AK94ME is one hell of an institutionalized and mindless punk. I don't care what your assertions are. You come after me and try to violate my civil rights, I will put a bullet right between your eyes. This country's heading that direction anyway on a massive scale directly because people like you, who claim to have "served" (funny how "serve" means nothing more than to uphold corruption and generate revenue) will always go against what you swore to uphold and be a mindless drone for government.
Its funny that they'll spend this kinda money on pointless and unconstitutional stops, but then obama will cry broke and make idle threats to cut SS. These guys are clowns.
LOL you are a funny guy. My opinion is just as valid as yours and until a competent authority determines the correct one, my opinion carries just as much weight as yours.
I served over 20 years, currently I am retired, and I live in the southeast United States. However please feel free to visit, let me know how your court case is settled. Just for your knowledge I have never lost a civil or criminal case, nor has any governmental agency or myself ever settled out of court on any issue.
Feel free to keep up on the status of my court case by visiting my website & blog AK94ME. I"ll be posting the latest in the near future. Just for your knowledge I've never lost a civil or criminal case either & I've been in court several times now regarding different checkpoint issues. I've even won pro-se.
Anyway, if you ever feel like coming out of retirement to help me win another, you know where to find me.
Lets see the American Civil Liberties Union was not interested in a violation of civil liberties and you had a ruling on several issues by the 9th Circuit Court (by the way in 2009 15 of the 16 cases from the 9th circuit that went to the Supreme Court were overturned)
Most authoritarian punks like yourself do laugh at others who seek to assert their rights AK94ME. In my case, the government agents were laughing as well. That is until their claims of sovereign and qualified immunity were thrown out the window. They're not laughing anymore.
Nonetheless, I could use a good laugh myself. Why don't you set yourself up to be the primary stopping agent the next time I go through this checkpoint. We can have a good laugh together & see who has the last laugh.
@AK94ME the ACLU only take cases that basically appeal to their liberal bent. i will admit that sometimes that they win a ruling that actually helps everyone; this is more of an accident that by design, however. they should take on any violation of our civil rights, but it has to be the "right case." and, of course, what is "right," is merely how they happen to feel that day or maybe it depends on which way the wind is blowing.
Either you have a lawsuit or you do not, either it has been ruled upon or it has not. The ACLU provides free legal advice and representation to cases they accept. They tend to specify in civil rights law suits. Have you asked them for assistance and have you received a reply? Most civil rights lawsuits have been brought by people with little or no means.
So then did you go to trial? Was a verdict issued?
I already stated I have an ongoing lawsuit AK94ME with all of the legal documentation freely available on my website & blog. The ACLU in my area wasn't interested in pursuing the case so I found other assistance. The case has gone on for 9 years, went up to the 9th circuit where I won on several issues & is now back in district court with a 2nd round of discovery taking place right now. If the judge doesn't grant summary judgment motions, a trial should take place early next year.
Wrong AK94ME. In order for there to be an 'appeals process', one side OR the other must appeal a lower court ruling. That could either be the gov't agency or the private party bringing the suit forward. Given the fact that the average gov't entity has far more resources & access to legal assistance than the avg private party, the chances of a gov't entity appealing an adverse ruling are much greater than the private party.
The point I was making regarding money for a lawsuit was to counter your comment regarding sitting on the sidelines instead of bringing forth a lawsuit AK94ME. As you should know, legal action can be very expensive & time consuming and unlike gov't agents, most private individuals don't get paid to charge others with crimes & initiate legal action against them.
As such, there's little correlation between the validity of a civil rights position & whether a lawsuit is filed in support of it.
Well since you are so sure I am wrong and you are correct. You should get an attorney and sue for what is called a Constitutional Tort. Ask for punitive damages, otherwise known as exemplary damages. Don't sit on the sidelines, act and let me know how it happens, maybe I will see you in court! LOL
What makes you think I'm sitting on the sidelines AK94ME? My nine year federal civil rights lawsuit associated with a different checkpoint encounter that took place just a short distance away from this one is starting to heat back up again. You can read about it on my website & blog.
Regarding filing another lawsuit that would undoubtedly last another decade, why don't you forward me the time & money I'll need to see the thing through the appeals process.
As with most people they do not understand how detector dogs function. Terms like scent threshold, residual odor, United States v. Caballes, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, are unknown to most people that are hobby lawyers. Yes folks there is a difference between a sniff and a search. The is also a difference between a lawful stop and a search. A lawful checkpoint and a K9 sniff of the exterior of your vehicle is NOT a search.
As with most people you don't understand the legal issues involved here AK94ME. SCOTUS has never upheld the use of drug sniffing dogs at internal immigration checkpoints & has explicitly struck down drug interdiction & law enforcement checkpoints as illegal in Indianapolis V Edmond. Additionally, suspicionless checkpoints MUST be narrowly tailored & minimally intrusive to be considered legal. Detaining someone at an immigration checkpoint to allow a drug dog to sniff a vehicle...
...while failing to make any immigration related queries is an extended detention that must be premised on consent or probable cause at such checkpoints. Neither of which these agents had. In other words this checkpoint is not limited in scope, is not minimally intrusive, is not a permanent checkpoint & is not setup along a nexus point for border traffic. Four strikes and counting....
Dude you are a dumbass. You need to educate yourself a bit more. The term "drug sniffing' is also improperly used. If they were "sniffing" drugs they'd be deceased.
Dude, you're an authoritarian punk. If I need education on this topic, why don't you attempt to educate me instead of making smart ass comments.
BTW, the phrase 'drug sniffing' is sufficiently accurate for purposes of this discussion unless you're claiming the dogs aren't being directed to sniff around vehicles for the purposes of detecting drugs.
There is no articulable suspicion of ANY crime here. The 4th Amendment Is supposed to guarantee us freedom from these tactics. Drugs are a fact of life, the same Percentage of the population is addicted to drugs as there were in 1776, 1850, 1920 and now. The drug war is an utter failure, waste of the peoples taxes, waste of all the lives the system has stolen. The Drug War has only made drugs more profitable, it hasn't removed anything from the streets.
WOW! Your right are a joke to them, they where really mocking you sitting there under the blue canopy, its like you live in a different world then the rest of us. Thanks for the insight into what is going on in your area.
Clueless as always. Customs K9's are trained to detect humans, cash, drugs, etc...Some can detect all of them, others just drugs, others only humans, etc...So without you actually knowing for sure what the dog was trained to detect, you cannot make such a wild statement. You use these statements to further your lies. Bottom line, checkpoints have been authorized by law, and until they actually break it, they're doing nothing wrong. It also allows for a open air sniff of your vehicle by K9.
Thar's funny chamsdropz24, the K9 handlers manning these checkpoints have admitted in court & elsewhere their dogs are dual-trained to detect humans & drugs. If you have independently verifiable evidence to the contrary, by all means share it with us.
Bottom line is SCOTUS has only allowed limited scope permanent immigration checkpoints along nexus points for border traffic with any further detention or searching after the initial questions requiring consent or probable cause.
@CheckpointUSA Oh yea, I don't need independently verifiable evidence, as you have provided NONE that would qualify as nothing more than mere opinion. I provide factual evidence through actual EXPERIENCE with these dogs and working a Port of Entry. When was the last time you worked for CBP? Never...that's what I thought
For your evidence, all you need to do is reference the video(s) of Steven Anderson's recent court appearance chamsdropz24 and/or reference my blog which also has links to Anderson's court videos amongst other documentation. I think testimony from Border Patrol agents under oath is sufficient proof even when some of them were caught lying about other issues such as the existence of checkpoint guidelines, K9 training docs, etc.
@chamsdropz24 Anyway it goes why the fuck are they that far from the border? Doesn't it say BORDER PATROL on the vehicles? Shouldn't they be close to the border? Or does your pea brain law-enforcement attitude fail to see this point OFFICER?
Erm.... Surely the detection of drugs is a good for less than 2 mins of ur time. Seriously u need to wake to the world the big picture that is and not what u would like to be!! These officers seem to be doing a very hard job for the good of America, by complaining u are indirectly supporting the trafficking of drugs and illegal immigration across the USA. So what if the legislation may not include drug searches. I believe it should be amended to do so and hence ur complaining would cease!!
Surely you are clueless about "the world" and the "big picture" tomminty. If you weren't, you'd understand why drug searches are illegal absent consent or probable cause at immigration checkpoints. You'd also understand that it has nothing to do with legislation & everything to do with Supreme Court rulings. Judging from your age & your comment, it appears that you're still parroting lines that mommy and daddy used to say to you without actually understanding what they were saying.
