BajaNomad

Family terrorized by taser-wielding, tire-slashing border agents

Cisco - 4-3-2014 at 07:57 PM

Family terrorized by taser-wielding, tire-slashing border agents
"They just seem to think they can do whatever they want and bully everybody around."

Posted on April 2, 2014 by PSUSA in News


"THREE POINTS, AZ — A mother says that while driving her children home from school on a dirt road in Arizona, she was stopped by lawless Border Patrol agents who threatened her with weapons, forcibly searched her, slashed her tire and left her stranded in the desert.

Clarisa Christiansen had just picked up her 7-year-old daughter from elementary school, and was traveling down a backcountry road. She also had her 5-year-old son in the truck. All three are U.S. citizens that reside in Three Points, Arizona, about 40 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol agents. (Source: Getty Images)

Border Patrol agents. (Source: Getty Images)

The family was completing the 15-mile journey when they were stopped by a group of 3 federal agents performing a roving border patrol stop. The stop took place about 2:15 p.m. on May 21st, 2013.

Ms. Christiansen was then approached by one of the agents, as she sat parked in the driver’s seat with her children strapped in the back seat. The agent began to question her. First she was asked if she was a U.S. citizen. She responded affirmatively, “Yes. Is there a problem?”

The agent peered into her windows and observed her children strapped helplessly in the back seat. The agent then requested that she exit her vehicle so that he could search it, according to the account provided in an ACLU document. Christiansen declined, saying she did not consent to searches. She requested to know why she was stopped. The agent refused to tell her, and kept demanding that she exit. As the two went back and forth, the agent became “clearly agitated” at her exercising her rights.
“You’re not going anywhere….This one’s being difficult. Get the Taser.”

“I was put in a situation where I was in the middle of nowhere,” Christiansen later narrated. “Three agent men against one woman with her two children in the middle of the desert, where nobody’s around, they could have done anything to me and my kids.

Ms. Christiansen then stated that if there was no reason for stopping her that she would be on her way. She began to put her vehicle in gear.

The agent stopped her. “Whoa, whoa, whoa. You’re not going nowhere,” the agent said according to Christiansen. He told the other 2 agents, “This one’s being difficult. Get the Taser.”

“Ma’am, do I need to tase you to get you out of your vehicle?” the CBP agent asked, after opening her door.

The argument continued. Christiansen feared for the safety of her children. “Mommy what’s going on?” they asked.

The agent then whipped out a retractable knife and threatened to cut her out of the vehicle. He forced his hand into her car and snatched her keys from the ignition.
The tire that was found slashed when border patrol drove away. (Source: YouTube)

The tire that was found slashed when border patrol drove away. (Source: YouTube)

Ms. Christiansen had no choice but to exit the vehicle. The agents made her show them her papers and ran checks on her. The entire stop dragged on for 35 minutes. Then, without saying a word, the agents left.

When Christiansen tried to drive away, she noticed that one of her tires had been sliced open along the firewall. Her family was left stranded in the desert. “They slashed my tire,” she said. “It was a pretty obvious slash, straight cut on the side wall.”

With no one else around for miles, Christiansen had to contact a family member to come and help them. Later, she followed up with a complaint to the agency.

Richard Hill, one of the DHS officials who “investigated” her incident, told her he believed the tire had been “torn” and not intentionally cut. He disclosed the name of one agent who was present at the scene as “Agent Laguna.”

“They just seem to think they can do whatever they want and bully everybody around,” said Christiansen. “It’s just not right. It’s just not right. They scared me. They scared my kids. They changed my view on basically the way I look at them now.”

Photos and video at: http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/border-patrol-slashed-tir...

Heck of a Tale !

MrBillM - 4-3-2014 at 08:08 PM

Where's the Proof that it's anything else ?

Cisco - 4-4-2014 at 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
Where's the Proof that it's anything else ?


"according to the account provided in an ACLU document. Christiansen declined, saying she did not consent to searches."

The ACLU documentation is generally not initiated unless they are very certain of their sources.

David K - 4-4-2014 at 12:47 AM

Driving her kids home from school, it says... 15 miles drive, it says... Daily 30 mile dirt road drive seems odd. But, Border Patrol would know her if that was a standard daily route. As a law enforcement officer he asked her to step out and she refused.... WHY? It was day time... other officers were there. How does that show her kids how to act when law enforcement is trying to do its job?

Cisco - 4-4-2014 at 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Driving her kids home from school, it says... 15 miles drive, it says... Daily 30 mile dirt road drive seems odd. But, Border Patrol would know her if that was a standard daily route. As a law enforcement officer he asked her to step out and she refused.... WHY? It was day time... other officers were there. How does that show her kids how to act when law enforcement is trying to do its job?


I refuse also David. This is fourth amendment stuff and I refuse to have my person or vehicle searched particularly on a roving stop, I also refuse to be interrogated in my country.

monoloco - 4-4-2014 at 06:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Driving her kids home from school, it says... 15 miles drive, it says... Daily 30 mile dirt road drive seems odd. But, Border Patrol would know her if that was a standard daily route. As a law enforcement officer he asked her to step out and she refused.... WHY? It was day time... other officers were there. How does that show her kids how to act when law enforcement is trying to do its job?
Ever read the 4th amendment? Some people object to unconstitutional searches and invoke their rights.

elizabeth - 4-4-2014 at 06:49 AM

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.

kboy24 - 4-4-2014 at 07:46 AM

Well it must be Gospel if the ACLU says so....What no crosses to tear down this week?:lol:

Ateo - 4-4-2014 at 07:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kboy24
Well it must be Gospel if the ACLU says so....What no crosses to tear down this week?:LOL:


Only crosses on public land. ;D

David K - 4-4-2014 at 09:22 AM

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...

elgatoloco - 4-4-2014 at 10:28 AM

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...


Maybe she was a right-wing neocon science denying gun loving war mongering christian fundamentalist anti gay rights................I should stop now. Starting to sound a little clueless. :smug:

Whatever she was/is she has a right as written in the constitution to deny an unwarranted search of her vehicle.

"...this administration..."

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (signed by President Bush on December 17, 2004) authorized hiring an additional 10,000 agents, "subject to appropriation". This authorization nearly doubled the Border Patrol manpower from 11,000 to 20,000 agents by 2010.[14] At the same time, the number of illegals caught dropped from 1.2 million in 2005 to 541,000 in 2009.

In July 2005, Congress signed the Emergency Supplemental Spending Act for military operations in Iraq/Afghanistan and other operations. The act also appropriated funding to increase Border Patrol manpower by 500 Agents. In October 2005, President Bush also signed the DHS FY06 [fiscal year 2006] Appropriation bill, funding an additional 1,000 agents.[citation needed]

In November 2005, President George W. Bush made a trip to southern Arizona to discuss more options that would decrease Mexicans crossings at the U.S. and Mexican border. In his proposed fiscal year 2007 budget, he requested an additional 1,500 Border Patrol Agents.[citation needed]

The Secure Fence Act, signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2006, has met with much opposition. In October 2007, environmental groups and concerned citizens filed a restraining order hoping to halt the construction of the fence, set to be built between the United States and Mexico. The act mandates that the fence be built by December 2008. Ultimately, the United States seeks to put fencing around the 1,945-mile (3,130 km) border, but the act requires only 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing. DHS secretary Michael Chertoff has bypassed environmental and other oppositions with a waiver that was granted to him by Congress in Section 102 of the act, which allows DHS to avoid any conflicts that would prevent a speedy assembly of the fence.[15][16]

:lol:

Martyman - 4-4-2014 at 11:11 AM

This chain is why I skip every entry that David K posts.

willardguy - 4-4-2014 at 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Martyman
This chain is why I skip every entry that David K posts.
there should be an app for it! :lol:

David K - 4-4-2014 at 11:35 AM

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?

It's not just the southern border

durrelllrobert - 4-4-2014 at 11:42 AM

By Colin Woodard

Old Town, Me.

