Article Image
News Link • Homeland Security

Another Individual Stands Up To Illegal Border Patrol Checkpoint Detention (video)

• YouTube

17 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ken Demyen
Entered on:
Discussion on the video at 7:45 to 8:00 min.

BP Agent: Just to let you know, in U.S. vs. Masse(?), In the Border Patrol Checkpoint, the person**Q**s, rights, doesn**Q**t matter here.**QQ**

sanderson1611: Oh, my rights don**Q**t apply here?

BP Agent: They don**Q**t apply here.

sanderson1611: So I have no rights at a checkpoint?

BP Agent: No, you do not have rights, I can print it out for you if you want to see it.

The above conversation is the core of the issue. Since when is it okay for the government to dictate to us whether or not we have rights?. And when we can exercise them?

Comment by Joe Martinez
Entered on:

chkpt usa
We could do this all day. It**Q**s easy to say that we agree to disagree. Agents can ask you anything they want. Do you have to answer? Of course not.
Martinez-Fuerte
Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen.
If he says US citizen, he**Q**s gone, off to work like he said repeatedly.
As far as catching them on the border, well does the police catch every speeder, kids get through 12 years of school and still don**Q**t know how to read. Ther have to be back ups to the front line.

Comment by Terry Bressi
Entered on:
Joe

If they were interested in keeping drug smugglers & illegal aliens out of the country, the Border Patrol would be patrolling the border instead of harassing Americans inside the country at suspicionless checkpoints no where near the border.

With regards to indefinite detention at internal checkpoints, you**Q**ve got it wrong. This is what the Supreme Court had to say on the subject:

**QQ**...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention. . . must be based on consent or probable cause.**QQ** - U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte

**QQ**Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation**QQ** - U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte

Comment by Joe Martinez
Entered on:

Brock,
Nothing compels you to say anything. One of two things will happen. One, management will give up and let you go, or two you**Q**ll sit there however long until you do.
One thing is for sure if this kind of thing continues to happen smugglers and drug runners will learn to do this and get the green light to enter our country. Thank you.
So don**Q**t complain about losing American jobs to those darn Mexicans or the drugs poisoning our streets.

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

Joe, what compels me to **QQ**have to say**QQ** anything?

Comment by Joe Martinez
Entered on:
**QQ**Federal agents may be able to briefly seize individuals at permanent suspicionless internal checkpoints in order to make brief immigration queries, but there is no obligation to answer their questions. Further the Supreme Court has made it clear that any further detention or searching after the initial questioning must be based upon consent or probable cause**QQ**

You can here the kid say he didn**Q**t have to answere any questions. That is not true. You don**Q**t have to say anything. I agree with that. Where are you going, what are you doing, any of those types of questions is casual conversation. If you want tell them none of your business. The only thing you have to say is US citizen or legal alien.
This kid was out to bust chops, at least know what you are talking about when you do this.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:
From a practical standpoint k8cpa is correct. Nobody wins by standing up to authority.

Oh, I could retoss out the Boston Tea Party comment, or mention Lexington, Concord ... but there was a price to be paid for that. In then end I suppose authority lost...but was quickly reestablished under a new flag.

Until you are ready to reject all authority over you you will be subject. Until then, enjoy your delusion of freedom. In case you hadn**Q**t noticed the geniuses in authority have pretty much stripped you bare. I can wait. Just let me know when you have had enough. Rosa Parks anyone?

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:
**QQ**anyone who has tried to stand up to authority has ALWAYS lost.**QQ**

I guess k8 never read the book about King David standing up to a GIANT named Goliath!

By the way... ever heard of Tommy Cryer? LOL - look him up!

Comment by Terry Bressi
Entered on:
Then you would have been abusing your authority and subjecting yourself to an unlawful arrest civil lawsuit k8cpa.

Federal agents may be able to briefly seize individuals at permanent suspicionless internal checkpoints in order to make brief immigration queries, but there is no obligation to answer their questions. Further the Supreme Court has made it clear that any further detention or searching after the initial questioning must be based upon consent or probable cause:

**QQ**...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion (permanent checkpoint stops - not temporary checkpoints). -[A]ny further detention. . . must be based on consent or probable cause.**QQ** - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte

**QQ**Comment by: k8cpa
You know, I**Q**m just going to tell it like it is. That dude should have been arrested right there. You do not talk back to authority. If those guys tell you to get out. You do what you**Q**re told. That kid, and it sounded like he was a kid. Would have been dragged outta the car and booked, if it had been me. Sorry. He was talking back. Point blank.**QQ**

Comment by Camera FRAUD
Entered on:
Throwing around the word **QQ**anarchist**QQ** as if it**Q**s a four-letter word / insult only shows the lack of understanding k8 has for this issue.

Anarchy generally means **QQ**disorder**QQ** or lack of order.

Federal agents, in this case, were acting in disorder under the color of law.

Who**Q**s the anarchist?

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:

Pat said **QQ**anyone who has tried to stand up to authority has ALWAYS lost**QQ**, apparently forgetting he/she was addressing American patriots. A great and hearty laughter followed.

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

Pat, what constitutes **QQ**authority**QQ**?

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:
To all detractors:

http://amymeshell.blogspot.com/2008/11/soup-there-it-is.html

Comment by Found Zero
Entered on:
The guy challenged the **QQ**100 mile interior**QQ** law which many of us feel blatantly challenges the Constitution. Incidents like this will eventually result in a test of that law. It**Q**s a stupid law to begin with, in view of the fact that border security has never been a real priority for any administration.

His attitude is simply a matter of personal opinion and personality, and a person**Q**s right to express themselves in ways we might find annoying is one of the foundations of our law.

What I**Q**ll say is he**Q**s got balls. He could have capitulated stood his ground. The whole **QQ**sir I think you**Q**re a terrorist**QQ** bit was hilarious in view of the fact that they let him go and that reference to checkpointsUSA.org, that was pretty rich.

Comment by Camera FRAUD
Entered on:
Im not representing my username, but lets clear some stuff up:

**QQ**If you do what you**Q**re told, you usually do not have anything to worry about.**QQ**

Rosa Parks. Boston Tea Party. Checkpoints USA.

All are inclusive examples of people purposefully resisting to exercise rights that are inalienable -- not necessarily as **QQ**citizens**QQ** but as sovereign individuals. Call them human rights. Call them God given rights. But they are rights.

**QQ**I am not an anarchist. Those agents did NOT, I repeat, DID NOT look **QQ**overzealous**QQ** to me, at all.**QQ**

I would agree that they didn**Q**t seem overzealous, but keep in mind they were the instigators of force in this situation. I don**Q**t care how nice the robber is in my house, if he**Q**s instigating force he**Q**s wrong!

**QQ**That punk, on the other hand, came looking for a confrontation.**QQ**

Good.

**QQ**Sorry to offend, but I despise those who antagonize those who are simply doing their jobs.**QQ**

Lets Godwin this thread right now: the **QQ**simply doing my job**QQ** excuse was popular during the Nuremberg trials.

**QQ**This is coming from someone who has family in law enforcement.**QQ**

JUST laws don**Q**t need to be **QQ**enforced**QQ** against people.

Comment by Camera FRAUD
Entered on:
k8cpa,

I**Q**m hoping you are being sarcastic. It**Q**s obvious who was in the right and who wasn**Q**t based on the fact that the person filming was not arrested (and used active resistance to stand up for their rights.)

Comment by Camera FRAUD
Entered on:
At 23:00 they accuse him of **QQ**getting the idea to do (this) from CheckpointsUSA.org**QQ**

Nice work Terry, they know and fear you by name!


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


Free Talk Live