Refusing consent to a search

[nitetrane98]

"The reason they let him go is probably because the supervisor said "He's blocking traffic, and acting like an ass, but he seems to be American, and that is all we care about, so let him go."

LOL!!
I can see it now..
Driver approaches checkpoint.
BP says, "What country are you citizen of?"
Driver screams, "FU pig!!"
BP to partner, "Yep, definitely an American."
BP waves him through.

 

[ilbob]

I am not real thrilled by internal checkpoints of any kind. they seem blatantly un-american by their very character.

I still think you are wise to behave like an adult. You lose nothing by politely declining the request to search.

 

[runrabbitrun]

waterhouse

I for one want to thank you for your service to this country.
I imagine you guys have (in your case had) a harder
and more dangerous job than most us civilians can imagine.
In this situation, it has become obvious to me this preacher guy just wants to be a hard ass.
Had he rolled in, put his window down and said 'how's it going officer'...
He would of probably been waved through.

None of us may like interior check points by the BP.
But it's obvious they needed to set them up.
The fixed check points seem to serve as a deterrent more than
a 'catch all', and that's ok with me.
At first glance, I though it was pretty stupid to let the
human traffickers KNOW where the fixed check point are.
(So they can avoid them)...
But I now see, it serves it's purpose.

After considerable thought, I conclude that the non co-operative preacher
was being unreasonable. Whether we like it or not,
SCOTUS has given the tools to the BP to perform their function.
After all, aren't we all screaming for more border control?

I'm really impressed how the officers restrained themselves.
I can't say that enough.
This could of gotten real ugly real fast.

I came away from this thread learning a few valuable things.
One of them being, it's ok to exercise your rights and if LE
wants to conduct a search of a vehicle, it behooves them to have all their ducks in a row.
Will I consent to a search if going through any check points in the future?
The answer is a resounding no.

 

[waterhouse]

Thanks for reading the posts. As I said, the Agents in the video probably could have been more articulate, but I wouldn't have done much better and I know it would be easy to get frustrated with someone who wouldn't roll down their window to talk to you.

The fixed check points seem to serve as a deterrent more than
a 'catch all', and that's ok with me.
At first glance, I though it was pretty stupid to let the
human traffickers KNOW where the fixed check point are.
(So they can avoid them)...
But I now see, it serves it's purpose.

Think of them more as a choke point of all northbound roads. Sometimes there are 6 or 8 northbound roads near the border, but most of these roads converge on a major highway at places north of the border. The checkpoint is usually situated north of where most of the border roads intersect the highway.

The smugglers know where they are, and they have tricks of getting around them, but the BP is aware of a lot of the tricks.

It is basically a giant game of hide and seek, except there are millions of hiders and the seekers get to use night vision goggles.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Mr. waterhouse <<< (see respect for LE)
I see what you mean about the main highways catching the traffic.
I recall similar operations on I-10 some years back.
You guys were getting boat loads of illegals
heading east into Florida with that op. Good job.

I guess the question I'd ask is. (OT I'm sure)
Why after 911 haven't the Feds done more
in the way of man power, support and resources to you guys...
to help secure the boarders and seriously curtail the illegal entrance into the US?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Did you even read that? It plainly said the checkpoint is legal. It says nothing about allowing a search without probable cause.

you might try the more complex findlaw link hidden cleverly in section d the first part of which i pasted for you that you either missed or had trouble interpreting
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. 563-564.


you seem to be skipping the paragraphs that don't further the good pastor's and your delusions

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

He's blocking traffic, and acting like an ass, but he seems to be American, and that is all we care about, so let him go."

not acting

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

nitetrane 98

in the mid 80's i was involved in reroofing the big building that houses the ship testing tanks at the david taylor ship testing facility in cabin john md. its a navy run secure installation. big building 175 yards wide almost 1/2 mile long 40 of us working all over it. ins showed up someone hollered and there was na stampede. when ins came up the ladders on ne side of the building there were 3 of us left on the roof. 5 compressors running 15 or more nail guns hissing on hoses scattered all over. the agent came up to me and asked for my green card the manner in which i replied and in particular my pronunciation of a frequently used compound word that implied he was very fond of his mom seemed to convince him i was legal and he just walked away. 30 some guys just evaporated in the middle of a secure facility till the ins left

 

[wabrams]

Did you even read that? It plainly said the checkpoint is legal. It says nothing about allowing a search without probable cause.

you might try the more complex findlaw link hidden cleverly in section d the first part of which i pasted for you that you either missed or had trouble interpreting
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. 563-564.


you seem to be skipping the paragraphs that don't further the good pastor's and your delusions

It seems you also missed where it mentions nothing of a search. You're right, the guy should have gone to secondary, but at no point was there PC to do a search or anything in what you have posted that says the 4th amendment is suspended at the BPS checkpoints.

i replied and in particular my pronunciation of a frequently used compound word that implied he was very fond of his mom .

Funny how you were calling other people wimps and childish for doing much less and more civilzed than that.

 

[Art Eatman]

We've kinda run this one long enough and far enough away from the original subject...