Six miles north of the University of Maine's flagship campus, on the only real highway in these parts, students and professors traveling south might encounter a surprise: a roadblock manned by armed Border Patrol agents, backed by drug-sniffing dogs, state policemen, and county sheriff's deputies.

Although the Canadian border is nearly 100 miles behind them—and Bangor, Maine's second-largest city, just 15 miles ahead—motorists are queried about their citizenship and immigration status. Those who raise an agent's suspicions are sent to an adjacent weigh station for further questioning and, sometimes, searches. Any foreign students or scholars unable to produce all of their original documentation are detained and could be arrested.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it can stop travelers anywhere within 100 miles of a U.S. border. It has an aggressive presence in Rochester, N.Y., where agents questioned travelers at a bus station on Christmas Eve.

Cary M. Jensen is director of the International Services Office at the U. of Rochester, where hundreds of students have been questioned or inconvenienced: "It feels a lot like East Germany did when I visited in 1980."

But elsewhere on the northern border, foreign students and scholars experience fear and uncertainty every time they leave campus, pick up a friend at the bus station, or board a domestic train or flight, even when they have all their documents with them.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has greatly increased its manpower along the northern border, allowing for more-frequent use of roving patrols or surprise checkpoints on buses, trains, and highways far from the border itself. Students who failed to carry their original documents have been delayed and fined, apprehended even when they're just a few miles from campus.



"Border Patrol sometimes interprets immigration regulations differently than Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services do," says Ellen A. Dussourd, director of international student and scholar services at the University at Buffalo. "This causes a lot of difficulty for international student and scholar offices when they need to advise their international students and scholars about travel in the U.S."



'Temporary Permanent'

Customs and Border Protection officials did not make themselves available for an interview, despite repeated requests. A written statement ignored questions on the topic, instead providing general commentary on the purpose of internal checkpoints. "CBP Border Patrol agents conduct these types of operations periodically in key locations that serve as conduits for human and narcotics smuggling," the statement said. "These operations serve as a vital component to our overall border security efforts and help sustain security efforts implemented in recent years."

Customs and Border Protection also maintains that it can set up roadblocks—it prefers the term "temporary permanent checkpoints" for legal reasons—and question people on trains and buses or at transportation stations anywhere within 100 air miles of a U.S. border or seacoast. This broadly defined border zone encompasses most of the nation's major cities and the entirety of several states, including Florida, Michigan, Hawaii, Delaware, New Jersey, and five of the six New England states. The American Civil Liberties Union—concerned about the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against arbitrary searches and seizures—has called it the "Constitution-Free Zone."

In upstate New York, it's a different story. For reasons that remain unclear, Customs and Border Protection has had an aggressive presence away from the immediate border, especially around the northern city of Potsdam or in central New York cities like Rochester and Syracuse, which are relatively far from the nearest border crossings. Area residents say Border Patrol officers maintain a near-constant presence at Rochester's bus station and frequently question passengers at the airport. They regularly board domestic Amtrak trains passing through the area en route from Chicago to New York, where they shine flashlights in sleeping passengers' faces.