Please explain how individuals exercising their rights while being seized absent suspicion at internal checkpoints by federal agents no where near the border is stopping anyone from defending the country rdnckff7134. While you're at it, please explain how federal agents stopping domestic traffic absent suspicion inside the country no where near the border is defending the country.
The Border Patrol is on record, both in court and through public spokesperson's, that the agency's internal checkpoints are used not only to interdict illegal aliens but also to interdict drugs, terrorists, felons & more recently weapons. The use of dual-trained K9 units at pre-primary, primary & secondary inspections stations highlights the fact that the Border Patrol has impermissibly expanded the scope of immigration checkpoints into illegal drug interdiction checkpoints as well.
Not a street lawyer rdnckff7134 just a guy exercising his rights. BTW, drug checkpoints are illegal. So says SCOTUS in Indianapolis v Edmond (2000). So are 'terrorist' checkpoints for that matter. At least inside the country away from the border or its functional equivalent.
"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".
And again f22alpha, it applies to all the checkpoints in my videos which are not border checkpoints::
“The 4th Amendment held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from the border & its functional equivalents, & for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint & a roving patrol.” - U.S. V Ortiz
@CheckpointUSA they are covered under the extended border laws....u only cite the laws which are advantages to your argument n not all the other laws that apply.Which allows checkpoints 100 miles from the border with limited authority...starting to get it yet?
I'm not questioning the fact that the courts have allowed limited scope permanent immigration checkpoints setup along nexus points for border traffic within 100 miles of the border. I'm challenging the legality of the operation of such checkpoints when their scope is expanded to actively look for drugs, felons, weapons, etc and when they extend detentions and conduct searches absent consent or probable cause.
@CheckpointUSA if you are not questioning that fact and agree the check points are legal, then why do you refuse to answer the question that you say they can legally ask at a legal checkpoint.
A few nuances you missed f22alpha. SCOTUS only upheld brief stops for immigration purposes at permanent checkpoints setup along nexus points for border traffic. The checkpoints depicted in my videos are neither permanent nor setup along nexus points for border traffic.
Regardless of this fact, just because a government agent can legally ask question(s) doesn't create a legal obligation for anyone to answer those question(s). This fundamental aspect of American jurisprudence is well established.
@CheckpointUSA and how do you know they are not border nexus? Just because they don't connect to the border does not mean it is not a bordet nexus. No where does it say they need to be permanent.
So what is your argument in these videos? That you don't have to answer questions at an immigration checkpoint?
The Supreme Court defined a border nexus as 2 or more major arteries coming together while leading away from the border f22alpha. With regards to permanence,I already quoted the court case to you. I'll do it again however since you obviously weren't paying attention....
You seem to be under the impression I'm your personal research service f22alpha. I'm not.
I've provided you with quotes & names of some of the most pertinent cases regarding these checkpoints along with other cases where SCOTUS has specifically struck down checkpoints that include a primary purpose of detecting drugs & general law enforcement.
Time for you to start doing your own research. I showed you where you were wrong over a year ago & nothing has changed since then.
"Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation"
If you're incapable of figuring out how that ruling applies to immigration checkpoints then you really are wasting my time f22alpha. Thanks for making it so obvious.
BTW, there's a difference between a border checkpoint & an internal immigration checkpoint f22alpha. Border checkpoints take place at the border or its functional equivalent & the courts have ruled agents don't need pc to extend a detention or to search.
At internal immigration checkpoints such as those depicted in my videos, the courts have ruled pc is required to extend a detention or to search.
If you don't disagree with this analysis then may I suggest you use better terminology.
@CheckpointUSA I agree with part of your terminology. Pc is required for a search. A dog altering to a car is pc for a search. Internal immigration check points you can be detained and asked questions regarding immigration that is the point of an internal immigration check point do you agree?
As I stated & cited earlier f22alpha, SCOTUS made clear that agents may briefly stop individuals at appropriately located checkpoints for the SOLE purpose of a few immigration queries but any further detention or searching requires pc. No one has any legal obligation to answer questions, a detention that includes a drug dog sniff is an impermissible expansion of the scope of the checkpoint & a dog alert from one that doesn't have adequate proof of training/certification/etc is not pc.
The court case you're relying upon regarding drug dog sniffs dealt with traffic stops where the police already had probable cause regarding a violation of the law & the drug dog sniff did not extend the duration of the stop f22alpha. In the case of checkpoints, there is no probable cause to begin with & in many cases agents are extending detentions specifically to give drug dogs a chance to alert or because of mere suspicions - all of which is illegal.
@CheckpointUSA where does it say that an officer must have pc before they can use a dog to alert and get more pc? Where does it say they need double pc to search a car?
You are assuming that the dogs that CBP and BP have improperly trained dogs. Something you would not know at the time would know that.
You're just not paying attention f22alpha. SCOTUS created a special 4th amendment exception by allowing suspicionless seizures at immigration checkpoints to begin with. In order to protect individual rights however, the court made it clear seizures had to be limited SOLELY to brief immigration queries with ANY FURTHER detention requiring consent or pc. The court NEVER upheld suspicionless seizures so that agents can run drug sniffing dogs around vehicles. See Indianapolis V Edmond for starters.
I already have noworky4me. You can read about it and the subsequent 8 years of legal action on my website and blog. You'll probably find a few videos online regarding it as well.
I dont think that would be possible, seeing how cbp only has one program for training canines and the canines always end up being moved around between different stations.
DHS, CBP & DEA don't want internal checkpoints being limited to immigration checks so the agencies created a K-9 program designed to circumvent the Supreme Court's prohibition against drug checkpoints in Indianapolis V Edmond. They do this by training & certifying all agency dogs to detect drugs & people. The dogs are then deployed at immigration checkpoints inside the country.
There's no good reason whatsoever why every dog needs to be dual-trained.
@CheckpointUSA Well I guess when you become in charge, you can set up training which ever way you want. Until then be the good boy that you are and let the dual trained dogs do their jobs.
Silly boy, I don't need to be in charge to bring change somement. I just need to continue publicizing the illegal nature of current CBP operations. Either the courts or the public will eventually bring accountability to your rogue agency. In the meantime, I look forward to the day when an agent is foolish enough to use a 'hit' from one of his dogs as a basis to search my vehicle. Discovery during court proceedings is such a useful tool...
@somement - Dude, listen to yourself; read what you have been writing!
You need to get a law enforcement job in North Korea or Cuba!
From 1776 to right now; Hundreds of Thousands of brave patriotic Americans have died so that your last statement would NEVER become official US Government law or policy...
Customs and Border Protection says so f22alpha. You can also watch recent video footage from Steven Anderson's trial on YouTube where an agent testified in court that their dogs are dual-trained.
The joke must be on the Border Patrol and Arizona DPS then f22alpha. They lost in court twice and the third strike's coming up in the form of a civil rights lawsuit.
Additionally somement, the CPB website indicates dogs used by CPB officers at POE's are also trained to detect currency & explosives. If your statement that there's only one K-9 training program in the agency is accurate, that indicates all agency dogs are also trained & certified to detect currency & explosives - including those utilized at internal checkpoints . This means that dogs are alerting to perfectly legal cash or ammunition that may be in a person's car while not crossing a border...
Majority of the dogs used by the Border Patrol and trained to detect humans as well as drugs and the same goes for the dogs used by the U.S. Customs. I'm sure there are specially trained dogs such as the ones you mentioned, but their numbers are small. Why don't you ask the agents operating the checkpoint what their dogs are trained to alert to, I'm sure they'd tell you.
Tell me; how does the dog detect someone here illegally as opposed to someone here legally?
Any car that enters the checkpoint has at least 1 person inside. Why doesn't the dog allert on every car?
When I installed a stereo in my car I was in the trunk mounting speakers and pulling wire. When I come home from the gym, or if I am on a trip my dirty laundry is in the trunk.
Would these completely legal activities cause the dog to allert and force me into an illegal search?
Actually, there's quite a few cases where dogs falsely alert or their handlers signal them to alert little320. Additionally, it appears that CBP K-9 handlers don't keep records of the # of false alerts during regular deployment making it impossible to judge the accuracy of any given dog. Not to mention the fact CBP goes out of its way to deny records associated with dog certification, training, usage, etc to courts of law in jurisdictions where they're being used.
It makes more sense to me to have dual trained dogs than just a dog that can alert to one thing. Like I said these dogs (at least the BP ones)are not assigned just to one location, they move around with their handlers.
It is an immigration checkpoint after all, right? Those canines are trained to detect people too, not just drugs. I don't see a problem with running a canine around a car for the purpose of locating aliens.
If it's an immigration checkpoint somement then why are BP agents & CBP officers using dual trained drug-sniffing dogs at them?
