Border Patrol Agents Attempt Search at I-19 Checkpoint

"Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark."
—United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

Let me first say I do not advocate an open border. I am all for border security and I respect agents who have the duty of securing our country. I also have a great deal of respect towards our Constitution and the notion of liberty that many of us understand and appreciate.

Second, this did not take place at the border. Some might be unfamiliar with internal checkpoints like this one which are away from the port of entry and are governed by different laws.

At our port of entry, I expect to be searched and have no problem with that.

This checkpoint, however, is located 42 km away from the border on Interstate 19 and people like myself have no choice but to go through it when we travel.

The purpose of these types of internal immigration checkpoints is to determine citizenship and immigration status. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)

Notice I respectfully told the agent I am a U.S. Citizen.

Again, this is an immigration checkpoint and not a crime control checkpoint. The Customs & Border Protections Field Manual states in section 18.6 (e):

"provided the checkpoint is used for the purpose of determining citizenship of those who pass through it, and not for the general search for those persons or the vehicle. Inquiries must be brief and limited to the immigration status of the occupants of the vehicle."

There was no further questioning about my citizenship. Rather, the agent asks if he can search my trunk and I refused consent.

"We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search." United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)



When asked what the reason was for wanting to search the trunk, the agent answered "Your car is dirty."

He then felt he was justified in sending me to secondary even though the court also held that:

"(A)ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause." 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

This was not my first experience with the misuse of this checkpoint. On one occasion I was given a citation by a DPS officer for allegedly not wearing my seatbelt. Read more here: https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2009/08/30/p174#more174

Ask yourself why I was still sent to secondary if there was no consent or probable cause and why the second agent insisted that I put down my camera.

Not all agents that I come across attempt to abuse their power. Many of them are intelligent and respectful people. But when one does try to abuse his or her power and infringe on our liberties, it is our duty to hold these individuals accountable.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• border
• patrol
• suspicionless
• checkpoint
• homeland
• security
• liberty
• freedom
• harrasment
• civil
• liberties
• ACLU
• CBP
• DHS
• police
• state
• bill
• of
• rights
• 4th
• fourth
• amendment
• constitution
• big
• brother
• patriot
• act
• nogales
• tubac
• seizure
• arizona
• green
• valley
• pastor
• arrested
• tased
• anonymous
• ron
• paul
• USA PATRIOT Act
• infowars

[Ryanchiller]

Searches of persons and property at border checkpoints

and entry ports do not require probable cause,reasonable suspicion,or a search warrant.Federal border officers may search persons

and property virtually at will.This power is granted to border

security personnel by both legislation and case law.Consent of the

person to search is not necessary because persons do not have the right

to refuse to be searched.

[donhector87]

@Ryanchiller

This did not take place at the port of entry. "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search." U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)

[donhector87]

@superwilkes

Did the contents of the video not match the title? Your question exemplifies the ignorance, apathy, or fear that opens the way for government intrusion into our private lives to go unchecked.

[donhector87]

@Blahblobify

Maybe you should pay attention. I did not object to the citizenship question but rather I refused to consent to a search. You're wasting your time by trying to insult me with words like "fuckshit". 

[nando89l]

Your cars dirty

[13sam2lucky]

bravo sir...

[dasritebeotch]

I admire you for standing up for your rights. I don't have the guts and would just comply. But as soon as you refuse they think you have something to hide and will usually harass you until you give in. I think the camera made all the difference.

[ovidiogjr]

if border patrol agent thinks i have something is that probable cause

[WarThug13]

@915buck dont worry when you get raped by ten cops I will laugh and call you a punk as well

[BigTuna77777]

@MrFriendbro ooo, then they need to change state law or something

[MrFriendbro]

@BigTuna77777 Because warrants need to come from a judge. This takes a lot of time and cannot be obtained without probable cause. There was no probable cause. If they wanted to get a warrant for every single person crossing the border, it would 1. be unconstitutional and 2. a total unnecessary waste of time and money.

[greggh]

Notice the way he phrases how he directs you to secondary. "Can I have you pull into secondary?" He's asking for your consent so it can't be challenged later in court. Always make them give you an ORDER, before you comply. Say, "Are you ordering me to secondary?" If he says something like "I'm just asking that you pull into secondary", tell him you will not voluntarily consent to any requests, but you will comply with lawful orders. Always clarify that it's an order before you do it.

[soldier6450]

FUCKIN PABLO Y JOSE  NOW YOU GAYS WORK FOR THE BORDER PATROL TO YA NILA CHINGAN JAJAJAJA NO PICTURE NO JAJAJAJAJA