| Pages:
1
2
3 |
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
| Quote: | Originally posted by elizabeth
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
How does that show her kids how to act when law enforcement is trying to do its job? |
..."in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States,281 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant's automobile on a highway some 20 miles
from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment."
She is admirably teaching her children how to respond to an illegal excess of a display of authority. |
How do you know he didn't have cause? Maybe she is from a hippie commune and had a joint in the ash tray? Cops don't harass mothers taking their kids
home from school for no reason.
On her defense, I will say this latest group of federal agents from this administration have been way strange and unlike typical adult behavior for
Border Parol or Customs... |
If she had a joint in the ashtray, I would doubt that they would have just let
her drive away. If you had watched the video, you would know that the woman was blond haired and blue eyed, and quite obviously not an illegal
Mexican, also, to anyone looking in the car windows, it would have been obvious that there was no one hiding in the back of the vehicle. So what was
the border patrol's reason to search? I thought that their task was to intercept illegal border crossers not to conduct fishing expeditions on US
citizens.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajalearner
Too bad we all don't have cameras in our cars to capture the encounters. |
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dash-cam/
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajalearner
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Under Bush, it was used to protect Americans from terrorists.
Under Obama, it is used to terrorize Americans and grow the government. |
I was told by a BP agent that the BP has almost complete immunity by law within 50 miles of the border in regards to the constitutional rights of any
person in that zone.
I don't trust the BP and view them as the Gestapo with no adequate review or oversight. This is based on 2 experiences I have with them.
Too bad we all don't have cameras in our cars to capture the encounters. But then, the incident would have been taken care of with a settlement of a
few thousand dollars and a gag stipulation before the ACLU got involved (or confiscation of the camera) |
Actually, it's 100 miles from all borders or coastlines, and includes about 90% of the population of the US. Congress can't just
pass laws allowing law enforcement to act counter to the constitution, we still have a 4th amendment that prohibits random warrantless searches. The
4th amendmentwas adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a
major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
A Joke, RIGHT ?
That Cisco is sure a Kidder.
Or, Gullible.
"The ACLU documentation is generally not initiated unless they are very certain of their sources."
That IS Funny !
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajalearner
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Under Bush, it was used to protect Americans from terrorists.
Under Obama, it is used to terrorize Americans and grow the government. |
I was told by a BP agent that the BP has almost complete immunity by law within 50 miles of the border in regards to the constitutional rights of any
person in that zone.
I don't trust the BP and view them as the Gestapo with no adequate review or oversight. This is based on 2 experiences I have with them.
Too bad we all don't have cameras in our cars to capture the encounters. But then, the incident would have been taken care of with a settlement of a
few thousand dollars and a gag stipulation before the ACLU got involved (or confiscation of the camera) |
Actually, it's 100 miles from all borders or coastlines, and includes about 90% of the population of the US. Congress can't just
pass laws allowing law enforcement to act counter to the constitution, we still have a 4th amendment that prohibits random warrantless searches. The
4th amendmentwas adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a
major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. |
They have the authority as long as they can tie it to exigent circumstances and/or articulate that they suspect a border related issue, and that has
been confirmed by the Supreme Court, is my understanding.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/176/~/cbp-searc...
Also, as long as the LE authority is included within their organic act establishing the organization, as amended, they can enforce ANY law violations
in plain view that they choose to, and it has been that way forever. Some (a very few) LE organizations have limited delegated authority, but I don't
believe the Border Patrol is one of them.
By internal policy, some LE organizations with the proper authority choose to NOT enforce certain laws-----a very controversial policy, however.
Also, as long as State LE authority has been delegated to Fed. LE personnel by appropriate State personnel, they can enforce State Law also.
Barry
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry: "Also, as long as the LE authority is included within their organic act establishing the organization, as amended, they can enforce ANY law
violations in plain view that they choose to, and it has been that way forever."