That makes it an immigration AND drug checkpoint. If DHS wanted it to be an immigration checkpoint, dogs certified to detect narcotics would be used exclusively at the border or its functional equivalent.
I didn't want to waste my time on this crap, but since I'm already here I'll throw my 2 cents out there... The Agent at primary obviously knows your name and your citizenship status. I would guess that the reason he didn't just wave you through is because he wanted to take a closer look at your vehicle and see if maybe you had some "illegal aliens" hiding inside.
Golly gee, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to grace us with your 2 cents somement. I don't know how we've gotten by without your input.
Could you please explain to us why multiple officers & their K9 pal(s) normally assigned to Ports of Entry are present at an internal immigration checkpoint. Especially when the POE's these officers are normally assigned to have an abysmal interdiction rate of less than 30% of major illegal traffic passing through them? Are they just bored?
It's a slippery slope, we can't simply allow any authority to do anything they want legal or not.
If you want to waive all of your rights that's fine, but in the interest of a reasonably balanced government, I will not.
It is actually a disservice to your country, and the constitution it is based on, to allow people to violate your rights, and show everyone that they can get away with it.
@landlubber180 A good citizen would not stand by and demonstrate to people that they can get away with violating constitutional rights of US citizens.
As the US citizen you're proud to be, it is up to you, and the rest of us, to make sure the constitution that makes us US citizens is upheld
Do you expected to be stopped, seized, detained interrogated and possibly searched by armed federal agents absent reasonable suspicion while driving down the road?
theres a difference between my house and my car. if these cbp and border patrol agents where coming to your house it might be different, but your on a road. also if it was a safety checkpoint would you feel better?
landlubber180 - I thought you were concerned about keeping firearms, drugs and illegal border crossers off the streets? Don't firearms, drugs and illegal border crossers spend some of their time in homes while going to or coming from the streets?
No I wouldn't feel better about a safety checkpoint. All suspicionless checkpoints inside the country are an afront to the principles this country was founded on and individual rights.
i have the same questions as most other people. what problems do you have with these checkpoints, what really bothers you about them. is it that there keeping drugs off american streets? is it there keeping illegal firearms of the streets? is it there deporting people who have illegally entered the us? or is it something else?
Don't you mean you have the same questions as most other people like you have regarding what my problem is with these checkpoints?
If you can't figure it out from the video itself and its description then feel free to seek your answer on my website and blog.
In the meantime, feel free to keep your door unlocked at night so any Tom, Dick or Harry with a gun and a badge can come in whenever they feel like it and search your house for drugs, firearms and illegal border crossers.
Clearly, you see no fault in being stopped without cause to be searched.
Hey, since this kind of drug interdiction is OK with you, how about cops bursting into your home anytime they want.
After all, its for a good reason according to you so you should have no problem with the unlimited intrusions absent any suspicion into your private life.
I mean what could possibly be YOUR problem with a drug search like that??
This is about unlawful entry into the United States, hence the name U.S. Customs and Border Protection. CBP does not care if you are a US citizen. They only care if you are not a US citizen. Just tell them you are a US citizen and don't worry about it.
@G19PX4 There's well documented evidence that says otherwise. You can start with my website & blog where I write about these videos in much greater detail.
CBP is on record stating the agency uses internal checkpoints as a pretext to look for felons, weapons, narcotics, terrorists and aliens.
If it was just about unlawful entry into the United States, these agents would be on the border patrolling it instead of harassing domestic traffic inside the country at suspicionless checkpoints.
This kind of nonsense is done every holiday too by local tax collectors... err I mean town cops and state troopers... to check for seat belt wearing, child restraints, drinking, insurance and registration etc...
I think it's great to have these Drug checkpoints. If they catch just one drug smuggler, they have been successful and worthy of their efforts.
Who cares what loop holes they use to establish these checkpoints?
You really craked the case wide open by noticing the different type of uniforms. Way to go, Dick Tracy.
If you have a problem with the checkpoints, then keep up with your efforts, futile as they may be. Your right to pursue your cause is still within your rights.
Drugs! What do you think alcohol and nicotine is. A psychoactive drug. One is lethal and the other is highly addictive. Marijuana is neither. Educate yourself. You will be more useful to society.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hey retard, these dogs are not just drug sniffing dogs. they detect narcotics, and they also detect concealed humans. that is why they are deployed at the checkpoints.
Before calling other folks retards ghostpig915, you may want to do a little personal proof reading first. For instance, if you had bothered to read your own post, you might have come to the realization that drugs are also known as narcotics. By utilizing dogs cross-trained to detect narcotics as well as humans, the BP has made drug detection a primary purpose of the checkpoint.
Since SCOTUS has ruled checkpoints that include a primary purpose of detecting drugs to be illegal....
Just because the dog is cross-trained to detect both concealed persons and narcotics doesn't mean the primary purpose of the checkpoint is to find drugs. People can still be concealed in what appears to be an otherwise empty truck, i.e. false compartments, etc. Also, they might not have asked your immigration status because they know your name and have your license plate. They can do their own check on you to find out your status. Its not a big government conspiracy against you.
Amazing. The dogs can tell the difference between a U.S. citizen smell and the scent of an illegal.
My, how I would love to do a blind test on that theory.
Furthermore, there are no grounds for internal checkpoints to search for anything other than briefly question the driver and even there they have no power to compell an answer.
This is absolutely disgusting. This garbage has no place in a free state.
For god sake, people, go out and vote. Vote at every election - local, state & national.
Vote only for candidates who obey your Constitution. If you don't, you are going to wake up one day in a horror show that makes Nazi Germany look like a day at Disneyland.
Wake up before it's too late. Do you see those CRIMINALS smugly smiling at the camera?
They believe YOU are the criminal if you DISOBEY their commands.
i am all for your mission guy........ but isnt it illegal to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel...... it is per the california vehicle code.......how do you shoot videos and pictures while lawfully driving?
Where did you hear that? How would one shift gears on a manual transmission car if you couldn't take your hands off the wheel? There is nothing in the CVC regarding hands on the steering wheel.
Terri, what do you suggest as an alternative to the checkpoints? Water and back rub stations for illegals and smugglers? In a fantasyland all "bad" things would stop at the border, but alas that's not the case. I put it to you, what is an alternative?
The sad thing about these officers is that they are probably very decent people. They are just deluded to think that what they are doing is lawful. We need to fix this problem from the top down. Remove every elected official and replace them with people off of the street. We might have some corruption but not to the extent we do now.
I enjoy and defend my Constitututional Rights and Freedoms also, but I'm not sure what your point is regarding the checkpoints. The dogs sniff your car?...so what? Did someone pull your pants down and violate you? What do you propose as an alternative to the checkpoints? No checkpoints? You must be the cartel poster child of the decade. Route 86, Casa Grande, Arivaca, and many others are all well known illegal alien and narcotics smuggling routes. Wake up you twisted little faggot.
Of course you're not sure what my point is 444nice. That's because you're just another authoritarian punk who gives lip service to constitutional rights & freedom but hasn't a clue what they really mean.
Here's a clue for you. If you want to shut down illegal alien & narcotic smuggling routes, try patrolling the border instead of harassing domestic traffic inside the country.
BTW, your comment timing would be just about right for getting off duty from the cp I passed through earlier today...
I agree with what ur doing as we have the same problem in the UK. Remember also tho that u r setting an example for others who r following.
Lets carry on doing what peeps r doing but remember anger will only get anger, violence will only get violence. most of these guys think they r doing rite. its abt waking them up n educating them. Reminding them they r men under the suit. We have a cpl of guys in the UK who do the same thing but ask the police after if they want a hug. love revolution!
Just wondering and it might sound prankish, but have you ever tried dried hot jalapeno peppers around the bottom of your vehicle? And I say that in all seriousness. Seems to me it would be a great passive resistance ploy to these authoritarian checkpoints. Why not mess with 'em. They're messing with us. At least there you could get a good laugh back at 'em since they find your inconvieniencing funny as seen by the bigtop loungers giggling.
With the 20 or more hours a week you will have to work to pay for all the new taxes I doubt you will have time to commute if you still are lucky enough to have a job to go to. Hopefully when one of those illegals sticks a gun in your face and carjacks you you'll still have your cam rolling. This film will be of great help to the Border Patrol when they have to identify the illegal that snuffed you.
Interesting theory athreeway but I've never been carjacked or even threatened by an illegal border crosser. That seems to be the domain of federal agents with guns and badges.
With the way Obama is spending tax payers money faster than it can be printed you wont have to worry about this for much longer. If the 16% unemployment rate does not cause you to lose your reason for going thru this checkpoint then the new taxes to pay for Obamas socialist agenda surely will. They will all be legalized soon so the Democrats can get enough vote to win the next election after bankrupting the country.
They are there to make money... front line corruption.
We see this abuse of authority in my motherland where civilians are harassed into paying bribes. People smuggling drugs would rather pay bribes than get arrested..
Some covert filming to catch these bastards out would make headline news.
I've been witness to this in my present country of residence.. now I walk around with a camera just case..
Well what are we to do if we do NOT accept their blatant breaking of the LAW? Go to the...uh...law enforcement to stop...law enforcement...from breaking the law??
What happens if you just wave and drive right through ? What I really want to know is what happens if you pull up so they can see you and you just turn around and go the other way ? I find the dog thing ten times more friendly hehe ::) they gotta train somewhere :)
Dam bring back are you a American haha. That rocked checking your background hehe. Are you an Amerian ? I'ma sniff ya bend ya over check you inside and out lol. hehe. I like the dog sniffin ten times better. What about 4 dogs ? Dobermans/Shepards/Pit Bulls etc.. I would die if I saw a wiener dog at a check point. I would definatly take a picture of that one. He could go under the vehicle. Thanky you for posting this infromation.
Shame these badged conspirators dont realize that what they enforce now is the same force that will oppose them and their families once they regain civilian status. Then, they'll be bitching about how they have no rights when they themselves helped deteriorate them.
A quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind (775) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"A quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind (1775) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Apparently our oh so great Mr. Franklin lived in a time when lives were not ruined drugs, guns fired one round a minute, buildings and lives were not capable of being destroyed in seconds... Sad times we live in now... security WITH a balance of freedom is key... using that quote at this time period frightens me.
Yea, Ben Franklin just had the drafting of the declaration of independence. I don't think the British military of the time would appreciate being referred to as an inferior threat to a guerrilla band of terrorists.
"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government"
I believe that the word "ignorant" is used way too liberally nowadays. Simply because people don't agree with the position of somebody else they often label it "ignorant" as you have.
Now lets see... I have utilized reasoning, some analysis, and a bit of history to formulate an argument. And I stand by my educated reasoning. You come along and label me ignorant with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever.
Can you please tell me something I haven't heard already? Give me something original please. Something reasonable preferably because your argument is extremely far fetched. Simply because I believe in the general welfare of the country I love does not mean I am surrendering to "tyranny". It is like me saying that you sympathize with Al-Quaida because you do not support checkpoints.
Once again, since you dodged the question, how am I ignorant?
Who is this we? I am only talking to you. And who said I am advocating the border patrol? I am advocating internal checkpoints for the security of the U.S. Alright, you disagree, fine lets keep it at that unless you have something more interesting and thoughtful provoking to say.
well i wouldn't say they are targeting him or that they are out in full force. Cause in this video they do inspect all the vehicles that pass through; the process is not selective. In fact they do seem to be pretty nice actually. Giving him a little greeting, a few smiles even. I am not sure what you mean about pathetic though.
btw, if you want to continue further do u want to take this discussion to PM (private messages) cause we may be clogging up this board.
its a philosphical difference that will never be agreed. you benefit from the system in some way, you are an ofificer of some sort, i would bet. you benefit from wielding police powers in some way, and that explains your entrenchment. to discuss this further is pointless. the presence of dogs is a violation in and of itself; unlawful search of the public.
pathetic in that its paid officers supporting their own police powers on youtube, no different than the corrupt politicians they answer to.
No I am not an officer. I am a student. To say that I would benefit from these checkpoints is true though. I enjoy living in a United States with the freedom to live without fear.
To assume that I am an officer is a bit of a stretch, like some of your previous assumptions. Once again it is like me saying that you are against checkpoints therefore you are a drug user/ dealer and that it is pathetic that you are supporting dealers on youtube. Kinda too far of an assumption right?
I would encourage you to watch the 14 part video series I recently posted on a Southern Arizona town hall meeting hosted by Representative Giffords regarding a GAO report on the effectiveness of internal checkpoints.
The meeting was quite an eye opener, especially after the GAO representative admitted internal checkpoints are needed because the government only attempts to interdict 30% of illegal traffic at ports of entry...
AK94ME is one hell of an institutionalized and mindless punk. I don't care what your assertions are. You come after me and try to violate my civil rights, I will put a bullet right between your eyes. This country's heading that direction anyway on a massive scale directly because people like you, who claim to have "served" (funny how "serve" means nothing more than to uphold corruption and generate revenue) will always go against what you swore to uphold and be a mindless drone for government.
elitedefense72 3 weeks ago
Good thing cops are there on the help.
grunder20 2 months ago
Just bring donuts next time, they won't even see you.
IndiaSergeant 4 months ago
Its funny that they'll spend this kinda money on pointless and unconstitutional stops, but then obama will cry broke and make idle threats to cut SS. These guys are clowns.
ashkaji 5 months ago
LOL you are a funny guy. My opinion is just as valid as yours and until a competent authority determines the correct one, my opinion carries just as much weight as yours.
I served over 20 years, currently I am retired, and I live in the southeast United States. However please feel free to visit, let me know how your court case is settled. Just for your knowledge I have never lost a civil or criminal case, nor has any governmental agency or myself ever settled out of court on any issue.
AK94ME 6 months ago
Feel free to keep up on the status of my court case by visiting my website & blog AK94ME. I"ll be posting the latest in the near future. Just for your knowledge I've never lost a civil or criminal case either & I've been in court several times now regarding different checkpoint issues. I've even won pro-se.
Anyway, if you ever feel like coming out of retirement to help me win another, you know where to find me.
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
Lets see the American Civil Liberties Union was not interested in a violation of civil liberties and you had a ruling on several issues by the 9th Circuit Court (by the way in 2009 15 of the 16 cases from the 9th circuit that went to the Supreme Court were overturned)
No wonder the PA's were laughing at you.
AK94ME 6 months ago
Most authoritarian punks like yourself do laugh at others who seek to assert their rights AK94ME. In my case, the government agents were laughing as well. That is until their claims of sovereign and qualified immunity were thrown out the window. They're not laughing anymore.
Nonetheless, I could use a good laugh myself. Why don't you set yourself up to be the primary stopping agent the next time I go through this checkpoint. We can have a good laugh together & see who has the last laugh.
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
@AK94ME the ACLU only take cases that basically appeal to their liberal bent. i will admit that sometimes that they win a ruling that actually helps everyone; this is more of an accident that by design, however. they should take on any violation of our civil rights, but it has to be the "right case." and, of course, what is "right," is merely how they happen to feel that day or maybe it depends on which way the wind is blowing.
roaringwaterbay 3 days ago
Either you have a lawsuit or you do not, either it has been ruled upon or it has not. The ACLU provides free legal advice and representation to cases they accept. They tend to specify in civil rights law suits. Have you asked them for assistance and have you received a reply? Most civil rights lawsuits have been brought by people with little or no means.
So then did you go to trial? Was a verdict issued?
AK94ME 6 months ago
I already stated I have an ongoing lawsuit AK94ME with all of the legal documentation freely available on my website & blog. The ACLU in my area wasn't interested in pursuing the case so I found other assistance. The case has gone on for 9 years, went up to the 9th circuit where I won on several issues & is now back in district court with a 2nd round of discovery taking place right now. If the judge doesn't grant summary judgment motions, a trial should take place early next year.
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
I am using your wording here, "appeals process" so on order to have an appeal, one court must have ruled against you.
Why would I want to forward you any money, I believe you are wrong..
AK94ME 6 months ago
Wrong AK94ME. In order for there to be an 'appeals process', one side OR the other must appeal a lower court ruling. That could either be the gov't agency or the private party bringing the suit forward. Given the fact that the average gov't entity has far more resources & access to legal assistance than the avg private party, the chances of a gov't entity appealing an adverse ruling are much greater than the private party.
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
The point I was making regarding money for a lawsuit was to counter your comment regarding sitting on the sidelines instead of bringing forth a lawsuit AK94ME. As you should know, legal action can be very expensive & time consuming and unlike gov't agents, most private individuals don't get paid to charge others with crimes & initiate legal action against them.
As such, there's little correlation between the validity of a civil rights position & whether a lawsuit is filed in support of it.
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
Well since you are so sure I am wrong and you are correct. You should get an attorney and sue for what is called a Constitutional Tort. Ask for punitive damages, otherwise known as exemplary damages. Don't sit on the sidelines, act and let me know how it happens, maybe I will see you in court! LOL
AK94ME 6 months ago
What makes you think I'm sitting on the sidelines AK94ME? My nine year federal civil rights lawsuit associated with a different checkpoint encounter that took place just a short distance away from this one is starting to heat back up again. You can read about it on my website & blog.