Foreign students and scholars are often reticent to speak with reporters, but college officials and immigration attorneys in the region described several hair-raising examples of what they regard as inappropriate and worrisome detentions of members of their community in the past four years. These include:
•A Pakistani undergraduate at the University of Rochester was pulled off a Trailways bus to Albany in 2007, who thought carrying his student photo ID was sufficient for a short domestic trip. Mr. Jensen says the student was held for two weeks at a detention facility before he and his family could appear before a judge and prove they were in the country legally, with an asylum application pending.
•A Chinese student at the State University of New York at Potsdam's Crane School of Music was seized on a domestic Adirondack Trailways bus for lack of original immigration documents. He was released after a few hours, but a few days later agents came to campus, arrested him, and locked him up for three weeks at a detention facility several hours away, where inmates nicknamed him Smart Boy. Although the student's change-of-status paperwork was in order—and was approved while he was in detention—he missed the start of classes and had to leave the institution. "He was very scared, and by the end of it, his whole demeanor had changed," says Potsdam's international-programs coordinator, Bethany A. Parker-Goeke. "He ended up leaving the country. His parents wouldn't let him go back to the U.S."
•A University of Rochester doctoral student bound for a conference at Cornell University was taken from a bus and detained for hours at a police station even though he had all his documentation and was in legal status. Mr. Jensen says the Border Patrol agent didn't understand the student's paperwork, although it was typical for someone who had changed from a two-year master's degree to a seven-year doctoral program. "We helped clear it up, but he missed the conference," Mr. Jensen recalls.
•A scholar at an undisclosed institution in Rochester was arrested at the airport while on his way to visit his wife, a student at an institution out of state. Both had H1B visas, had applied for permanent residence status, and had permission from Citizenship and Immigration Services to live, work, and travel while their applications were adjudicated, according to their attorney, Mr. Novak. But Customs and Border Protection officers "treated him like a criminal and threw him in the clink. The wife didn't dare come to pay the bond to get him out because they would throw her in jail, too."
•A Potsdam student was briefly detained last summer while doing turtle research with her professor in a local swamp. "Border Patrol was there asking for documents," Ms. Parker-Goeke says. "She's in a swamp—she doesn't have her documents." The professor was able to persuade the agents to call the university to clear up the student's status.

https://chronicle.com/article/Far-From-Canada-Aggressive/125880/‎

Ateo - 4-4-2014 at 11:47 AM

That I-8 corridor east of Alpine is crawling with border patrol. So much money being wasted, IMHO.

BajaLuna - 4-4-2014 at 11:53 AM

OMG, the horror, a hippy commune, LOL!

are people who live in hippy communes bad people?

BajaLuna - 4-4-2014 at 11:55 AM

do all people who live in communes smoke pot, NO they don't.

Gimme a break, what a sterotype!

Cisco - 4-4-2014 at 12:07 PM

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?


Unfortunately not everyone exercises their rights under the fourth amendment and do allow unauthorized searches. Which makes it hard on the next guy.

David try to think of it as being the guy in Tecate that just got stopped by a mordida cop that just took $400 cash American off of the last gringo he got. It perpetuates the system.

Section 18e of the Border Patrol Agents handbook which they are all given points out that they can look into a vehicle but not enter it, search it or the driver.

Before xmas Dali-Dali had questioned a post I made calling one (there are many) of the border patrol stops "cash cows" and asked for further information.

I was on my way out the door for the holiday and just grabbed some stuff from my files, I don't know what all I sent him but the first article is the illegal Yuma checkpoint.

I heard nothing further from him so guess I answered his question.

Perhaps it will help answer yours, if you need anything further I have extensive files on the problem.

As an aside, the CBP has lost every lawsuit they have had filed against them and cost us taxpayers millions in adjudication and awards to plaintiffs. Rather like that nutso sheriff in AZ that has cost his county 25 mil (yes 25 MILLION dollars) in lost lawsuits against his administrations actions and the fools there keep electing him.

Here is what I sent Dali-Dali:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/jan/20/feature-every...

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-03-13/news/border-patrol...

http://www.examiner.com/article/N-zi-style-tsa-roadside-chec...

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/035360-2008-07-04-ill...

http://www.google.com/search?q=THE+BRUTALITY+AND+MILITARISM+...:official&client=firefox-a

https://afsc.org/program/san-diego-us-mexico-border-program

http://www.google.com/search?q=FlexYourRights.org&ie=utf...:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urbtbvG0Fhk

http://www.canoekayak.com/uncategorized/borderline-crazy/


Motoged is right on when he made the statement on BN “I know what the game is and just grin and bear it.....the last list I want my name on is a border list.”

We are living in a Police State and it will only get worse. The ridiculous stories (a 1/2” pistol on a toy stuffed teddy bear) and it’s repercussions that I posted last week is an example.

Gotta go, Have a Happy Holiday."

That was on 12-23

bajalearner - 4-4-2014 at 12:27 PM

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)

monoloco - 4-4-2014 at 12:39 PM

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.

bajaguy - 4-4-2014 at 12:40 PM

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 - 4-4-2014 at 12:47 PM

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.