"Plain view" is the keyword here. Somewhere along the line some of these guys have somehow gotten the idea that they can stop people and search their
vehicle with nothing in plain sight and no probable cause whatsoever. The drug war has given them a throwaway excuse to search virtually anyone, all
they have to do is stand up in court and say, "Due to my law enforcement training and experience, I detected the odor of marijuana". It doesn't matter
if they find anything or not, when challenged, that's the excuse they'll use for any illegal search. I understand that it is now very popular to
search vehicles coming from Colorado and Washington into adjacent states.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
KurtG
Super Nomad
Posts: 1201
Registered: 1-27-2004
Location: California Central Coast
Member Is Offline
Mood: Press On Regardless!!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Funny how I just give one possible reason the officer requested the lady to exit the car... and all of a sudden her civil rights were violated. I bet
every drug dealer in jail says the same thing.
So, all of you refuse to exit your car when an armed officer asks you to? Really? |
David,
It has always seemed to me that the one area that liberals and true conservatives should totally agree on is our rights under the constitution.
Search and seizure being one of the most important. I support law enforcement while knowing first hand that there are some cops who abuse their
authority. I have had few negative encounters with police but on two occasions during a traffic stop while on a motorcycle was asked "mind if I look
in your luggage?" My response was "with all due respect if you're asking my permission the answer is that I do mind." I understand that entering the
country those rights do not exist at the boarder but are back in effect once one is in the US. If in either instance the cop had replied to me that
he felt he had cause to search my vehicle without my permission I would have stepped back and allowed it. I strongly feel that police of all agencies
should not be able to bend the constitution to their needs when it is convenient.
I note that my conservative friends feel the 2nd amendment is absolute but some of the others not so much. Seems to me you can't have this both ways.
You believe in the Constitution or you don't. Again, not a liberal or conservative issue.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by soulpatch
Land of the free!.... right? |
Right!!!
Being "free" does not include breaking the laws---by anybody. The Supreme's interpret and establish what is Constitutional, not the general public
or even NOMADS or the ACLU. If you don't accept that concept, then I believe you are undermining the very concept of being "free" in this Country.
We ARE a Society of Laws, enforced by delegated Officers, and interpreted by the Courts.
Barry
|
|
|
Genecag
Nomad
Posts: 118
Registered: 6-13-2011
Location: San Diego, TJ, La Paz
Member Is Offline
|
|
9/11 changed so much for us.... History always repeats itself and 9/11 forced freedom loving Americans to give up some liberties for the price of
safety. In securing safety for all, the politicians passed laws that allow authorities to strip liberties from a minority for the benefit of the
majority.
A State cannot be free and democratic when the minority is suppressed and denied equal freedom. The BP's role in violating our Constitutional Rights
for the sake of National security cannot be tolerated for the change will come when the Majority will be dictated to by a minority in power.
My wife and I have been needlessly harassed, (funny and sad - mostly by BPAs from our own race), simply for being different.
I applaud the Mother for standing up for her rights!
Make it a Great Day!!
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Genecag
9/11 changed so much for us.... History always repeats itself and 9/11 forced freedom loving Americans to give up some liberties for the price of
safety. In securing safety for all, the politicians passed laws that allow authorities to strip liberties from a minority for the benefit of the
majority.
A State cannot be free and democratic when the minority is suppressed and denied equal freedom. The BP's role in violating our Constitutional Rights
for the sake of National security cannot be tolerated for the change will come when the Majority will be dictated to by a minority in power.
My wife and I have been needlessly harassed, (funny and sad - mostly by BPAs from our own race), simply for being different.
I applaud the Mother for standing up for her rights! |
But, but-----------the "minority in power" were put there by the majority voting (or at least the opportunity to vote) them into that
position--------presumably a purely democratic action. Thus, generally speaking, the "majority" rule?!?!?!? I think so, anyway.
As for you being "needlessly harrassed -----simply for being different", I submit that is your opinion, and not necessarily fact.
