Abusive Border Patrol Agents w/ Nun Chucks at NM Checkpoint

"any places within 100 miles are considered border regions."
This is correct. However Supreme Court cases have curtailed 'border region' powers at these checkpoints. See a couple of comments below this one for sources to 3 of these cases.

"...and then be surprised when an altercation arises."
Agreed. I go through these checkpoints all the time, and usually don't answer questions. Doing so sometimes causes an altercation, but not for long. I am allowed to go once the agent gets done strutting.

As the peace officer said, any places within 100 miles are considered border regions. I can honestly see problems with both sides here. One cannot go to a checkpoint, expecting an altercation, and then be surprised when an altercation arises.

Fair enough.

@Pafoofnik1--Thank you. Although, by using quotation marks I was hoping to indicate that the words were not mine.

As we are never going to agree on this issue, do you agree that it's fair to say that we are all stuck with the opinions expressed in:

U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 545 (1976).
U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-882 (1975).
U.S. v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 896-97 (1975)?

I don't like people making up their own rules anymore than you do.

I acknowledge that you admitted that your comment was an opinion. But it is hard to believe that your statement was meant as such when you said: "A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant" without first researching to see if it is actually true here.

It's a bit of a pet peeve around here for some. People comment about how the driver broke the law... when he didn't.

Fair enough?

@Pafoofnik1--As I said before, and as you fully realize, not knowing where the checkpoints are located put me at a disadvantage. Had I known the checkpoint was in NM, that would have helped.

They obviously were not in Washington State.

You asked if the information I posted was a law or an opinion, and I answered your question. The courtesy of an acknowledgment would have been nice.

Good manners are always appreciated.

This incident took place in New Mexico, not Washington state. New Mexico state law on obstruction (30-22-1) only applies when enforcing state law.

There was no need to research all 50 states, just the one this incident happened in. If you would have done that, then you would have quickly realized that your statement: "The driver in the video committed a law violation, to wit, Obstructing administration of law or other governmental function." was false.

@fred0245

you are probably right, there really is no stopping the juggernaut that has become Americas police state. It just gets bigger and bigger with less liberty for all!

Check--Please read what I said one more time. I didn't cite NY obstruction laws. I cited Washington's as an example.

I said that NY designated Federal Officers as Peace Officers.

I said that I didn't have time to "investigate all 50 states obstruction laws."

Not knowing where the checkpoints were in AZ put me at a disadvantage. Had I known the checkpoint was in AZ, that would have helped.

By the way, you should tell others that it's Chapter 24, part 13-2402 in AZ.

It should be noted, fred0245 left the same comment on one of my videos. Unbeknown to fred0245, I've done my due diligence. In AZ, federal agents must be cross-certified by the county sheriff where they are operating to enforce state law.

In Pima County where my videos take place, there are only two cross-certified BP agents & neither one work internal checkpoints.

Additionally, Arizona obstruction laws require the use or threat of force. Something not present in any of these videos.