Regarding filing another lawsuit that would undoubtedly last another decade, why don't you forward me the time & money I'll need to see the thing through the appeals process.
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
As with most people they do not understand how detector dogs function. Terms like scent threshold, residual odor, United States v. Caballes, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, are unknown to most people that are hobby lawyers. Yes folks there is a difference between a sniff and a search. The is also a difference between a lawful stop and a search. A lawful checkpoint and a K9 sniff of the exterior of your vehicle is NOT a search.
AK94ME 6 months ago
As with most people you don't understand the legal issues involved here AK94ME. SCOTUS has never upheld the use of drug sniffing dogs at internal immigration checkpoints & has explicitly struck down drug interdiction & law enforcement checkpoints as illegal in Indianapolis V Edmond. Additionally, suspicionless checkpoints MUST be narrowly tailored & minimally intrusive to be considered legal. Detaining someone at an immigration checkpoint to allow a drug dog to sniff a vehicle...
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
...while failing to make any immigration related queries is an extended detention that must be premised on consent or probable cause at such checkpoints. Neither of which these agents had. In other words this checkpoint is not limited in scope, is not minimally intrusive, is not a permanent checkpoint & is not setup along a nexus point for border traffic. Four strikes and counting....
CheckpointUSA 6 months ago
@AK94ME Didn't the Supreme Court change it so they can't do that anymore?
fatguyonthc 2 months ago
Dude you are a dumbass. You need to educate yourself a bit more. The term "drug sniffing' is also improperly used. If they were "sniffing" drugs they'd be deceased.
mspencer3rd 9 months ago
Dude, you're an authoritarian punk. If I need education on this topic, why don't you attempt to educate me instead of making smart ass comments.
BTW, the phrase 'drug sniffing' is sufficiently accurate for purposes of this discussion unless you're claiming the dogs aren't being directed to sniff around vehicles for the purposes of detecting drugs.
CheckpointUSA 9 months ago
What the hell is that in the frame at 3:41
kaiyousJ23 10 months ago
what if im a canadian in the us for vacation and i run into these checpoints
aznelfboi 11 months ago
There is no articulable suspicion of ANY crime here. The 4th Amendment Is supposed to guarantee us freedom from these tactics. Drugs are a fact of life, the same Percentage of the population is addicted to drugs as there were in 1776, 1850, 1920 and now. The drug war is an utter failure, waste of the peoples taxes, waste of all the lives the system has stolen. The Drug War has only made drugs more profitable, it hasn't removed anything from the streets.
thewonderfrog 1 year ago
I love what your doing!!!!
MrROBERTSHUMWAY 1 year ago
WOW! Your right are a joke to them, they where really mocking you sitting there under the blue canopy, its like you live in a different world then the rest of us. Thanks for the insight into what is going on in your area.
P.U.
MlM
MasterLeeMochow 1 year ago
Clueless as always. Customs K9's are trained to detect humans, cash, drugs, etc...Some can detect all of them, others just drugs, others only humans, etc...So without you actually knowing for sure what the dog was trained to detect, you cannot make such a wild statement. You use these statements to further your lies. Bottom line, checkpoints have been authorized by law, and until they actually break it, they're doing nothing wrong. It also allows for a open air sniff of your vehicle by K9.
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
Thar's funny chamsdropz24, the K9 handlers manning these checkpoints have admitted in court & elsewhere their dogs are dual-trained to detect humans & drugs. If you have independently verifiable evidence to the contrary, by all means share it with us.
Bottom line is SCOTUS has only allowed limited scope permanent immigration checkpoints along nexus points for border traffic with any further detention or searching after the initial questions requiring consent or probable cause.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA Oh yea, I don't need independently verifiable evidence, as you have provided NONE that would qualify as nothing more than mere opinion. I provide factual evidence through actual EXPERIENCE with these dogs and working a Port of Entry. When was the last time you worked for CBP? Never...that's what I thought
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
For your evidence, all you need to do is reference the video(s) of Steven Anderson's recent court appearance chamsdropz24 and/or reference my blog which also has links to Anderson's court videos amongst other documentation. I think testimony from Border Patrol agents under oath is sufficient proof even when some of them were caught lying about other issues such as the existence of checkpoint guidelines, K9 training docs, etc.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24 drug checkpoints are illegal by law...STFU
TheUSAownsyou 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24 Anyway it goes why the fuck are they that far from the border? Doesn't it say BORDER PATROL on the vehicles? Shouldn't they be close to the border? Or does your pea brain law-enforcement attitude fail to see this point OFFICER?
outlawracer2229 10 months ago
Erm.... Surely the detection of drugs is a good for less than 2 mins of ur time. Seriously u need to wake to the world the big picture that is and not what u would like to be!! These officers seem to be doing a very hard job for the good of America, by complaining u are indirectly supporting the trafficking of drugs and illegal immigration across the USA. So what if the legislation may not include drug searches. I believe it should be amended to do so and hence ur complaining would cease!!
tomminty 1 year ago
Surely you are clueless about "the world" and the "big picture" tomminty. If you weren't, you'd understand why drug searches are illegal absent consent or probable cause at immigration checkpoints. You'd also understand that it has nothing to do with legislation & everything to do with Supreme Court rulings. Judging from your age & your comment, it appears that you're still parroting lines that mommy and daddy used to say to you without actually understanding what they were saying.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA
Amazing, isn't it? People actually like getting their freedoms and rights trample on.
josacape 1 year ago
@tomminty
Even Bigger **Facepalm,** damn!!! ***By not complaining you are indirectly supporting the tyrants and the usurpers.***
josacape 1 year ago
@rdnckff7134 you forgot about dogs that sniff for food
f22alpha 1 year ago
what was the problem, u went through a checkpoint and went on ur way whats ur problem? looks like to me u r a pot stirrer!
33markito 1 year ago
Please explain how individuals exercising their rights while being seized absent suspicion at internal checkpoints by federal agents no where near the border is stopping anyone from defending the country rdnckff7134. While you're at it, please explain how federal agents stopping domestic traffic absent suspicion inside the country no where near the border is defending the country.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
The Border Patrol is on record, both in court and through public spokesperson's, that the agency's internal checkpoints are used not only to interdict illegal aliens but also to interdict drugs, terrorists, felons & more recently weapons. The use of dual-trained K9 units at pre-primary, primary & secondary inspections stations highlights the fact that the Border Patrol has impermissibly expanded the scope of immigration checkpoints into illegal drug interdiction checkpoints as well.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@rdnckff7134 Your name says it all traitor. If you love your chains, may they weigh lightly upon you.
randybrownlow 1 year ago
Not a street lawyer rdnckff7134 just a guy exercising his rights. BTW, drug checkpoints are illegal. So says SCOTUS in Indianapolis v Edmond (2000). So are 'terrorist' checkpoints for that matter. At least inside the country away from the border or its functional equivalent.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA is it within 100 miles of the border? Have you head of the extended border laws?
f22alpha 1 year ago
"Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior & reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation".
- U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA and again........how does that apply to border checkpoints, which are the exception to the 4th amendment?
f22alpha 1 year ago
And again f22alpha, it applies to all the checkpoints in my videos which are not border checkpoints::
“The 4th Amendment held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from the border & its functional equivalents, & for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint & a roving patrol.” - U.S. V Ortiz
Are you starting to get it yet?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA they are covered under the extended border laws....u only cite the laws which are advantages to your argument n not all the other laws that apply.Which allows checkpoints 100 miles from the border with limited authority...starting to get it yet?
f22alpha 1 year ago
Perhaps we're speaking past one another f22alpha.
I'm not questioning the fact that the courts have allowed limited scope permanent immigration checkpoints setup along nexus points for border traffic within 100 miles of the border. I'm challenging the legality of the operation of such checkpoints when their scope is expanded to actively look for drugs, felons, weapons, etc and when they extend detentions and conduct searches absent consent or probable cause.
Are we on the same page or not?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA if you are not questioning that fact and agree the check points are legal, then why do you refuse to answer the question that you say they can legally ask at a legal checkpoint.
f22alpha 1 year ago
A few nuances you missed f22alpha. SCOTUS only upheld brief stops for immigration purposes at permanent checkpoints setup along nexus points for border traffic. The checkpoints depicted in my videos are neither permanent nor setup along nexus points for border traffic.
Regardless of this fact, just because a government agent can legally ask question(s) doesn't create a legal obligation for anyone to answer those question(s). This fundamental aspect of American jurisprudence is well established.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA and how do you know they are not border nexus? Just because they don't connect to the border does not mean it is not a bordet nexus. No where does it say they need to be permanent.
So what is your argument in these videos? That you don't have to answer questions at an immigration checkpoint?
f22alpha 1 year ago
The Supreme Court defined a border nexus as 2 or more major arteries coming together while leading away from the border f22alpha. With regards to permanence,I already quoted the court case to you. I'll do it again however since you obviously weren't paying attention....
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA and again where does that say it has to be high ways?
f22alpha 1 year ago
You seem to be under the impression I'm your personal research service f22alpha. I'm not.
I've provided you with quotes & names of some of the most pertinent cases regarding these checkpoints along with other cases where SCOTUS has specifically struck down checkpoints that include a primary purpose of detecting drugs & general law enforcement.
Time for you to start doing your own research. I showed you where you were wrong over a year ago & nothing has changed since then.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
U.S. V Martinez-Fuerte:
"Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation"
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA where does it say that that ruling applies to immigration checkpoints which act slightly out of the 4th amendment?
f22alpha 1 year ago
If you're incapable of figuring out how that ruling applies to immigration checkpoints then you really are wasting my time f22alpha. Thanks for making it so obvious.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@f22alpha
**Facepalm**
josacape 1 year ago
BTW, there's a difference between a border checkpoint & an internal immigration checkpoint f22alpha. Border checkpoints take place at the border or its functional equivalent & the courts have ruled agents don't need pc to extend a detention or to search.
At internal immigration checkpoints such as those depicted in my videos, the courts have ruled pc is required to extend a detention or to search.
If you don't disagree with this analysis then may I suggest you use better terminology.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA I agree with part of your terminology. Pc is required for a search. A dog altering to a car is pc for a search. Internal immigration check points you can be detained and asked questions regarding immigration that is the point of an internal immigration check point do you agree?
f22alpha 1 year ago
As I stated & cited earlier f22alpha, SCOTUS made clear that agents may briefly stop individuals at appropriately located checkpoints for the SOLE purpose of a few immigration queries but any further detention or searching requires pc. No one has any legal obligation to answer questions, a detention that includes a drug dog sniff is an impermissible expansion of the scope of the checkpoint & a dog alert from one that doesn't have adequate proof of training/certification/etc is not pc.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
The court case you're relying upon regarding drug dog sniffs dealt with traffic stops where the police already had probable cause regarding a violation of the law & the drug dog sniff did not extend the duration of the stop f22alpha. In the case of checkpoints, there is no probable cause to begin with & in many cases agents are extending detentions specifically to give drug dogs a chance to alert or because of mere suspicions - all of which is illegal.
Apples & oranges.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA where does it say that an officer must have pc before they can use a dog to alert and get more pc? Where does it say they need double pc to search a car?
You are assuming that the dogs that CBP and BP have improperly trained dogs. Something you would not know at the time would know that.
f22alpha 1 year ago
You're just not paying attention f22alpha. SCOTUS created a special 4th amendment exception by allowing suspicionless seizures at immigration checkpoints to begin with. In order to protect individual rights however, the court made it clear seizures had to be limited SOLELY to brief immigration queries with ANY FURTHER detention requiring consent or pc. The court NEVER upheld suspicionless seizures so that agents can run drug sniffing dogs around vehicles. See Indianapolis V Edmond for starters.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
You should talk to Customs and Border Protection then rdnckff7134 because they're the one's claiming their dogs are dual-trained.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Why don't you sue and send this to the media?
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
That whole 16 seconds you had to slow down did see pretty dramatic....
You should show the true nature of DUI checkpoints next.
noworky4me 1 year ago
I already have noworky4me. You can read about it and the subsequent 8 years of legal action on my website and blog. You'll probably find a few videos online regarding it as well.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
How do they know your name?
NZDubstep 1 year ago
i love your videos
YllwFvrPB 1 year ago
I dont think that would be possible, seeing how cbp only has one program for training canines and the canines always end up being moved around between different stations.
somement 1 year ago
Exactly my point somement.
DHS, CBP & DEA don't want internal checkpoints being limited to immigration checks so the agencies created a K-9 program designed to circumvent the Supreme Court's prohibition against drug checkpoints in Indianapolis V Edmond. They do this by training & certifying all agency dogs to detect drugs & people. The dogs are then deployed at immigration checkpoints inside the country.
There's no good reason whatsoever why every dog needs to be dual-trained.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA Well I guess when you become in charge, you can set up training which ever way you want. Until then be the good boy that you are and let the dual trained dogs do their jobs.
somement 1 year ago
Silly boy, I don't need to be in charge to bring change somement. I just need to continue publicizing the illegal nature of current CBP operations. Either the courts or the public will eventually bring accountability to your rogue agency. In the meantime, I look forward to the day when an agent is foolish enough to use a 'hit' from one of his dogs as a basis to search my vehicle. Discovery during court proceedings is such a useful tool...
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Good luck Don Quixote.
somement 1 year ago
@somement I'd rather have a world filled with Don Quixotes. Those windmills have guns.
randybrownlow 1 year ago
@somement - Dude, listen to yourself; read what you have been writing!
You need to get a law enforcement job in North Korea or Cuba!
From 1776 to right now; Hundreds of Thousands of brave patriotic Americans have died so that your last statement would NEVER become official US Government law or policy...
markmills8 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA How do you know every dog is dual trained?
f22alpha 1 year ago
Customs and Border Protection says so f22alpha. You can also watch recent video footage from Steven Anderson's trial on YouTube where an agent testified in court that their dogs are dual-trained.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@CheckpointUSA yea that steven anderson case is a joke. And that doesn't mean they are all dual trained. They are not. Some may be......but not all.
f22alpha 1 year ago
The joke must be on the Border Patrol and Arizona DPS then f22alpha. They lost in court twice and the third strike's coming up in the form of a civil rights lawsuit.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Additionally somement, the CPB website indicates dogs used by CPB officers at POE's are also trained to detect currency & explosives. If your statement that there's only one K-9 training program in the agency is accurate, that indicates all agency dogs are also trained & certified to detect currency & explosives - including those utilized at internal checkpoints . This means that dogs are alerting to perfectly legal cash or ammunition that may be in a person's car while not crossing a border...
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
Majority of the dogs used by the Border Patrol and trained to detect humans as well as drugs and the same goes for the dogs used by the U.S. Customs. I'm sure there are specially trained dogs such as the ones you mentioned, but their numbers are small. Why don't you ask the agents operating the checkpoint what their dogs are trained to alert to, I'm sure they'd tell you.
somement 1 year ago
@somement
Tell me; how does the dog detect someone here illegally as opposed to someone here legally?
Any car that enters the checkpoint has at least 1 person inside. Why doesn't the dog allert on every car?
When I installed a stereo in my car I was in the trunk mounting speakers and pulling wire. When I come home from the gym, or if I am on a trip my dirty laundry is in the trunk.
Would these completely legal activities cause the dog to allert and force me into an illegal search?
markmills8 1 year ago 6
@markmills8 Dog is Trained to detect concealed humans AND DO A GREAT JOB AT IT
little320 1 year ago
Actually, there's quite a few cases where dogs falsely alert or their handlers signal them to alert little320. Additionally, it appears that CBP K-9 handlers don't keep records of the # of false alerts during regular deployment making it impossible to judge the accuracy of any given dog. Not to mention the fact CBP goes out of its way to deny records associated with dog certification, training, usage, etc to courts of law in jurisdictions where they're being used.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
It makes more sense to me to have dual trained dogs than just a dog that can alert to one thing. Like I said these dogs (at least the BP ones)are not assigned just to one location, they move around with their handlers.
somement 1 year ago
It is an immigration checkpoint after all, right? Those canines are trained to detect people too, not just drugs. I don't see a problem with running a canine around a car for the purpose of locating aliens.
somement 1 year ago
If it's an immigration checkpoint somement then why are BP agents & CBP officers using dual trained drug-sniffing dogs at them?
That makes it an immigration AND drug checkpoint. If DHS wanted it to be an immigration checkpoint, dogs certified to detect narcotics would be used exclusively at the border or its functional equivalent.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
@somement
How does the dog know if an occupant in a car is here leagally or not?
EVERY CAR has at least 1 occupant. Why doesn't the dog alert on every car?
I believe these are strictly drug dogs and this checkpoint is unconstitutionally being used as a general crime dragnet.
Geeve to me your papers comrade!
markmills8 1 year ago
I didn't want to waste my time on this crap, but since I'm already here I'll throw my 2 cents out there... The Agent at primary obviously knows your name and your citizenship status. I would guess that the reason he didn't just wave you through is because he wanted to take a closer look at your vehicle and see if maybe you had some "illegal aliens" hiding inside.
somement 1 year ago
Golly gee, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to grace us with your 2 cents somement. I don't know how we've gotten by without your input.