A Joke, RIGHT ?

MrBillM - 4-4-2014 at 12:56 PM

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. - 4-4-2014 at 01:23 PM

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 - 4-4-2014 at 05:49 PM

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.

KurtG - 4-5-2014 at 08:33 AM

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. - 4-5-2014 at 09:52 AM

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 - 4-5-2014 at 09:54 AM

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!

Barry A. - 4-5-2014 at 10:10 AM

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 - 4-5-2014 at 10:46 AM

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 - 4-5-2014 at 11:15 AM

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.

Cisco - 4-5-2014 at 11:17 AM

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 - 4-5-2014 at 11:17 AM

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?

Barry A. - 4-5-2014 at 12:08 PM

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 - 4-5-2014 at 12:43 PM

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 - 4-5-2014 at 01:07 PM

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. - 4-5-2014 at 01:39 PM

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. - 4-5-2014 at 02:28 PM

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 - 4-5-2014 at 02:34 PM

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]

LancairDriver - 4-5-2014 at 02:34 PM

You would have to be blind or living on another planet to ignore the rampant militarization of the police departments in the years after 9-11. For years the atrocities committed by N-zi SS and Russian KGB, kicking in doors in the middle of the night were dismissed as the type of thing that could never happen in the good old USA. After all, where could you find people in our society willing to gun down or beat to death a mentally disturbed homeless person for "resisting" arrest. Well, now we are finding that there are no shortage of these people among us perfectly willing to do just that. Having said this, I have never personally had a problem, although close friends have had bad experiences. In fact, my last crossing of the border was met with some of the most courteous border people I have yet encountered.
You don't need to emulate the dog who encounters a pack and submits by exposing their vulnerable underbelly when confronted, or on the other hand the little scrappy mutt who is willing to take them all on. A firm businesslike attitude in dealing with these people you may encounter can project the attitude that you know where you stand and expect respectful treatment. The situation needs to change, as was shown by the public demonstration (riot) against the Albuquerque police who have had thirty three shootings and over twenty deaths by police shootings. The public is slowly responding, and it will take a lot of undoing to correct the situation.

Barry A. - 4-5-2014 at 02:49 PM

Gringo and Landcair----------responses.

Landcair-----I mostly agree with you, but would comment that the New Mexico "riots" that you mention were a bit much, in my opinion. I await the facts from the investigation of this latest incident which on the surface so far appears at least civilly, and maybe even criminally libel for the APD officers.

Gringo--------The officer you encountered was out of line, IMO. He appears to be a "rogue cop", and hopefully he was heavily disaplined, or fired. I have NEVER encountered such a situation.

In the USA, I would have done exactly what you did, but probably waited to stop until I was in view of witnesses...Woosh had the scenario that I would have followed. In Mexico, there is no way I would have stopped until I was able to get to some place where there were other people (witnesses) around closeby, and even then I may not have stopped.

This is all easy to say, but I was not there so don't really know what I would have actually done.

For the record------I have long (50 yrs +) been concerned with the "militarization" of all Enforcement organizations, and have very mixed emotions and opinions about it. I resisted it when I was an active LE supervisor, but most of my officers/Rangers resented that resistance, not because they were rabid power-hungry cops, but because they saw the trend as an improvement to their safety, and ability to do the job. I am still very concerned about the reality of this trend for many of the reasons that so many of you cite, and yes it certainly bears watching and analyzing objectively. It is a dilemma, and tends to enable rogue-cops which do exist, but not too many thank Gawd!! (IMO) It is a shame to bash the organization because of a few jack-asses!

Barry

[Edited on 4-5-2014 by Barry A.]

monoloco - 4-6-2014 at 08:57 AM

Things are changing fast, here's a more recent CBP checkpoint:

http://youtu.be/BB_l6sLxNj4

Maybe the sensitivity training is starting to work.:lol:

Barry A. - 4-6-2014 at 10:03 AM

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Love it!!!!!

Barry

durrelllrobert - 4-6-2014 at 10:38 AM

2X
Think that's the same guy that read me my rights :lol: