Checkpoints Unlawful?

**MaFioSo** · 07-10-12, 07:32 PM

I have always argued that secondary checkpoints close to the borders are technically illegal. In essence you are being stopped for no reason and asked to prove your citizenship either verbally or by showing physical papers. If we wan't to introduce and pass a law making these checkpoints legal then that's fine, but under the current law they have no right to do it.

**MaFioSo** · 07-10-12, 07:42 PM

Don't know much about the laws so just in case it is constitutional, should it be?

**deathgodusmc** · 07-10-12, 07:59 PM

I think those laws are set by whomever makes the laws where you are. In florida they deemed check points for alcohol legal even though i agree with your argument. They just find a way to lump it under public safety.

**AetheLove** · 07-10-12, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by MaFioSo

I have always argued that secondary checkpoints close to the borders are technically illegal. In essence you are being stopped for no reason and asked to prove your citizenship either verbally or by showing physical papers. If we wan't to introduce and pass a law making these checkpoints legal then that's fine, but under the current law they have no right to do it.

Can someone issue him a citation for heroism?

Æ

**MaFioSo** · 07-10-12, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I think those laws are set by whomever makes the laws where you are. In florida they deemed check points for alcohol legal even though i agree with your argument. They just find a way to lump it under public safety.

I think that if that Florida law were taken to the Supreme Court, it might get tossed out. I understand why they wan't the law, if there's a big problem with drunk driving, random check points would help to deter that. Obviously secondary checkpoints close to the borders make it more difficult to smuggle drugs or people. So really I'm not arguing that they are necessarily bad, I'm simply noting that technically stopping people at random and asking them to prove citizenship is technically illegal under our US Constitution. When the US Constitution was created it didn't say that it could exempt areas close to the border, it's suppose to apply to all of the country. So if you're 20 miles into the US, the constitution should apply to you.

Now most of us wouldn't do what this kid did. Probably because we don't travel to Mexico very often and the stop is not that big of a deal for us. However there have been a lot of complaints from US Citizens that live close to the border. Their patience with the stops is wearing thin. Another example, that ended very differently.

Charges were filed against the man and he was later acquitted of all charges. He is suing for wrongful arrest.

**MaFioSo** · 07-10-12, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Can someone issue him a citation for heroism?

Æ

Only if you're in Canada, Officers to double number of positive tickets issued - Beaumont News - Alberta, CA

**MaFioSo** · 07-10-12, 08:19 PM

As for those who say the guy is an asshole for giving the border patrol a hard time, from the comment section.

Don't hate the guy driving, he is just trying to protect his freedoms.
Don't hate the cops, they are trying to provide for their families.
Politicians made the law, the politicians were elected.
You should probably hate yourselves.

**Menoske** · 07-13-12, 11:06 AM

I think the reason why checkpoints are legal for drunk driving and such is in the way its applied. I remember reading a few articles a while back and basically as long as everyone was treated the same (ie asking everyone to show id/license) it was fine. The problem comes when you are being selective about who you stop, etc.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

**deathgodusmc** · 07-13-12, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Menoske

I think the reason why checkpoints are legal for drunk driving and such is in the way its applied. I remember reading a few articles a while back and basically as long as everyone was treated the same (ie asking everyone to show id/license) it was fine. The problem comes when you are being selective about who you stop, etc.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

That coupled with the supreme court upheld the stops were legal for public safety.

@ mafia that comment only makes sense if politicians are acting in the best interest of the public. Anyone here think they are? I sure dont.