Could you please explain to us why multiple officers & their K9 pal(s) normally assigned to Ports of Entry are present at an internal immigration checkpoint. Especially when the POE's these officers are normally assigned to have an abysmal interdiction rate of less than 30% of major illegal traffic passing through them? Are they just bored?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
It's a slippery slope, we can't simply allow any authority to do anything they want legal or not.
If you want to waive all of your rights that's fine, but in the interest of a reasonably balanced government, I will not.
It is actually a disservice to your country, and the constitution it is based on, to allow people to violate your rights, and show everyone that they can get away with it.
danpascooch 1 year ago
also im proud to say that im a citizen of the us,, and would state that to anybody badge or not any place any time
landlubber180 1 year ago
@landlubber180: "also im proud to say that im a citizen of the us,, and would state that to anybody badge or not any place any time "
Then have it, if that's what you want to do. I am also proud to be a citizen of the U.S.
The difference between us that you insist that men with guns make me do the same. This is a power I do not allow you to have over me.
Pafoofnik1 1 year ago
@landlubber180 A good citizen would not stand by and demonstrate to people that they can get away with violating constitutional rights of US citizens.
As the US citizen you're proud to be, it is up to you, and the rest of us, to make sure the constitution that makes us US citizens is upheld
danpascooch 1 year ago
sure why not i have nothing to hide while im out in public, and if it keeps 1 gun or a couple of grams of drugs off the street why not,
landlubber180 1 year ago
do you expect the same privacy on a road as you do at home?
landlubber180 1 year ago
Do you expected to be stopped, seized, detained interrogated and possibly searched by armed federal agents absent reasonable suspicion while driving down the road?
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
theres a difference between my house and my car. if these cbp and border patrol agents where coming to your house it might be different, but your on a road. also if it was a safety checkpoint would you feel better?
landlubber180 1 year ago
landlubber180 - I thought you were concerned about keeping firearms, drugs and illegal border crossers off the streets? Don't firearms, drugs and illegal border crossers spend some of their time in homes while going to or coming from the streets?
No I wouldn't feel better about a safety checkpoint. All suspicionless checkpoints inside the country are an afront to the principles this country was founded on and individual rights.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
i have the same questions as most other people. what problems do you have with these checkpoints, what really bothers you about them. is it that there keeping drugs off american streets? is it there keeping illegal firearms of the streets? is it there deporting people who have illegally entered the us? or is it something else?
landlubber180 1 year ago
Don't you mean you have the same questions as most other people like you have regarding what my problem is with these checkpoints?
If you can't figure it out from the video itself and its description then feel free to seek your answer on my website and blog.
In the meantime, feel free to keep your door unlocked at night so any Tom, Dick or Harry with a gun and a badge can come in whenever they feel like it and search your house for drugs, firearms and illegal border crossers.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
And your problem with drug interdiction is what?
brian60093 1 year ago
Clearly, you see no fault in being stopped without cause to be searched.
Hey, since this kind of drug interdiction is OK with you, how about cops bursting into your home anytime they want.
After all, its for a good reason according to you so you should have no problem with the unlimited intrusions absent any suspicion into your private life.
I mean what could possibly be YOUR problem with a drug search like that??
yoyo762 1 year ago
This is about unlawful entry into the United States, hence the name U.S. Customs and Border Protection. CBP does not care if you are a US citizen. They only care if you are not a US citizen. Just tell them you are a US citizen and don't worry about it.
G19PX4 1 year ago
@G19PX4 There's well documented evidence that says otherwise. You can start with my website & blog where I write about these videos in much greater detail.
CBP is on record stating the agency uses internal checkpoints as a pretext to look for felons, weapons, narcotics, terrorists and aliens.
If it was just about unlawful entry into the United States, these agents would be on the border patrolling it instead of harassing domestic traffic inside the country at suspicionless checkpoints.
CheckpointUSA 1 year ago
all retard people there waiting tax money smile fuckers you are on camera
m61393 2 years ago
This kind of nonsense is done every holiday too by local tax collectors... err I mean town cops and state troopers... to check for seat belt wearing, child restraints, drinking, insurance and registration etc...
robocoastie 2 years ago 4
dang you got courage to keep facing these nazis
sengoku17 2 years ago 2
I think it's great to have these Drug checkpoints. If they catch just one drug smuggler, they have been successful and worthy of their efforts.
Who cares what loop holes they use to establish these checkpoints?
You really craked the case wide open by noticing the different type of uniforms. Way to go, Dick Tracy.
If you have a problem with the checkpoints, then keep up with your efforts, futile as they may be. Your right to pursue your cause is still within your rights.
ufocafe 2 years ago
This is not a drug checkpoint.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago 2
I think it's really great too!
In fact, I think the government should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want!
mcduffiesteven 2 years ago
i hope you die... your a fucking retard
bbokainen 2 years ago
That was sarcasm by the way.
mcduffiesteven 2 years ago 4
@mcduffiesteven So did hitler.
dk0403 2 years ago
@mcduffiesteven yeah I caught the sarcasm....just wanted to throw in the hitler thing lol.
dk0403 2 years ago
idiot.
2ndAsstJizzMopper 2 years ago
@ufocafe
Drugs! What do you think alcohol and nicotine is. A psychoactive drug. One is lethal and the other is highly addictive. Marijuana is neither. Educate yourself. You will be more useful to society.
ReligionisaCult 2 years ago
@ufocafe If we allow them to get away with these "loop holes" it just encourages them to make new loop holes. Its wrong.
dk0403 2 years ago
its funny that they mention your name in the video. remember, big brother is always watching you.
ghostpig915 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hey retard, these dogs are not just drug sniffing dogs. they detect narcotics, and they also detect concealed humans. that is why they are deployed at the checkpoints.
ghostpig915 2 years ago
Before calling other folks retards ghostpig915, you may want to do a little personal proof reading first. For instance, if you had bothered to read your own post, you might have come to the realization that drugs are also known as narcotics. By utilizing dogs cross-trained to detect narcotics as well as humans, the BP has made drug detection a primary purpose of the checkpoint.
Since SCOTUS has ruled checkpoints that include a primary purpose of detecting drugs to be illegal....
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
Just because the dog is cross-trained to detect both concealed persons and narcotics doesn't mean the primary purpose of the checkpoint is to find drugs. People can still be concealed in what appears to be an otherwise empty truck, i.e. false compartments, etc. Also, they might not have asked your immigration status because they know your name and have your license plate. They can do their own check on you to find out your status. Its not a big government conspiracy against you.
frequentfriar 2 years ago
Amazing. The dogs can tell the difference between a U.S. citizen smell and the scent of an illegal.
My, how I would love to do a blind test on that theory.
Furthermore, there are no grounds for internal checkpoints to search for anything other than briefly question the driver and even there they have no power to compell an answer.
yoyo762 2 years ago
This is absolutely disgusting. This garbage has no place in a free state.
For god sake, people, go out and vote. Vote at every election - local, state & national.
Vote only for candidates who obey your Constitution. If you don't, you are going to wake up one day in a horror show that makes Nazi Germany look like a day at Disneyland.
Wake up before it's too late. Do you see those CRIMINALS smugly smiling at the camera?
They believe YOU are the criminal if you DISOBEY their commands.
glocker8888 1 year ago
Ya too bad the entire justice system is corrupted.
MihiLibertas 2 years ago
Dude I love your VIDEOS
jvorus 2 years ago
i am all for your mission guy........ but isnt it illegal to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel...... it is per the california vehicle code.......how do you shoot videos and pictures while lawfully driving?
seehound619 2 years ago
This isn't California, it's Arizona.
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
no worries..... was just an observation..... keep up the good work....and congrats on your court decision.
seehound619 2 years ago
Where did you hear that? How would one shift gears on a manual transmission car if you couldn't take your hands off the wheel? There is nothing in the CVC regarding hands on the steering wheel.
dLimboStick 2 years ago
yes there certainly is......would u like me to post a link?
seehound619 2 years ago
please
dLimboStick 2 years ago
Terri, what do you suggest as an alternative to the checkpoints? Water and back rub stations for illegals and smugglers? In a fantasyland all "bad" things would stop at the border, but alas that's not the case. I put it to you, what is an alternative?
Phi474 2 years ago
Well, we could stop illegal entry into the United States at the border itself.
That way there would be no reason to stop thousands of innocent travelers a day on the off chance that one of them may not be here legally.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago 2
Drug money thats what they are looking for most drug money the dogs will pick up on.
rinodeluxe713 2 years ago
The sad thing about these officers is that they are probably very decent people. They are just deluded to think that what they are doing is lawful. We need to fix this problem from the top down. Remove every elected official and replace them with people off of the street. We might have some corruption but not to the extent we do now.
5tevef 2 years ago
Hi Terri,
I enjoy and defend my Constitututional Rights and Freedoms also, but I'm not sure what your point is regarding the checkpoints. The dogs sniff your car?...so what? Did someone pull your pants down and violate you? What do you propose as an alternative to the checkpoints? No checkpoints? You must be the cartel poster child of the decade. Route 86, Casa Grande, Arivaca, and many others are all well known illegal alien and narcotics smuggling routes. Wake up you twisted little faggot.
444nice 2 years ago
Of course you're not sure what my point is 444nice. That's because you're just another authoritarian punk who gives lip service to constitutional rights & freedom but hasn't a clue what they really mean.
Here's a clue for you. If you want to shut down illegal alien & narcotic smuggling routes, try patrolling the border instead of harassing domestic traffic inside the country.
BTW, your comment timing would be just about right for getting off duty from the cp I passed through earlier today...
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
I agree with what ur doing as we have the same problem in the UK. Remember also tho that u r setting an example for others who r following.
Lets carry on doing what peeps r doing but remember anger will only get anger, violence will only get violence. most of these guys think they r doing rite. its abt waking them up n educating them. Reminding them they r men under the suit. We have a cpl of guys in the UK who do the same thing but ask the police after if they want a hug. love revolution!
daveodo1 2 years ago
Just wondering and it might sound prankish, but have you ever tried dried hot jalapeno peppers around the bottom of your vehicle? And I say that in all seriousness. Seems to me it would be a great passive resistance ploy to these authoritarian checkpoints. Why not mess with 'em. They're messing with us. At least there you could get a good laugh back at 'em since they find your inconvieniencing funny as seen by the bigtop loungers giggling.
yoyo762 2 years ago
With the 20 or more hours a week you will have to work to pay for all the new taxes I doubt you will have time to commute if you still are lucky enough to have a job to go to. Hopefully when one of those illegals sticks a gun in your face and carjacks you you'll still have your cam rolling. This film will be of great help to the Border Patrol when they have to identify the illegal that snuffed you.
athreeway 2 years ago 2
Interesting theory athreeway but I've never been carjacked or even threatened by an illegal border crosser. That seems to be the domain of federal agents with guns and badges.
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
With the way Obama is spending tax payers money faster than it can be printed you wont have to worry about this for much longer. If the 16% unemployment rate does not cause you to lose your reason for going thru this checkpoint then the new taxes to pay for Obamas socialist agenda surely will. They will all be legalized soon so the Democrats can get enough vote to win the next election after bankrupting the country.
athreeway 2 years ago
They are there to make money... front line corruption.
We see this abuse of authority in my motherland where civilians are harassed into paying bribes. People smuggling drugs would rather pay bribes than get arrested..
Some covert filming to catch these bastards out would make headline news.
I've been witness to this in my present country of residence.. now I walk around with a camera just case..
smileykai77 2 years ago
Thank you for taking the time and using your own resources to take your case to the 9th circuit. Jefferson is smiling down on you.
35Colorado 2 years ago
Well what are we to do if we do NOT accept their blatant breaking of the LAW? Go to the...uh...law enforcement to stop...law enforcement...from breaking the law??
Aracuru 2 years ago
Keep up the great work.
foobarturkey 2 years ago
What happens if you just wave and drive right through ? What I really want to know is what happens if you pull up so they can see you and you just turn around and go the other way ? I find the dog thing ten times more friendly hehe ::) they gotta train somewhere :)
rainmanp7 2 years ago
Dam bring back are you a American haha. That rocked checking your background hehe. Are you an Amerian ? I'ma sniff ya bend ya over check you inside and out lol. hehe. I like the dog sniffin ten times better. What about 4 dogs ? Dobermans/Shepards/Pit Bulls etc.. I would die if I saw a wiener dog at a check point. I would definatly take a picture of that one. He could go under the vehicle. Thanky you for posting this infromation.
rainmanp7 2 years ago
Sahmeful and SAD.
Shame these badged conspirators dont realize that what they enforce now is the same force that will oppose them and their families once they regain civilian status. Then, they'll be bitching about how they have no rights when they themselves helped deteriorate them.
A quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind (775) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
psbyowner 2 years ago
"A quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind (1775) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Apparently our oh so great Mr. Franklin lived in a time when lives were not ruined drugs, guns fired one round a minute, buildings and lives were not capable of being destroyed in seconds... Sad times we live in now... security WITH a balance of freedom is key... using that quote at this time period frightens me.
fake1009 2 years ago
Yea, Ben Franklin just had the drafting of the declaration of independence. I don't think the British military of the time would appreciate being referred to as an inferior threat to a guerrilla band of terrorists.
Jomali 2 years ago
how abt this one
"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government"
- Thomas Jefferson
daveodo1 2 years ago
This one is timeless. However in my opinion we have not yet gone "astray" in this matter.
fake1009 2 years ago
your comment is quite ignorant. im embarrased for you.
psbyowner 2 years ago
I believe that the word "ignorant" is used way too liberally nowadays. Simply because people don't agree with the position of somebody else they often label it "ignorant" as you have.
Now lets see... I have utilized reasoning, some analysis, and a bit of history to formulate an argument. And I stand by my educated reasoning. You come along and label me ignorant with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever.
Now please, why am I ignorant?
fake1009 2 years ago
your an idiot willfully surrendering your rights to tyranny, for temporary safety.
psbyowner 2 years ago
Can you please tell me something I haven't heard already? Give me something original please. Something reasonable preferably because your argument is extremely far fetched. Simply because I believe in the general welfare of the country I love does not mean I am surrendering to "tyranny". It is like me saying that you sympathize with Al-Quaida because you do not support checkpoints.
Once again, since you dodged the question, how am I ignorant?
fake1009 2 years ago
OK. by now we've figured out that your a troll for the Border Patrol.
I have no problem with border enforcement... i simply resist the notion of allowing supression of our 4th amendment right for safety.
what you advocate is exactly what i will never agree with.
psbyowner 2 years ago
Who is this we? I am only talking to you. And who said I am advocating the border patrol? I am advocating internal checkpoints for the security of the U.S. Alright, you disagree, fine lets keep it at that unless you have something more interesting and thoughtful provoking to say.
fake1009 2 years ago
nope. the agents are out in full force, targeting checkpointusa. this is obvious, and pathetic.
psbyowner 2 years ago
well i wouldn't say they are targeting him or that they are out in full force. Cause in this video they do inspect all the vehicles that pass through; the process is not selective. In fact they do seem to be pretty nice actually. Giving him a little greeting, a few smiles even. I am not sure what you mean about pathetic though.
btw, if you want to continue further do u want to take this discussion to PM (private messages) cause we may be clogging up this board.
fake1009 2 years ago
its a philosphical difference that will never be agreed. you benefit from the system in some way, you are an ofificer of some sort, i would bet. you benefit from wielding police powers in some way, and that explains your entrenchment. to discuss this further is pointless. the presence of dogs is a violation in and of itself; unlawful search of the public.
pathetic in that its paid officers supporting their own police powers on youtube, no different than the corrupt politicians they answer to.
psbyowner 2 years ago
No I am not an officer. I am a student. To say that I would benefit from these checkpoints is true though. I enjoy living in a United States with the freedom to live without fear.
To assume that I am an officer is a bit of a stretch, like some of your previous assumptions. Once again it is like me saying that you are against checkpoints therefore you are a drug user/ dealer and that it is pathetic that you are supporting dealers on youtube. Kinda too far of an assumption right?
fake1009 2 years ago
the dogs should only sniff suspected vehicles, not ALL vehicles.
psbyowner 2 years ago
I would encourage you to watch the 14 part video series I recently posted on a Southern Arizona town hall meeting hosted by Representative Giffords regarding a GAO report on the effectiveness of internal checkpoints.
The meeting was quite an eye opener, especially after the GAO representative admitted internal checkpoints are needed because the government only attempts to interdict 30% of illegal traffic at ports of entry...
CheckpointUSA 2 years ago
CheckpointUSA:
YOU RULE.
psbyowner 2 years ago
What a bunch of criminals.
Vote out the Dems (socialists) and Repubs (fascists)!
Support liberty! Vote LP.
atrickpay11 2 years ago
I bet this guy can go through with all the drugs, money and guns for the rest of his life now.
These border patrol guys are some shit.
Volcompat21 2 years ago