Barry
|
|
|
BornFisher
Super Nomad
Posts: 2103
Registered: 1-11-2005
Location: K-38 Santa Martha/Encinitas
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by soulpatch
Land of the free!.... right? |
When you are forced to buy health insurance, you are no longer free. Land of the freeloader is more like it.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Genecag
9/11 changed so much for us.... History always repeats itself and 9/11 forced freedom loving Americans to give up some liberties for the price of
safety. In securing safety for all, the politicians passed laws that allow authorities to strip liberties from a minority for the benefit of the
majority.
A State cannot be free and democratic when the minority is suppressed and denied equal freedom. The BP's role in violating our Constitutional Rights
for the sake of National security cannot be tolerated for the change will come when the Majority will be dictated to by a minority in power.
My wife and I have been needlessly harassed, (funny and sad - mostly by BPAs from our own race), simply for being different.
I applaud the Mother for standing up for her rights! |
But, but-----------the "minority in power" were put there by the majority voting (or at least the opportunity to vote) them into that
position--------presumably a purely democratic action. Thus, generally speaking, the "majority" rule?!?!?!? I think so, anyway.
As for you being "needlessly harrassed -----simply for being different", I submit that is your opinion, and not necessarily fact.
Barry |
When it comes to national politics, it is extremely naive to believe that we really have a choice, it
takes a boatload of money to get elected to office, so before any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, gets on the ballot, they have been
completely vetted by corporate money, so in effect a very small minority gets to select the candidates based on who they choose to lavish political
contributions on. I guess I don't see how you can consider choosing between two candidates who have been carefully selected by a handful of
corporations, "majority rule". It seems like an illusionary democracy to me.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
Cisco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4196
Registered: 12-30-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by soulpatch
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by soulpatch
Land of the free!.... right? |
Right!!!
Being "free" does not include breaking the laws---by anybody. The Supreme's interpret and establish what is Constitutional, not the general public
or even NOMADS or the ACLU. If you don't accept that concept, then I believe you are undermining the very concept of being "free" in this Country.
We ARE a Society of Laws, enforced by delegated Officers, and interpreted by the Courts.
Barry |
Barry, I think you missed my point..... I'll just come out and say it: Not the land of the free, more like the land of complacent wimps.
We have just completely rolled over on so many of our basic civil liberties being taken away....
Can't walk a dog on the beach, can't have a beer at a picnic with friends and family, we have cash machine red light cameras stripping people of
money, cross the street when it's safe but not between the lines you can get a ticket, it goes on and on and on.
Besides, do you have any evidence that the subject of this thread committed a crime?
It sounds clear as if they did...... they exceeded their SOPs and crossed the line of legality..... you and I were both in public safety and you know
that not all people in our lines of work were or are saints.... more than an isolated one or two of them are down-right creeps that I wouldn't leave
my wife and kids around......
And, I view breaking certain laws and being a true American that is heartfelt in maintaining their liberty......
I believe that is called civil disobedience and it is something to be proud of.
I know you are intelligent enough to not buy the party line pablum swallowing. |
Without privacy there is no freedom.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by BornFisher
| Quote: | Originally posted by soulpatch
Land of the free!.... right? |
When you are forced to buy health insurance, you are no longer free. Land of the freeloader is more like it. |
What do you call it when you are forced to pay for the care of people who refuse to buy health insurance?
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by BornFisher
| Quote: | Originally posted by soulpatch
Land of the free!.... right? |
When you are forced to buy health insurance, you are no longer free. Land of the freeloader is more like it. |
What do you call it when you are forced to pay for the care of people who refuse to buy health insurance? |
---------an anomoly.
Because most are compassionate, we grudgingly go-along with this anomoly, but many of us don't agree with the practice as it undermines the very
self-sufficientcy that we are crowing about as so very important for any "free society" to maintain progress and economic viability. For our system to
work, ALL ABLE BODIED people must contribute what they can with gusto, IMO. There are consequences for not doing so, ideally.
On "privacy"-------again, I have never understood the concept of "privacy". If a subject or action is THAT "private", there ARE ways to keep it that
way, but they take effort, care, secrecy and good judgement coupled with good luck.
Barry
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
BP is a two way street, there can not exist a massive market for contraband without a restriction on transportation of items deemed illegal.
The history of illicit transportation of contraband is not some mystery, there is a massive cooperation between institutional agencies to maintain a
flow of items and laundered money through protected institutions.
BP is among the front line to enforce restrictions from small operators so that larger operators may profit. There is a long history of powerful
interests who profit from trafficking in drugs, contraband and money laundering not to mention weapons which fuel a dangerous environment for the
average honest person, like the woman who is the protagonist in this story and could be any one of us.
It is more than somewhat obvious that the protestations of former and current LE on the the board are insincere at the least to suggest that
everyone is a suspect, everyone must give up their right to travel freely and be free from check points to prove their innocence.
Perhaps Barry and DK, if they believe their own words, should "prove" their innocence, give up any right to privacy or freedom from illegal search and
seizure prior to stepping on the rights of others posting on the board.
Furthermore, Executive Orders that declare 100 mile zone free of constitutional protections don't make them legal, correct, or viable in any civil
society. They have been repeatedly struck down by US courts as unenforceable and many civil suits have been post and paid on the part of BPA. Barry,
you certainly are not conforming to the oaths required of true public servants and your comments are an offense to civil and respectful people.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Unsurprisingly, it appears that Barry either doesn't know the law or doesn't remember. Refusal to consent to a search is not grounds for suspicion:
United States v. Hunnicutt, Florida v. Bostick
It's unfortunate that posters who claim to represent LE and knowledge of the law promote lawlessness. In fact, it's everyone's responsibility to
understand the rights and privileges of individuals to live in civil society.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
BP is a two way street, there can not exist a massive market for contraband without a restriction on transportation of items deemed illegal.
The history of illicit transportation of contraband is not some mystery, there is a massive cooperation between institutional agencies to maintain a
flow of items and laundered money through protected institutions.
BP is among the front line to enforce restrictions from small operators so that larger operators may profit. There is a long history of powerful
interests who profit from trafficking in drugs, contraband and money laundering not to mention weapons which fuel a dangerous environment for the
average honest person, like the woman who is the protagonist in this story and could be any one of us.
It is more than somewhat obvious that the protestations of former and current LE on the the board are insincere at the least to suggest that
everyone is a suspect, everyone must give up their right to travel freely and be free from check points to prove their innocence.
Perhaps Barry and DK, if they believe their own words, should "prove" their innocence, give up any right to privacy or freedom from illegal search and
seizure prior to stepping on the rights of others posting on the board.
Furthermore, Executive Orders that declare 100 mile zone free of constitutional protections don't make them legal, correct, or viable in any civil
society. They have been repeatedly struck down by US courts as unenforceable and many civil suits have been post and paid on the part of BPA. Barry,
you certainly are not conforming to the oaths required of true public servants and your comments are an offense to civil and respectful people.
|
Gnu-----------I refer you back to my post on page 2 of this thread, and the link posted there---:
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/176/~/cbp-searc...
You will have to be more specific in your citing where I have gone wrong or astray in my analysis..
As far as I know, I totally comformed to the "oaths" that I took when delegated Fed. LE authority, but I am certainly open to and interested in being
proven wrong if you can, and I would be shocked if you can.
Also, you are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that I don't believe I ever said or thought.
And, how am I "stepping on the rights of others" in my comments? Hopefully I am just quoting the law, and being realistic. THAT's my only objective
here. I KNOW that many people have an inaccurate perception of "their rights" under the law, and that leads to some really unhappy & frustrated
people needlessly, IMO.
But you are certainly right in that I have been out of LE for a very long time (18 years) after 30 + years of active LE experience.
Barry
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
Unsurprisingly, it appears that Barry either doesn't know the law or doesn't remember. Refusal to consent to a search is not grounds for suspicion:
United States v. Hunnicutt, Florida v. Bostick
It's unfortunate that posters who claim to represent LE and knowledge of the law promote lawlessness. In fact, it's everyone's responsibility to
understand the rights and privileges of individuals to live in civil society. |
Gnu-----I just perused the case text you cited----:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1221771.html
-------and it appears to me that the Govt. won that appeal-----i.e. the search was justified under the circumstances.
Barry
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3882
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
It amazes me how quickly so many here are willing to so easily give up their 4th amendment rights and with their next breath voice adamant opposition
to any limitations on their 2nd amendment rights. I agree with KurtG - they are very closely connected and to lose one will soon lead to losing the
other. I have spent several years of my life living and working under military dictatorships with police state governments. I used to be able to
clearly differentiate between those conditions and America. Today, not so much - and I don't say that sarcastically.
CBP is an out of control agency today running like an armed gang with no limitations. I myself was subject of one of those "profile stops" about 5
years back. Seeing a gringo driving a Baja plated car north of the border just "didn't look right" to the officer and I was stopped. I was immediately
on edge because in my case, it wasn't even clear if they were law enforcement at all. Unmarked car, plain clothes and slamming a badge with no photo
against the window of my vehicle did not exactly give me any assurance. I might have even complied at that but the officer was agitated, yelling and
when I did not immediately comply he un-holstered his gun. I insisted that before I would exit the vehicle I wanted to hear him call for a supervisor
on the scene and I wanted to hear the confirmation before I would exit my vehicle.
He did and I unlocked my door. At which point I was yanked out, slammed to the ground and handcuffed. He then opened all the doors and began tearing
through my car, throwing everything out onto the dirt ground, including my clothing. It was only when the supervisor arrived that the situation was
defused and he was able to calm the guy down. Obviously somebody with a personality type that had no business in law enforcement and yes, I ultimately
did lodge a complaint. I learned that he was formally reprimanded and much later found out that as he had already been suspended before for similar
problems and was ultimately terminated, after a lengthy review. That only happened because I continued to follow up, a state senator also got involved
and after a lot of pressure.
My wife and her family are frequent border crossers and have all told me first hand stories of abuse at the hands of CBP agents in the pedestrian and
car crossing lanes as well as while walking in shopping areas of San Ysidro. My wife, her brothers and sisters are all clean cut, hard working people.
None of them look like gang members, have tattoos (not that there is anything wrong with that) or anything else that would draw attention to
themselves. Yet they all have had several situations occur over the years with CBP that paints the entire department in a very bad light. Sometimes
it's sexual innuendo and when they don't get a positive response it escalates. On one occasion my sister-in-law turned him down and then he demanded
to see what was in her purse, dumping the entire contents onto the hood of his car with everything spilling out onto the ground. He then swept what
was left on the hood onto the ground and told my sister-in-law to pick it up. While she was doing so he got into his car and drove away. She had to
step away to avoid being hit and he ran over the contents of purse including her cell phone. That particular officer was Latino but his attitude was
like many others they all encountered over the years from both whites, oriental and hispanics. They all said that the black CBP agents were mostly
nice except for one or two.
Like it or not, we have to realize that there are some wackos, predators and other sick types that seek out these kinds of positions. They are all not
the GOOD GUYS and for us to sit idly by or blow it off as insignificant in the greater goal of national security is a huge mistake.
I received some criticism from some here for the way I spaced out my personal story of what happened here on nomad years back. But I did so
specifically to elicit your reactions based on perspective. When most of you thought it had happened to me south of the border you were mostly all
very critical of the LE approach. But once you learned the event happened NOB some attitudes quickly changed and the old status quo supporters came
aboard, blindly supporting LE at any cost.
As some of you know I have very close family members currently working and recently retired from law enforcement at the local, state and federal
levels. I am not blindly anti-LE. But I am a strong supporter of our constitutional rights which I see slowly being chiseled away, right before our
very eyes.
It is a very relative and important discussion IMHO...
What would you do???
[Edited on 4-5-2014 by BajaGringo]
 |
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
