Checkpoints Unlawful?

**Xavsnipe** · 07-14-12, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

It is the reason that secondary checkpoints are needed.

why would a secondary checkpoint manned with personnel trained the same way be any more effective than a primary checkpoint?

**deathgodusmc** · 07-14-12, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

why would a secondary checkpoint manned with personnel trained the same way be any more effective than a primary checkpoint?

Because people are lazy and will dig the shortest tunnel possible to get the job done.

**MaFioSo** · 07-14-12, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

It is the reason that secondary checkpoints are needed.

It's necessity is not being questioned. Of course these mandatory check points will help combat drug runners. So would having another 3 or 4 check points. What is being questioned here is the legality of the checkpoints.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yet at these check points, you are forced to stop, may be forced to provide evidence of citizenship and maybe forced into secondary where your car and possessions will be searched. Clear violation of the US Constitution.

**deathgodusmc** · 07-14-12, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by MaFioSo

It's necessity is not being questioned. Of course these mandatory check points will help combat drug runners. So would having another 3 or 4 check points. What is being questioned here is the legality of the checkpoints.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yet at these check points, you are forced to stop, may be forced to provide evidence of citizenship and maybe forced into secondary where your car and possessions will be searched. Clear violation of the US Constitution.

Im not a fan of stops for any reason but i have to point out your quote on rights does not exclude being asked if your a citizen.

**MaFioSo** · 07-14-12, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Im not a fan of stops for any reason but i have to point out your quote on rights does not exclude being asked if your a citizen.

It does include not being searched or having your personal belongings searched, yet they still search cars and go through your things.

***COMMANDER*** · 07-15-12, 08:45 AM

Well, I wonder how many illegal aliens that have detained, because they thought they made it through the checkpoint at the border or hopped in a vehicle past the border, thinking they were home free. ?

You know, I appreciate them cracking down and trying to secure our borders and protect our citizens.... I don't have a problem with it. I would have just flashed my ID and said thanks guys, hope you catch some and throw em out of our country.

***COMMANDER*** · 07-15-12, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Nuckle

4 drug tunnels found along US-Mexico border

These look identical to the tunnels that Hezbollah built on the Egyptian and Israeli border. Kidnapped victims, smuggled people, weapons, and everything illegal go through these tunnels and drugs are just the smallest problem for these.

**Kanati** · 07-15-12, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

Watching the 4+ hour trial on that priest... This is interesting stuff.

So I finished watching the trial. It's a bit disconcerting to find that it was dismissed on a technicality basically. The state didn't disclose records on the dog who had alerted at the stop despite having been asked to do so months prior. And since the request was made, and interviewed agents said that those records didn't exist, it wasn't followed up on until the day before jury trial was supposed to happen during the final motion to exclude. At that point the state said that they DID exist. So the defense attorney made a motion to dismiss the case based on the fact that the state hadn't disclosed in a timely manner, evidence that was requested. The judge ruled in favor of dismissal.

So while it was dismissed, it never went to trial, and the subject of "subsequent criminal behavior" was never brought into play. And that's the entire argument. Can someone refuse to a) give proof of citizenship (in this case simply saying YES usually is all it takes, b) refuse to go to "secondary" for further searches, c) can a dog be the sole judge of whether someone should be SENT to secondary, and finally d) can someone be sent to secondary for the sole basis of a drug search (which is illegal).

I learned some shit watching those 4+ hours. Again, interesting stuff.

**deathgodusmc** · 07-15-12, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by MaFioSo

It does include not being searched or having your personal belongings searched, yet they still search cars and go through your things.

But you aren't subject to the search until you have given probably cause for a search. Devils advocate here but as a society we seem to want our cake and eat it to. People want illegal immigration under control but do not seem willing to help out. In this particular case a simple answer to a question would have sent him on his way. That question was not illegal to ask nor was his refusal to answer. However i dont find a whole lot of simpathy for someone making their life harder then it has to be so they can make a you tube video. Hes not a crusader hes looking for a pay day.

Personally i would have just answered a stupid ass question. If it was to go farther then just that i would have escalated the situation because at that point they are violated my rights.

***COMMANDER*** · 07-15-12, 11:54 AM

All they have to do is run a dog around the vehicles when they stop. If the dog alerts, they have probable cause or if the agent feels that something suspects suspicious demeanor...., then he has to ask for the search and if they decline, well at that time, just ol bring ol roy over ad if he alerts, you got probable cause again. If you got nothing to hide, it goes smooth and easy. Of course if you are a scoundrel, you're does goes bad to worst.