Border Check point question.
- Thread starter DaShark
- Start date
- Status
We were pulled to the side at the checkpoint coming back from Brownsville. I guess it was the small U-haul hitched to the back of the Jeep. The dog checked it, didn't hit, but they had my my car keys and the officer saw my Kimber key and asked if I had a gun in the vehicle. I told them it was locked up at home. He said right answer, that's what the second dog was for. We were on our way. Then down the road, the car in front of us was pulled over, and they were checking the trunk. The dog must of hit on them. Those dogs are amazing.
A border checkpoint 50 or 100 miles by air or by road from the border is not a functional equivalent to the border, unless it happens to be in an airport or sea port. Certainly the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport contains a "functional equivalent" to the border, given that you can land in that airport from another country and it is assured that you have not been anywhere else since you departed from the other country. But border checkpoints such as the one I drive through every year between South Padre Island and Austin that is an hour's drive or more from the border does not conform to this definition of "functional equivalent" either in letter or spirit. This is clearly indicated because I can arrive at that border checkpoint without having arrived from another country. South Texas is still a part of the USA, is it not?
Destructo6
Member
There is a Port of Entry at the border.
Checkpoints can be up to 100 air miles from the border and are intended to catch people and objects that did not come through the Port of Entry.
dogrunner
Member
Properly, the remedy for civil rights violations on the part of LEOs is a suit at law under 1983 USC............the "under color of law" provision makes an officer PERSONALLY liable, both in civil and criminal action. There is zero immunity to either federal/state/or local officers!
And yes there ARE truly abusive officers in the system, usually they "self destruct" in a few years, but they do manage a LOT of damage in that interim.
My personal philosophy is and always was one of trying to treat everyone as I'd like to be...that said, even though I'm retired after three decades in the field, half of that as a CLEO. I too have had negative experiences on what were really minor stops. Unless really pushed, I'd never ID myself as other than just another ordinary John....which I am......but I'd also NEVER submit to an abusive or intrusive contact.....and in terms of relative credibility on PC or Terry issues I most strongly suggest that the LEO posters hereon remember that they TOO are not immune from process......it might take a bit longer, it WILL prove to be a fatal career decision should they happen to key on and screw with the wrong "suspect" and succeed in exhausting his willingness to endure abusive conduct.
The good cop/bad cop routine plays both ways..........that recalcitrant stop just might be trying to "bait" you into violating his rights, and if adroit enough and you bite....you pay!
And yes there ARE truly abusive officers in the system, usually they "self destruct" in a few years, but they do manage a LOT of damage in that interim.
My personal philosophy is and always was one of trying to treat everyone as I'd like to be...that said, even though I'm retired after three decades in the field, half of that as a CLEO. I too have had negative experiences on what were really minor stops. Unless really pushed, I'd never ID myself as other than just another ordinary John....which I am......but I'd also NEVER submit to an abusive or intrusive contact.....and in terms of relative credibility on PC or Terry issues I most strongly suggest that the LEO posters hereon remember that they TOO are not immune from process......it might take a bit longer, it WILL prove to be a fatal career decision should they happen to key on and screw with the wrong "suspect" and succeed in exhausting his willingness to endure abusive conduct.
The good cop/bad cop routine plays both ways..........that recalcitrant stop just might be trying to "bait" you into violating his rights, and if adroit enough and you bite....you pay!
Scoutsout2645
Member
I see a lot of anti-LE/anti-BP posts here, but I wonder what these same people's posts would be if this was a thread about illegal immigrants infiltrating the US to work manufacturing jobs, or about drug smuggling and it's effects on our society. (And this is not either of those...I don't want to get this spun off topic!). To fellow LEOs/citizens in support, bottom line is that with many folks there IS no winning--we're either lazy, corrupt or complicit if illegals keep crossing or if drugs keep flowing into their communities or we're a bunch of over-zealous repressive fascists if they happen to get stopped (and released) while we are trying to interdict those illegals/drug dealers they complain about.
That having been said, Art Eatman is right on the money about how to handle yourself. 90% of the way many of my interactions with the public go is determined by how the citizen acts. If you're polite/co-operative/friendly then most of us will respond in kind--you might still get detained/arrested depending on what you're doing, but HOW you get arrested and what treatment or consideration you get during the charging process can be affected significantly. Should I remain professional with someone who is unnecessarily abusive or belligerent during a legal stop? Yes. Can I detain them as long as it takes to make any checks on their paperwork, and can I issue out as many citations as I can find on your car or paperwork instead of giving you a warning for speeding/failing to signal/whatever? You betcha! Can I push for bail to get you lodged in jail instead of a summons? MmmHmm (and some southern states can do this for motor vehicle charges, too!) Can I take those tickets/charges to trial and let the prosecutor know I'm looking for maximum penalties instead of dealing out a plea bargain for reduced charges or minimum fines? Oh yeah. And at every one of these choices, it is usually YOUR behavior that will determine which way it goes.
Have I come across "robo-cops" who push (or cross) the boundaries of what is legal? Of course. In those cases, do what some of the other posters have said--calmly and politely state that you object to what they are doing but will comply with them. Do not resist an unlawful arrest, do not obstruct an unlawful search, get names and call your attorney. If what they did was unlawful then you may have grounds for civil and criminal actions against the officer, the officer will have serious problems and in all probability you will have any charges dismissed. You DO have rights, but sometimes you have to have the wisdom to know where the best place to make your stand is. The roadside is usually the WORST place for this but, in my experience, is the place most people choose to do so (especially those who only THINK they know what their rights are).
For what it's worth, I ask "do you know why I stopped you" to see if someone is: a) someone who just wasn't paying attention to what they were doing; b) an honest person who knows they made a mistake; or, c) someone who is going to look me in the eye and lie about running that light or doing 55 in a 25. Oh...and A and B usually get warnings.
That having been said, Art Eatman is right on the money about how to handle yourself. 90% of the way many of my interactions with the public go is determined by how the citizen acts. If you're polite/co-operative/friendly then most of us will respond in kind--you might still get detained/arrested depending on what you're doing, but HOW you get arrested and what treatment or consideration you get during the charging process can be affected significantly. Should I remain professional with someone who is unnecessarily abusive or belligerent during a legal stop? Yes. Can I detain them as long as it takes to make any checks on their paperwork, and can I issue out as many citations as I can find on your car or paperwork instead of giving you a warning for speeding/failing to signal/whatever? You betcha! Can I push for bail to get you lodged in jail instead of a summons? MmmHmm (and some southern states can do this for motor vehicle charges, too!) Can I take those tickets/charges to trial and let the prosecutor know I'm looking for maximum penalties instead of dealing out a plea bargain for reduced charges or minimum fines? Oh yeah. And at every one of these choices, it is usually YOUR behavior that will determine which way it goes.
Have I come across "robo-cops" who push (or cross) the boundaries of what is legal? Of course. In those cases, do what some of the other posters have said--calmly and politely state that you object to what they are doing but will comply with them. Do not resist an unlawful arrest, do not obstruct an unlawful search, get names and call your attorney. If what they did was unlawful then you may have grounds for civil and criminal actions against the officer, the officer will have serious problems and in all probability you will have any charges dismissed. You DO have rights, but sometimes you have to have the wisdom to know where the best place to make your stand is. The roadside is usually the WORST place for this but, in my experience, is the place most people choose to do so (especially those who only THINK they know what their rights are).
For what it's worth, I ask "do you know why I stopped you" to see if someone is: a) someone who just wasn't paying attention to what they were doing; b) an honest person who knows they made a mistake; or, c) someone who is going to look me in the eye and lie about running that light or doing 55 in a 25. Oh...and A and B usually get warnings.
Seminole
Member
On what basis did he make THAT statement? So what if you had had a firearm in the vehicle. As a border patrol officer, what could he have done about it if you did have a firearm in the vehicle? Given that you were were obviously traveling, you were certainly entitled to legally have a firearm in the vehicle even if you you didn't have a CCW, which he had no way of knowing. . . . :banghead:
Old Grump
Member
Border Patrol
I don't know what the situation is today but when I was in the service it wasn't uncommon for coyotes to carry loads of illegals through Pendleton to avoid the state highway patrol. They instituted the random checks back then and even stopped me once in my old 62 Chevy Impala even though I had my sticker and was in uniform. I had a pop up tent mounted to my trunk for camping and they thought I might be concealing something in it or my trunk. Funny because I got stopped and searched at Long Beach by the marines for the same thing but I regularly went to Tijuana and the border patrol from either side never looked twice at it.
I don't know what the situation is today but when I was in the service it wasn't uncommon for coyotes to carry loads of illegals through Pendleton to avoid the state highway patrol. They instituted the random checks back then and even stopped me once in my old 62 Chevy Impala even though I had my sticker and was in uniform. I had a pop up tent mounted to my trunk for camping and they thought I might be concealing something in it or my trunk. Funny because I got stopped and searched at Long Beach by the marines for the same thing but I regularly went to Tijuana and the border patrol from either side never looked twice at it.
soutex50
Member
Well, going back to the original question...............What to do if carrying with or without a CHL at a USBP checkpoint in Texas. Like some posters already said, don't say anything unless you are asked to step out of the vehicle. Not that you will be breaking a Federal law (or State law in the majority of cases) by carrying but just as a courtesy to prevent "surprises". Common sense folks, that's all. USBP does not handle that type of cases, the State does.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
ServiceSoon, if you lived down here by the Rio Grande, you might have a bit of a different view.
The Marfa Sector of the Border Patrol is nowhere nearly as busy as the sectors with major cities. It is between the El Paso Sector and the Del Rio sector. Take a look at a map.
FWIW: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_patrol_sectors/marfa_sector_tx/
Apprehensions of Illegals have ranged downward from almost 15,000 in 1999, declining to 5,536 last year. 2002 was the high year for marijuana, at 42 tons. This year looks like it might surpass that, however. Through June 27 tons. Cocaine is way down, to a triviial 20 pounds through June. So far, only one known Al Qaeda person.
Any personal view of the War on Drugs or about Illegals is irrelevant to anything I've said. Congress has passed laws, and the Border Patrol is doing its job in enforcing them. A personal opinion is irrelevant; complaints should be directed to Congress. The extensive interactions I've had have never been other than professional and polite.
Since travel with a firearm and interactions with the Border Patrol are the subject of this thread, I don't see anything upsetting in what I've said about my experiences and the knowledge I've gained therefrom.
And by the way: Bart Skelton is a neat guy.
He's now over at Deming, NM; he used to be stationed at Alpine.
Art
The Marfa Sector of the Border Patrol is nowhere nearly as busy as the sectors with major cities. It is between the El Paso Sector and the Del Rio sector. Take a look at a map.
FWIW: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_patrol_sectors/marfa_sector_tx/
Apprehensions of Illegals have ranged downward from almost 15,000 in 1999, declining to 5,536 last year. 2002 was the high year for marijuana, at 42 tons. This year looks like it might surpass that, however. Through June 27 tons. Cocaine is way down, to a triviial 20 pounds through June. So far, only one known Al Qaeda person.
Any personal view of the War on Drugs or about Illegals is irrelevant to anything I've said. Congress has passed laws, and the Border Patrol is doing its job in enforcing them. A personal opinion is irrelevant; complaints should be directed to Congress. The extensive interactions I've had have never been other than professional and polite.
Since travel with a firearm and interactions with the Border Patrol are the subject of this thread, I don't see anything upsetting in what I've said about my experiences and the knowledge I've gained therefrom.
And by the way: Bart Skelton is a neat guy.
He's now over at Deming, NM; he used to be stationed at Alpine.Art
Well I, for one, am not anti-BP or anti-LEO. But a border checkpoint 100 miles from the actual border not an effective way of stopping illegal aliens or drug smugglers.
It's not the fault of the agent at the checkpoint, though. However excessively harassing regular people who are clearly not smuggling in drugs or people, but simply are just unwilling to submit to an unnecessary search or needless detainment doesn't help their cause.
It's not the fault of the agent at the checkpoint, though. However excessively harassing regular people who are clearly not smuggling in drugs or people, but simply are just unwilling to submit to an unnecessary search or needless detainment doesn't help their cause.
In fairness to the BP, a lot of the stupid things they do are because we refuse to build the fence. The fence is not a 100% solution, but even a 50% solution is a good start.
We could also do a lot to expedite the deportation process, but congress refuses to change the burdensome rules. My theory is you catch them, take them to the judge, he determines their immigration status, and if he decides they are not legal, they get on the next bus back to wherever they came from the next day.
Skinewmexico- I didn't know that. Honestly, (Not being racist, just explaining my ignorance) I thought most mexicans were brown. With the obvious exceptions of there are some of every color in every society.
Don't remember who said it, but someone mentioned their significant other being English, and, yeah, I know people come here from Europe...but they are not the ones that the Border Patrol Checkpoints are set up for. Typically, people don't illegally come to America from Europe. Hence my comment about Norway.
I've shown my ignorance, I've been handed my foot in my mouth,
Thank you all.Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
mr.72, looking at as map would help your understanding, along with looking at the BP website for which I posted the URL.
Again, think "chokepoints" and what I said about them in an earlier post.
Look on a map of Texas, for the little west Texas town of Valentine, on US 90 south of Van Horn. It's sorta nowhere/nothing, much like a flyspeck on a really flat pool table.
The BP periodically stops trains there for a brief inspection, a mile or two north of town. The wetbacks take off running, and then look around and stop. There is no place to run to. A whole new meaning to that old song, "When It's Roundup Time In Texas..." And now you know why dealer-destination costs rose: Somebody's gotta pay for those enclosed railway cars.
Wets loved it before the days of enclosed railroad cars to carry automobiles. They'd climb in a car, start the engine, and run the heater or A/C until the gas tank was dry--and then move to another car. Made for a helluva hassle at the destination. And now you know why dealer-destination costs rose: Somebody's gotta pay for those enclosed railway cars.
So the checkpoints in my area are indeed chokepoints. The thing is, the location reduces the tax-paid cost of commuting from e.g., Alpine, at 13 miles. It's another 67 miles down to Study Butte, which is readily avoided by border-jumpers. Closer to the border, yeah, but very close to being useless as a worthwhile location.
A first rule of hunting is "Know your prey"--and knowing the terrain is a close second.
Again, think "chokepoints" and what I said about them in an earlier post.
Look on a map of Texas, for the little west Texas town of Valentine, on US 90 south of Van Horn. It's sorta nowhere/nothing, much like a flyspeck on a really flat pool table.
The BP periodically stops trains there for a brief inspection, a mile or two north of town. The wetbacks take off running, and then look around and stop. There is no place to run to. A whole new meaning to that old song, "When It's Roundup Time In Texas..." And now you know why dealer-destination costs rose: Somebody's gotta pay for those enclosed railway cars.
Wets loved it before the days of enclosed railroad cars to carry automobiles. They'd climb in a car, start the engine, and run the heater or A/C until the gas tank was dry--and then move to another car. Made for a helluva hassle at the destination. And now you know why dealer-destination costs rose: Somebody's gotta pay for those enclosed railway cars.
So the checkpoints in my area are indeed chokepoints. The thing is, the location reduces the tax-paid cost of commuting from e.g., Alpine, at 13 miles. It's another 67 miles down to Study Butte, which is readily avoided by border-jumpers. Closer to the border, yeah, but very close to being useless as a worthwhile location.
A first rule of hunting is "Know your prey"--and knowing the terrain is a close second.
we send very few back. thats the problem. The way the rules are now, even if we captured all the illegals, there is no place to lock them up until they get their hearings, and there are no where near enough facilities or personnel to hold the hearings. Its a joke. Right now they release most of the ones they catch and tell them to come back to court in a year or so to be deported. Not all that surprisingly, very few show up for their court dates.
csmkersh
Member
ilbob said:
The fence is undoubtedly the most asinine solution the feds could come up with. Prevents stock on the American side from reaching drinking water and in at least one instance, fenced off American homes and treating the folks like Mexicans.
Solution? Rotate every NG Infantry and Armor unit to patrol the border - except the Marines who've shown in the past they'll stalk goat herders then kill them.
http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/scream/features/esequiel.html
sounds like the feds just put the fence in the wrong place, or did not accommodate the needs of local ranchers. just because the fence is not a perfect solution is not a reason not to have one.
diverting the NG to patrol the border is just not a good long term solution.
macadore
Member
We need a realistic immigration policy that will let immigrants come here legally and that requires their employers to pay the entire cost of them being here. After that, we can get draconian with our law enforcement if we choose. Until then, there is not much we can do about illegal immigration. This, of course, will cause the cost of nearly everything to go up, but taxes for social services we provide for illegal immigrants should go down. I realize a tax going down is probably a pipe dream.
A wall will be an extremely expensive international embarrassment and will not accomplish much else. An Iron Curtin on our border will not work as well for us as it did for the Soviet Union because we are not like them. Imagine Hugo Chavez standing at a microphone in Tijuana and saying, “Mr. Bush, tear down this wall”. I do not want my taxes raised to pay for something like that.
Frog48
Member
There is a Border Patrol checkpoint along I-44 in Miami, Oklahoma.
Doesnt make much sense to me, since its over 700 miles from the border, but it has been held to be legal.
Edit: I recalculated the numbers, and it turns out that Miami, OK is approx 625 miles from the Mexican border... slightly closer than the 700 I initially stated, but still a LONG way inland.
It might make more sense, and reduce the extremely high odds that the people going through the checkpoint are not in fact entering from another country, to move this checkpoint a scootch closer to the border.
...like maybe just move it to the very first available piece of real estate along the road that leads in from the border... 700 miles from where it is now.
Destructo6
Member
You base this on what?
I base my opinion on quite a few 1,000+lbs truck loads, dozens of alien and narcotic smuggling loads caught at the checkpoint, and thousands of aliens caught trying to walk around checkpoints. All seen firsthand.
Putting all of your anti-smuggling assests right on the international boundary doesn't make any more sense than running a goal line defense at the 50-yard line: realistically, you have to expect some to make it past the front lines.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked