got to thinking yesterday after watching this video. Another user posted a video of a checkpoint he has gone through and the guards called him BY NAME. He never gave them his name.

Pastor Steve. They likely knew who he was by time he got to the guard.

Steve exposed Obama and likely is on a list. :-/

[josephericlopez]

I saw on infowars one time a think that said "don't pay the state, spray your plate".

[GodGunsGutsGlory777]

I want to spray my plate. But they say it's illegal as are any frames around the plates now. Even from the dealer.

[DFMBro]

@GodGunsGutsGlory777

hey God, watch my video response. at this particular checkpoint, you will now be able to say, "yes", instead of "i think" they have LPR cameras

[GodGunsGutsGlory777]

@DFMBro

You're right!

And nice videos bro!

[irvnz]

The Soviet Union had internal passports and occasional stops, but this is hearsay; I never drove there, only flew.

México still does, and they will accept $20 for expediting your processing.

Did you offer the customary bribe?

[josephericlopez]

Please excuse the typos. I did not proof read the text.

[XeeJay2]

Love the video keep up the good work...we are not alone out here!  One voice can make a difference together.

[christopherpage08]

nice video fellow patriot

[Anothercoilgun]

Thank God you made it through without incident. Depending on the policy that month like funds needed to expand the department or the departments owe money for whatever reason to whomever, they will attempt to sight you for crazy stuff like improper tire pressure. This is not funny its reality.