Girl Who Knows Her Rights with Cops Tells Off Border Patrol Police Officers

[Jeff]

Personally I think she was wrong, she was told time and time again he wanted to just run her tag and as far as I know they have the right to check records anytime they want and with her being so suspicious by not moving her car in my eyes that gave them the reason to search the car ( what is she hiding ) again something as simple as letting them run her tag should of put her in jail, this is where law abiding citizens start feeling like police ought to be able to get tough if needed ( police brutality can and is pushed on them at times ) This girl is just a good reason to use liberals for target practice !:soldier99:She must be fine looking for her BF to put up with her and the smile on the border guard's face . How easy it would of been top do just like every other person does is just allow them to ask a couple questions and run your tag and go, these games the liberals are playing with the cops are going to get someone hurt bad, and I truly hope it is one of them that get hurt and not a innocent law abiding citizen.




This is interesting. I’m not sure about the law here, but it certainly seem that she knows it. Check it out:




http://conservativebyte.com/2013/09/girl-knows-rights-cops-tells-border-patrol-police-officers/

[Larrymc]

Personally I think she was wrong, she was told time and time again he wanted to just run her tag and as far as I know they have the right to check records anytime they want and with her being so suspicious by not moving her car in my eyes that gave them the reason to search the car ( what is she hiding ) again something as simple as letting them run her tag should of put her in jail, this is where law abiding citizens start feeling like police ought to be able to get tough if needed ( police brutality can and is pushed on them at times ) This girl is just a good reason to use liberals for target practice !:soldier99:She must be fine looking for her BF to put up with her and the smile on the border guard's face . How easy it would of been top do just like every other person does is just allow them to ask a couple questions and run your tag and go, these games the liberals are playing with the cops are going to get someone hurt bad, and I truly hope it is one of them that get hurt and not a innocent law abiding citizen.





http://conservativebyte.com/2013/09/girl-knows-rights-cops-tells-border-patrol-police-officers/Disappointed, i wanted to see DPS show up and fine and or arrests her, i believe you can refuse to let them search your car, but they can then hold you while they get a warrant, I guess they don't have the same equipment or the same authority as DPS, they can run your tag while pulling you over, and will even know if your insured, before they get out of the car.

[fj1200]

Disappointed, i wanted to see DPS show up and fine and or arrests her, i believe you can refuse to let them search your car, but they can then hold you while they get a warrant, I guess they don't have the same equipment or the same authority as DPS, they can run your tag while pulling you over, and will even know if your insured, before they get out of the car.

Actually I think they can search your car whether you consent or not; the whole lack of an expectation of privacy thing. Best to not consent and let them run afoul if so.

[Jeff]

Actually I think they can search your car whether you consent or not; the whole lack of an expectation of privacy thing. Best to not consent and let them run afoul if so.

Fj the way I understand it ( not at a border crossing ) but the rugular police can'tsearch the car unless they have a good probable cause ( smelling pot or something like that) but yes they can hold you until a warrant is issued ( I Have had police tell me that when asking for consent to search my vehicle more than once and they usually throw in that as they wait to get the warrant they will have time to get a dog up there and all that ) but the only time I crossed the border I was going into Canada and they asked us to open the trunk and we did then they asked if we had anything to declare which we responded no sir and we where gone, the entire thing took less than 3 minutes , this girl was just looking for trouble if it wasn't some kind of made for you tube video anyway but I received a few e mails on it so it seemed real.

[logroller]

At the point he said 'yes you're being detained' and she refused a lawful order it is a crime-- Then he has probable cause. She asked the right question but then broke the law when she didn't agree with the answer. With that said, IF she can prove that the detainment wasn't lawful (questionably so imo) then she could get any evidence gathered after detainment suppressed, otherwise, she's kinda screwed. But that's how it should work.

[fj1200]

Fj the way I understand it ( not at a border crossing ) but the rugular police can'tsearch the car unless they have a good probable cause ( smelling pot or something like that) but yes they can hold you until a warrant is issued...

Right, probable cause. I left that out.


While police generally need a warrant to search you or your property — during a traffic stop, police only need probable cause (http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/probable-cause/) to legally search your vehicle. Probable cause means police must have some facts or evidence to believe you’re involved in criminal activity.
In other words, an officer’s hunch without evidence of illegal activity is not enough to legally search your car. Before searching, he must observe something real. Common examples of probable cause include the sight or smell of contraband in plain view or plain smell, or an admission of guilt for a specific crime. The presentation of any of these facts would allow an officer to perform a search and make an arrest.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when-can-police-search-your-car/

Regardless they also need probable cause to get a warrant anyway but either way gives you lower expectations if you are in your car vs. at your home.

[WiccanLiberal]

In NY they can run any plate they want. As a matter of fact, a number of jusrisdictions have plate readers that feed directly to their computer and send up an alert if the plate is expired, etc. It can scan all the traffic going past. As for the search, as far as I am aware, it's probable cause or warrant. And what is probable cause can vary. I have crossed the Canadian border a number of times (not recently however) and was only asked to allow a search once, by the Canadian side. Probably since I had crossed a number of times in a relatively short period.

[tailfins]

In NY they can run any plate they want. As a matter of fact, a number of jusrisdictions have plate readers that feed directly to their computer and send up an alert if the plate is expired, etc. It can scan all the traffic going past. As for the search, as far as I am aware, it's probable cause or warrant. And what is probable cause can vary. I have crossed the Canadian border a number of times (not recently however) and was only asked to allow a search once, by the Canadian side. Probably since I had crossed a number of times in a relatively short period.

I have been crossing the border about four times per year since moving to New England. Not only do I not get searched on the Canadian side, they see on their computer that I visit frequently, and say "welcome back". I'm sure they start conversation for strategic reasons. Apparently consistently going places to avoid crowds is the opposite of a red flag.

[Jeff]

In NY they can run any plate they want. As a matter of fact, a number of jusrisdictions have plate readers that feed directly to their computer and send up an alert if the plate is expired, etc. It can scan all the traffic going past. As for the search, as far as I am aware, it's probable cause or warrant. And what is probable cause can vary. I have crossed the Canadian border a number of times (not recently however) and was only asked to allow a search once, by the Canadian side. Probably since I had crossed a number of times in a relatively short period.

I crossed into Canada one time and like I said getting into Canada with a Girl I had met was easy, she told me just let her do the talking ( so he wouldn't hear my accent ) and it was a 3 minute deal, but coming back into the states was a different story, I came in on a bus and the officer came onto the bus and asked me what I did for a living and what I was doing in Canada , I told him a driver and was visiting a friend ( I admittedly knew I was in trouble when he asked me her name ) they pulled me off the bus and took my luggage off as well , they searched it while I was inside standing in line, when I got to the counter I answered all there questions and they sent me to a second room telling me this is where we will get the truth ( I was scared to death visions of sitting in one of those prisons where there isn't even light kept going through my head :laugh:) well I stood there a few Minutes and the next officer asked me basically the same questions and said OK your free to go, as I walked outside I saw the doors shut on the bus the officer had to stop the bus to get me back on, what a deal I had no money and thought I was going to be stuck in Maine, luckily they got the bus stopped and I got back on but like I said I might of had 20 bucks on me, heck my ex wife went to my Boss to get money for the bus trip for the ride home, needless to say I stay in the U.S. now when I stray from home :laugh:

[Arbo]

I've never had any issues crossing at the Canadian or Mexican border. It was years ago but coming back to the US from mexico they didn't even ask for ID, just said "You an American citizen?" "Yep." "Ok, have a nice day."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At the point he said 'yes you're being detained' and she refused a lawful order it is a crime-- Then he has probable cause. She asked the right question but then broke the law when she didn't agree with the answer. With that said, IF she can prove that the detainment wasn't lawful (questionably so imo) then she could get any evidence gathered after detainment suppressed, otherwise, she's kinda screwed. But that's how it should work. She will beat it in court unless she gets a liberal piece of shat judge. I saw no legal justification for her to be detained, o0nce he told her yes she was detained he failed repeatedly to tell her why. He created the traffic blockage as if her tags couldn't be ran unless she waited , bull. He ran her tags before he got out of his car-it only takes a few seconds to run them. He was stalling and trying not to be shown for the arrogant and dumbass that he was IMHO.

[logroller]

She will beat it in court unless she gets a liberal piece of shat judge. I saw no legal justification for her to be detained, o0nce he told her yes she was detained he failed repeatedly to tell her why. He created the traffic blockage as if her tags couldn't be ran unless she waited , bull. He ran her tags before he got out of his car-it only takes a few seconds to run them. He was stalling and trying not to be shown for the arrogant and dumbass that he was IMHO.

From a law enforcement standpoint, if she beats it it was because she did get a liberal judge. Just saying you might want to look into what the Supreme Court has determined with regards to lawful detainment at checkpoints, it might surprise you as to what's considered reasonable.

The Court analyzed a permanent immigration checkpoint 66 miles north of the Mexican border.4 A uniformed agent visually screened all northbound vehicles, directing some to a secondary checkpoint to answer questions about citizenship and immigration status for three to five minutes. The Court considered that the extremely important national policy limiting immigration could only be served by interior checkpoints, because the vast border cannot be controlled effectively. Further, this interest outweighs the checkpoint's minimal intrusion on driver privacy. The agent's plain-view visual inspection was not a search. Even if a driver were stopped, he only answered a question or two and produced a citizenship document. Consequently, the checkpoint was constitutionally valid.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=234&issue_id=32004
internal source: 4 United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 566, 546 (1976).

[DragonStryk72]

At the point he said 'yes you're being detained' and she refused a lawful order it is a crime-- Then he has probable cause. She asked the right question but then broke the law when she didn't agree with the answer. With that said, IF she can prove that the detainment wasn't lawful (questionably so imo) then she could get any evidence gathered after detainment suppressed, otherwise, she's kinda screwed. But that's how it should work.

Actually, no. And here's the simple reason why: He had no probable cause to detain her lawfully, and no, refusing an unreasonable search is not probable cause. As she said, and he did not correct her, he asked to search her car, she said no, and then he detained her, well, attempted to in any event.

And btw, were they on fucking dial-up in that cop car? What were they looking up that takes in excess of 14 minutes these days? Second, why wouldn't they just open a second freaking lane? You can see other lanes behind the cop, so why not ease congestion?

They can clearly see her plates, which means they should have had her info with 30 seconds of the stop. Had she not had plates, then yes, that is probable cause, but as that was not mentioned at any point by the officer, that can be assumed to be existent.

"This is a federal checkpoint," is not a valid reason to detain someone. "We have statutory laws" is not a valid reason to detain someone. "It's our policy," is not a valid reason to detain someone.

"I don't know why they detained you," That was the one I loved. He's fighting her and doesn't even know if she's in the wrong yet.

She kept asking why she was being detained, and by law, they have to answer her with their reason for why she is being detained, not "I'm already detaining you". The thing is, had she pulled over, she would have accepted detainment, because she followed their orders. It's like with using the Fifth Amendment- if you've already answered some questions, you can't then stop answering questions. That's why lawyers on both sides generally start off with softball questions, so that you've already gone past the point of bailing out. Were our legal system such that these tactics didn't become common place, maybe we'd get somewhere, but that's how it is.

[logroller]

Actually, no. And here's the simple reason why: He had no probable cause to detain her lawfully, and no, refusing an unreasonable search is not probable cause. As she said, and he did not correct her, he asked to search her car, she said no, and then he detained her, well, attempted to in any event.

And btw, were they on fucking dial-up in that cop car? What were they looking up that takes in excess of 14 minutes these days? Second, why wouldn't they just open a second freaking lane? You can see other lanes behind the cop, so why not ease congestion?

They can clearly see her plates, which means they should have had her info with 30 seconds of the stop. Had she not had plates, then yes, that is probable cause, but as that was not mentioned at any point by the officer, that can be assumed to be existent.

"This is a federal checkpoint," is not a valid reason to detain someone. "We have statutory laws" is not a valid reason to detain someone. "It's our policy," is not a valid reason to detain someone.

"I don't know why they detained you," That was the one I loved. He's fighting her and doesn't even know if she's in the wrong yet.

She kept asking why she was being detained, and by law, they have to answer her with their reason for why she is being detained, not "I'm already detaining you". The thing is, had she pulled over, she would have accepted detainment, because she followed their orders. It's like with using the Fifth Amendment- if you've already answered some questions, you can't then stop answering questions. That's why lawyers on both sides generally start off with softball questions, so that you've already gone past the point of bailing out. Were our legal system such that these tactics didn't become common place, maybe we'd get somewhere, but that's how it is.

Actually, yes. I didn't say I liked it, but that's the way it works. There was a scotus case on this in 1976. So unless there's been further developments on the legality of checkpoints that I'm unaware of, that's the standing precedent in us law. I sourced it above, but here's a link-- http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html


(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563-564.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually, yes. I didn't say I liked it, but that's the way it works. There was a scotus case on this in 1976. So unless there's been further developments on the legality of checkpoints that I'm unaware of, that's the standing precedent in us law. I sourced it above, but here's a link-- http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html

Those still aren't reasons to detain someone. "We've been given orders to do random stops, and you were simply the person who popped up in the computer" is a reason. Repeating that you are detaining the person is not.


The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html#556)-564.

She is still correct, because a search is NOT questioning. That is a different thing. She didn't object to questioning, she objected to search.

[logroller]

Those still aren't reasons to detain someone. "We've been given orders to do random stops, and you were simply the person who popped up in the computer" is a reason. Repeating that you are detaining the person is not.



She is still correct, because a search is NOT questioning. That is a different thing. She didn't object to questioning, she objected to search.
I believe she refused to move over to secondary inspection area, did she not?
I'll rewatch the video and check, but if she did then at that point she violated a lawful order, establishing ressonable suspicion for sure and likely probably cause as well. That she was unaware that they could legally select her for secondary inspection without reasonable suspicion is no excuse.

[logroller]

Yeah watched it again and she refused on move over to an inspection area which the agent had the lawful authority to order her to do. Whoever's riding shogun obviously isnt qualified to give legal advice. She lucky she didn't wind up in handcuffs.

[SassyLady]

I think she asked reasonable questions and none of them could give a valid reason for asking her to pull over. She showed her proof of citizenship, the dog searched the car and I think they were just dumbfounded that she would question their authority to detain her.

I certainly would want to know why they decided to make me submit to a secondary inspection. I also commend her for holding her own in the face of intimidation and doing it reasonably and with grace.

[logroller]

I think she asked reasonable questions and none of them could give a valid reason for asking her to pull over. She showed her proof of citizenship, the dog searched the car and I think they were just dumbfounded that she would question their authority to detain her.

I certainly would want to know why they decided to make me submit to a secondary inspection. I also commend her for holding her own in the face of intimidation and doing it reasonably and with grace.
Fwiw after the inspection she was released without incident. But the inspection took what, 15 minutes? Even without a search that could have easily been half that had she complied and moved to the secondary inspection point instead of arguing. I'm sympathetic to ones rights being protected but I'm also sympathetic to the necessityof these checkpoints in combatting crime. And to those who say, 'I'm a us citizen' I would only point to the this:

It turns out that U.S. citizens are the predominant culprits that the Border Patrol busts for drug possession and transportation, according to an analysis of records obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Three out of four people found with drugs by the border agency are U.S. citizens, the data show. Looked at another way, when the immigration status is known, four out of five busts—which may include multiple people—involve a U.S. citizen.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/26/at-mexican-border-four-in-five-drug-busts-involve-american-citizens.html

so when he said yes you're being detained for suspicion of criminal activity, he did answer her and she just didn't like the answer. And maybe she was right, I wouldn't like being suspected of criminal activity either for no good reason either, but that's no excuse to refuse secondary inspection-- that is suspicious IMO. Instead she jams up the lot, taking what, 3 or 4 agents away for what they were doing (catching actual criminals) to attend to her.
She claims she's being reasonable, but a reasonable person would just pull off to the side instead of refusing. Her 'detention' was of her own making, she held the keys to her release and she could have been on her way far sooner, with her rights intact, if she hadn't been so focused on making her point known that she disagrees with checkpoints and the legitimate interest of inspections. That's not reasonable nor graceful IMO. It just comes across as contemptuous.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Fwiw after the inspection she was released without incident. But the inspection took what, 15 minutes? Even without a search that could have easily been half that had she complied and moved to the secondary inspection point instead of arguing. I'm sympathetic to ones rights being protected but I'm also sympathetic to the necessityof these checkpoints in combatting crime. And to those who say, 'I'm a us citizen' I would only point to the this:

so when he said yes you're being detained for suspicion of criminal activity, he did answer her and she just didn't like the answer. And maybe she was right, I wouldn't like being suspected of criminal activity either for no good reason either, but that's no excuse to refuse secondary inspection-- that is suspicious IMO. Instead she jams up the lot, taking what, 3 or 4 agents away for what they were doing (catching actual criminals) to attend to her.
She claims she's being reasonable, but a reasonable person would just pull off to the side instead of refusing. Her 'detention' was of her own making, she held the keys to her release and she could have been on her way far sooner, with her rights intact, if she hadn't been so focused on making her point known that she disagrees with checkpoints and the legitimate interest of inspections. That's not reasonable nor graceful IMO. It just comes across as contemptuous. No sir , blanket suspicion is not probable cause nor is it Constitutional. A "catchall excuse" like that can not be valid or Constitutional, for if that were so then most of the rights in the Constitution would be voided. They can not use--we suspect all people, or even , we suspect all people equally. Another point is that this video illustrates "conditioning" and what they want to be the norm. That a citizen must comply no matter how unreasonable or how harassingly and needlessly in-depth a stop becomes. We saw the same thing with airport security and this lets ignore it for our greater security. My attorney friend viewed the video and told me that she would win in court had they idiots actually charged her.


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin

[logroller]

No sir , blanket suspicion is not probable cause nor is it Constitutional. A "catchall excuse" like that can not be valid or Constitutional, for if that were so then most of the rights in the Constitution would be voided. They can not use--we suspect all people, or even , we suspect all people equally. Another point is that this video illustrates "conditioning" and what they want to be the norm. That a citizen must comply no matter how unreasonable or how harassingly and needlessly in-depth a stop becomes. We saw the same thing with airport security and this lets ignore it for our greater security. My attorney friend viewed the video and told me that she would win in court had they idiots actually charged her.
It was an inspection and scotus has ruled them constitutional so long as the time it takes to execute such an inspection is reasonable and the interest in doing so cannot be accomplished through less obtrusive means.

If she'd if pulled over they'd of been done with it 5 minutes. Instead it takes 15. Why? Her being unreasonable made it longer. She didn't have to submit to a search, no one said that. The agent didnt say that; did he? No. He said pull over to secondary. Why? Because unlike her others just want to go about their business and not worry about criminal syndicates taking over the country. Clearly legitimate interests of the people being tended to by the government isn't as important as her YouTube views. Whatever. I've shown the rulings. Let me know when it gets overturned.

Can I assume you think that the drug cartels running their drugs around this country is a legitimate concern of the people-- how do believe it should be combatted?

[DragonStryk72]

I believe she refused to move over to secondary inspection area, did she not?
I'll rewatch the video and check, but if she did then at that point she violated a lawful order, establishing ressonable suspicion for sure and likely probably cause as well. That she was unaware that they could legally select her for secondary inspection without reasonable suspicion is no excuse.

Yes, she did, because, like I said before had she in point of fact followed the order, she would have been accepting the search, so there is no other option available but to dig in and refuse, that was her only legal recourse. She did not refuse questioning, she refused search and detainment without given cause. There was no lawful order, as the officer, as I said again, made no point of explaining why she was detained, when asked.

He is required, by law and constitution, to answer why he is detaining someone, and he refused, thereby making his orders following that point unlawful. It is the most basic part of the duties of law enforcement to explain the reason why someone is being detained. The law you cited, log, specifies only questioning, questioning they had already performed, enough that they were able to confirm her citizenship, and he stated he was going to search her car. Search and question are different things, in both physical act and legal definition.

She was well aware of the laws, clearly. Notice that she kept asking for the reason she was being detained. All the officer had to do was follow official guidelines, answer her one single question, that he is compelled by law to answer, and that would have been that. I say again, "I'm already detaining you" is not a reason for detainment. "This is a federal checkpoint" is not a reason for detainment. "You'd rather be arrested?" is not a reason to be detained, and is a further breaking of her rights.

The officer was attempting to perform an unreasonable search of her property, and my bet is he knew he didn't have the standing for it, or he would have been able to answer a single simple question that would have made the whole proceeding straightforward.

The only SCOTUS decision you have posted in this argument is for being questioned by border patrol, and in no way specifies physical searches of property. Questioning can be used to establish probable cause for a search, but it does not work the other way around. Either probable cause must be established for the search (No, refusing an unlawful order while apprising the officer of the fact is not "probable cause"), or you must obtain a warrant to do so, which requires evidence enough for probable cause. Had she capitulated, that could have been construed legally as assent to be searched, so she pretty much had to stay where she was in order to not get searched.

[logroller]

Yes, she did, because, like I said before had she in point of fact followed the order, she would have been accepting the search, so there is no other option available but to dig in and refuse, that was her only legal recourse.
Who said anything about a search? I said inspection, the agent said inspection, the Supreme Court has said inspection. You've made a strawman.


She did not refuse questioning, she refused search and detainment without given cause. There was no lawful order, as the officer, as I said again, made no point of explaining why she was detained, when asked.
It was an inspection, not a search. Strawman again.



He is required, by law and constitution, to answer why he is detaining someone, and he refused, thereby making his orders following that point unlawful.
You keep saying that, but you havent shown me that law with precedent. The constitution says no unreasonable search or seizure-- scotus ruled inspections are reasonable seizures.


It is the most basic part of the duties of law enforcement to explain the reason why someone is being detained. The law you cited, log, specifies only questioning, questioning they had already performed, enough that they were able to confirm her citizenship, and he stated he was going to search her car.
It was for an inspection for possible international criminal activities. Questioning which hadn't satisfied their legitmate govt interest, so they directed her to secondary.


Search and question are different things, in both physical act and legal definition.
Inspection and search have different legal definitions. Look em up and get back to me.


She was well aware of the laws, clearly.
Is that why she asked the guy riding shotgun if she had to provide ID upon request?


Notice that she kept asking for the reason she was being detained. All the officer had to do was follow official guidelines, answer her one single question, that he is compelled by law to answer,
What law is that?


and that would have been that. I say again, "I'm already detaining you" is not a reason for detainment. "This is a federal checkpoint" is not a reason for detainment. "You'd rather be arrested?" is not a reason to be detained, and is a further breaking of her rights.
An Inspection is reasonable detainment-wise-- Scotus ruled as such.
(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563-564.

Criteria like, articulable suspicion.


The officer was attempting to perform an unreasonable search of her property,
He was...When? At what precise time in that video did any officer attempt to execute a search?


and my bet is he knew he didn't have the standing for it, or he would have been able to answer a single simple question that would have made the whole proceeding straightforward.
Admittedly the guy was a dolt, but that doesn't make the stop and inspection unlawful. Neither did he search or even ask to search the car or her person that I saw. From where did you get such an idea?


The only SCOTUS decision you have posted in this argument is for being questioned by border patrol, and in no way specifies physical searches of property.
Inspection, and secondary inspection specifically was mentioned in the ruling, and during the course of that questioning even if a suspicion less than that which is required for regular roving patrol should occur, secondary inspection can be ordered. You're just wrong ds.

Need i restate the question: where in the video was anything said about searches?


Questioning can be used to establish probable cause for a search, but it does not work the other way around. Either probable cause must be established for the search (No, refusing an unlawful order while apprising the officer of the fact is not "probable cause"), or you must obtain a warrant to do so, which requires evidence enough for probable cause. Had she capitulated, that could have been construed legally as assent to be searched, so she pretty much had to stay where she was in order to not get searched.
Thats all well and good, however, its called secondary inspection ds, not a search. Assenting to a lawful inspection is not consenting to a search. Words mean stuff.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It was an inspection and scotus has ruled them constitutional so long as the time it takes to execute such an inspection is reasonable and the interest in doing so cannot be accomplished through less obtrusive means.

If she'd if pulled over they'd of been done with it 5 minutes. Instead it takes 15. Why? Her being unreasonable made it longer. She didn't have to submit to a search, no one said that. The agent didnt say that; did he? No. He said pull over to secondary. Why? Because unlike her others just want to go about their business and not worry about criminal syndicates taking over the country. Clearly legitimate interests of the people being tended to by the government isn't as important as her YouTube views. Whatever. I've shown the rulings. Let me know when it gets overturned.

Can I assume you think that the drug cartels running their drugs around this country is a legitimate concern of the people-- how do believe it should be combatted? Sorry but what you are saying is that Government officials can after finding nothing just force you to submit far more intrusive inspection on a mere whim or a systematic random check basis. I do not give a damn what SCOTUS HAS RULED IF IT TRULY SUPPORTS THAT POSITION.. SO TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY TO BEATING A MAN TO DEATH IS OK BUT JUST AS LONG AS ONE DOESNT GO ALL THE WAY ITS FINE. That is what allowing such overstep by Feds is IMHO. FF the government on the drug thing because its a damn scam , if they wanted to stop 90% of the drugs they would have sealed the Southern border decades ago. And they could have just told Mexico(instead we let Mexico tell us what to do) we are going to invade to destroy your drug cartels but instead have likely been giving Mexico hundreds of millions. -Tyr

[logroller]

Sorry but what you are saying is that Government officials can after finding nothing just force you to submit far more intrusive inspection on a mere whim or a systematic random check basis. I do not give a damn what SCOTUS HAS RULED IF IT TRULY SUPPORTS THAT POSITION.. SO TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY TO BEATING A MAN TO DEATH IS OK BUT JUST AS LONG AS ONE DOESNT GO ALL THE WAY ITS FINE. That is what allowing such overstep by Feds is IMHO. FF the government on the drug thing because its a damn scam , if they wanted to stop 90% of the drugs they would have sealed the Southern border decades ago. And they could have just told Mexico(instead we let Mexico tell us what to do) we are going to invade to destroy your drug cartels but instead have likely been giving Mexico hundreds of millions. -Tyr
I didn't say that and neither did scotus. thats a strawman that's been built. An inspection is a seizure, not a search. What is a 'more intrusive' seizure? If you mean additional questioning like do you have anything illegal onboard? Illegal weapons? Drugs? People? Have you ever been arrested for any of those things? Then they run the dogs around while they verify her answers. All clear-- have a nice day. 5 minutes. Instead it took 15. Not because the inspection was intrusive, but rather because she was defiant and uncooperative.


Sealing the border isn't feasible.

[SassyLady]

I'd rather see someone question the process and have the authorities actually be clear on why they are doing it. However, the only thing they have been taught to say is "pull over to the secondary inspection area", which, in my opinion is capricious.

If someone asked me to pull over for a secondary inspection I would be asking what prompted them to think I/my vehicle needed a secondary inspection. Or, if they had said, we do a random check (like they do at airport customs) then I would pull over.

What is unclear is that no one, not even the guy who asked her to pull over, could come up with a valid reason for the secondary inspection.

Regardless of what all the laws or precedents are, there has to be some common sense or no one will ask the obvious question, i.e., "WHY?". If we quit asking this question then we are just members of group think and become sheep being led to the slaughter.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'd rather see someone question the process and have the authorities actually be clear on why they are doing it. However, the only thing they have been taught to say is "pull over to the secondary inspection area", which, in my opinion is capricious.

If someone asked me to pull over for a secondary inspection I would be asking what prompted them to think I/my vehicle needed a secondary inspection. Or, if they had said, we do a random check (like they do at airport customs) then I would pull over.

What is unclear is that no one, not even the guy who asked her to pull over, could come up with a valid reason for the secondary inspection.

Regardless of what all the laws or precedents are, there has to be some common sense or no one will ask the obvious question, i.e., "WHY?". If we quit asking this question then we are just members of group think and become sheep being led to the slaughter.


Regardless of what all the laws or precedents are, there has to be some common sense or no one will ask the obvious question, i.e., "WHY?". If we quit asking this question then we are just members of group think and become sheep being led to the slaughter. ^^^^^ This is the point!! We need to stop allowing the "conditioning".. We can be "conditioned " right out of our rights... They have been working on that for several decades already. Sassy got it dead on right!! - :beer: -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn't say that and neither did scotus. thats a strawman that's been built. An inspection is a seizure, not a search. What is a 'more intrusive' seizure? If you mean additional questioning like do you have anything illegal onboard? Illegal weapons? Drugs? People? Have you ever been arrested for any of those things? Then they run the dogs around while they verify her answers. All clear-- have a nice day. 5 minutes. Instead it took 15. Not because the inspection was intrusive, but rather because she was defiant and uncooperative.


Sealing the border isn't feasible.


Sealing the border isn't feasible -----------------------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^ That is just plain out false. I could take half the money they are spending and seal that border. What you mean is its not feasible unless we dedicate to it as a survival reaction. Build fences and were not feasible do gun mounted armed towers with fully manned patrols 24/7.. Log, I am calling bullshat on your it is not feasible comment. Hell, look at the billions were are spending each year on the ones we allow in. Seal border , start a damn true deportation program! Don't say impossible as an excuse for not rightly blaming the dem party for its promoting the ffing invasion! That's why its no possible-- damn traitorous dems seeking more illegal voters ! Same way the ffing dems block a voter ID card that would stop all the illegal , fraudulent voting. Be honest enough to admit which party ff's up both solutions!-Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Who said anything about a search? I said inspection, the agent said inspection, the Supreme Court has said inspection. You've made a strawman.


THE COP STATING HE WAS GOING TO SEARCH HER CAR. Watch the video AND listen.

It was an inspection, not a search. Strawman again.

The border patrol officer stated it was a search. Again, watch the video and listen to the words.

You keep saying that, but you havent shown me that law with precedent. The constitution says no unreasonable search or seizure-- scotus ruled inspections are reasonable seizures.

They ruled QUESTIONING, and QUESTIONING ONLY, by YOUR OWN LINK. READ YOUR OWN DOCUMENT

It was for an inspection for possible international criminal activities. Questioning which hadn't satisfied their legitmate govt interest, so they directed her to secondary.

BORER PATROL STATED IT WAS A SEARCH.

Inspection and search have different legal definitions. Look em up and get back to me.

Again, the border patrol officer stated it was a search. Stop making words up.

Is that why she asked the guy riding shotgun if she had to provide ID upon request?


What law is that?


An Inspection is reasonable detainment-wise-- Scotus ruled as such.
(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563-564.

Criteria like, articulable suspicion.


He was...When? At what precise time in that video did any officer attempt to execute a search?


Admittedly the guy was a dolt, but that doesn't make the stop and inspection unlawful. Neither did he search or even ask to search the car or her person that I saw. From where did you get such an idea?


Inspection, and secondary inspection specifically was mentioned in the ruling, and during the course of that questioning even if a suspicion less than that which is required for regular roving patrol should occur, secondary inspection can be ordered. You're just wrong ds.

Need i restate the question: where in the video was anything said about searches?


Thats all well and good, however, its called secondary inspection ds, not a search. Assenting to a lawful inspection is not consenting to a search. Words mean stuff.

Since the border patrol officer stated it was a search, it's a search, and he stated he was detaining her. He refused to answer his baseline requirement to answer the reason for the detainment. You're correct, words do mean things, listen to the words that came out of people's mouths in the video actually were, then post.

[logroller]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^ That is just plain out false. I could take half the money they are spending and seal that border. What you mean is its not feasible unless we dedicate to it as a survival reaction. Build fences and were not feasible do gun mounted armed towers with fully manned patrols 24/7.. Log, I am calling bullshat on your it is not feasible comment. Hell, look at the billions were are spending each year on the ones we allow in. Seal border , start a damn true deportation program! Don't say impossible as an excuse for not rightly blaming the dem party for its promoting the ffing invasion! That's why its no possible-- damn traitorous dems seeking more illegal voters ! Same way the ffing dems block a voter ID card that would stop all the illegal , fraudulent voting. Be honest enough to admit which party ff's up both solutions!-Tyr
They build tunnels. The current admin is deporting at record rates. Many border towns allow drug cartels to operate with impunity. Im talking where even the local police is on the take. I think your idea of how it could/should be done is so distanced from realityit becomes laughable.



Hey ds72, so I watched the video,again (wasting 13 minutes of my life) and the agent never said he was going to search. So unless you can provide a exact time in that video you're just wrong. So far as 'there's no problem with questioning' I'd direct you to 10:30 where she tells the agent that his questions are 'none of his business'. Not exactly participatory nor reasonable. And did you notice what piqued their concern? Perhaps it was the bins in the back. If those were full of heroin, do you think its reasonable to detain her in secondary to make sure she doesn't have prior convictions for drug trafficking and to let the dogs sniff around?

What I had thought would be brought up with regards to the inspection point is that it appears to be temporary, not permanent as was discussed in the ruling I provided. The law may vary in such, Perhaps. Not this 'search' rubbish, which it wasn't-- IT WAS SEIZURE for possible criminal activity that is known to occur in the areas where these checkpoints are set up. Scotus ruled that such interests cannot be served by less obtrusive means and thus it serves a compelling interests to exact a seizure absent articulable suspicion. The policies that the officer referred to are based on this ruling, including secondary inspection.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They build tunnels. The current admin is deporting at record rates. Many border towns allow drug cartels to operate with impunity. Im talking where even the local police is on the take. I think your idea of how it could/should be done is so distanced from realityit becomes laughable. . No doubt that is true when reality is made by the dems and bleeding heart libs ! Reality is that it could be done and save this nation many tens of billions yearly too. In my life I have heard that can not be done , tis' simply impossible, at least a 40 or 50 times that I ignored and went ahead and did it anyways. I also always pointed out to the naysayer how I did it and how they were wrong. The people crying it can not be done are the people that simply desire it not be done. --Tyr

[logroller]

Since the border patrol officer stated it was a search, it's a search, and he stated he was detaining her. He refused to answer his baseline requirement to answer the reason for the detainment. You're correct, words do mean things, listen to the words that came out of people's mouths in the video actually were, then post.
he did? When? Please post the time in that video where the officer stated he was going to do search. Show me the law that says they must tell you why you're being detained. Show me anything really, other than more strawman fallacies.

[Larrymc]

No doubt that is true when reality is made by the dems and bleeding heart libs ! Reality is that it could be done and save this nation many tens of billions yearly too. In my life I have heard that can not be done , tis' simply impossible, at least a 40 or 50 times that I ignored and went ahead and did it anyways. I also always pointed out to the naysayer how I did it and how they were wrong. The people crying it can not be done are the people that simply desire it not be done. --TyrI agree it can be done, but there's no will for it amongst the powers that be, There is corruption in law enforcement on both sides of the border, the laws we do have can't be enforced, leading some crooked officers to take advantage, and capitalize on that fact, between the votes and the money involved, it would be difficult no doubt but it could be done, most likely it would take military involvement. Its one of the foot holds in the war on drugs. if there is such a thing, i think the unwillingness to close the border indicates there is no real war on drugs.

[Arbo]

I could take half the money they are spending and seal that border.

Do you have a documented plan that shows how you plan to do this for half the money, that also shows it would indeed be 'secure'? If so, why have you not presented it to those in charge?

:laugh: