# Rejecting Authority at Police State Checkpoint



## Bob Hubbard (May 18, 2008)

Found this elsewhere.  Thoughts?




> Rejecting Authority at Police State Checkpoint
> The checkpoint in this video was nearly 50 miles north of the Mexican border, so it would have been utterly pointless in stopping illegal immigration.
> 
> The real purpose of these checkpoints is to condition Americans to get used to the police state.


[ll]133_1210305250[/ll]


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2008)

This isn't that far away from "papers, please?" however, this video was a set-up.  The woman who was subjected to this was very professional.  In fact, I'm suprised they were just moved along the way they were.  This would seem to indicate profiling of some course.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 18, 2008)

Firstly, I would like to commend a victory for common sense on the part of the officer.  If she had acted any way other than she did she would have been utterly in the wrong (given my understanding of the rights of American citizens in their own country).  That would've made this another case of the violation of the Constitution; a document which your government is seemingly increasingly impatient with.  

I saw another video a couple of years ago now in which a woman was stopped for no given reason and ended up being dragged from her car and arrested because she refused to cow to non-legal pressure.  

No matter how much I disagree with what America is up to in the world at present, that shocked me because, as I controversially alluded to a few days ago in another thread, it is a pre-requisite for the birth of a totalitarian state that those entrusted with the security and safety of the citizenry acede to using their authority in either a fashion not in accord with the Constitution or, worse still, begin to treat a (non-criminal) segment of the society in a different manner.

Secondly, I am happy to see that there are still American's prepared to suffer the risks of publicising the increasing curtailment of freedom in the almost ironically named Land of the Free.  What good it will do is yet to be seen.

A third point, on which I am just speculating, is that the check point might have a logical reason for existing.  Those that breach the border illegally may have let their guard down somewhat after travelling a ways into America.  An unexpected check-point may well catch some 'illegals' that otherwise would filter through.

I know we have at least one Border-Patrolman here at MT - hopefully he'll be able to give us an 'inside track' on this.

EDIT: I'm not sure I understand you fully, *Upnorth*.  Could you re-phrase or elaborate a little on what you mean by it being a set-up and profiling being involved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 18, 2008)

I've got it on good authority that if you tried that at the Peace Bridge crossing, you'll have a much less pleasant experience, ending in a large pile of car parts and a lighter wallet.


----------



## jks9199 (May 18, 2008)

The allegation that a C&BP checkpoint is part of some sort of conspiracy to condition US citizens to checkpoints (I assume they'll be manned by Men In Black with black helicopters to transport themselves between the checkpoints...) is specious at best.

A checkpoint 40 or 50 miles from the border isn't at all questionable.  That's a relatively easy distance for someone to travel, and in fact, often may be the best location to monitor traffic over a particularly porous section of the border which would otherwise be difficult to monitor because it may be at a natural chokepoint.  Addtionally... illegal immigrants are a nationwide problem.  In the DC area, I work closely with ICE.  We have a tremendous number of illegal aliens in the area, ranging from Latino day laborers who are simply trying to make a buck or au pairs or college students who half-innocently overstayed their visa, and all the way to Nigerians, Russians, and others who are here as part of a deliberate, often organized, criminal effort.  

The Supreme Court (and also state courts) have put pretty strict limits on the operation of any checkpoint.  The detention must be brief (reasonable in terms of the scope of the particular checkpoint's purpose), and there are limited reasons why they can be set up.  Simply detecting criminal activity is insufficient.  Planning a checkpoint takes a lot of work and coordination, defining things like who is to be stopped, what they are to be asked about, and lots more.

In regard to this particular checkpoint, the driver actually extended the stop, and his actions interfered with those behind him.  Nice of him, huh...  Had he simply answered the questions, he'd have been on his way in moments.  I think it's also rather noteworthy that despite being a pretty big *** about it -- I most definitely would have been looking for grounds to detain or cite him! -- he was not detained in the end.  

Let me make it clear; I have no problem with people exercising their rights.  If I ask for a consent search, and I lack grounds to search without consent, and you refuse... We're done.  You have that right.  (Incidentally, I rarely ASK if I've got grounds to search anyway; I think that it makes the search questionable.  If I've got grounds to search or detain without a warrant... I'm doing it.)

Let me describe another recent stop I was involved in.  We stopped three people who had been associating with an individual who's actions were highly suggestive of drug dealing.  One was cooperative, and even consented to a search.  (As an aside, he was in possession of three inexpensive cigars of a type often used with marijauna; the term is "blunts".)  A second was cooperative, but didn't permit a consent search.  Both of these two were released within a few minutes.  The third?  He was uncooperative, appeared deceptive about his name, and generally drew our attention.  We finally determined that he was lying about his name because he was wanted.  And he was also in possession of Schedule I narcotics...  Yeah... I'd bet dollars to donuts that the guy who didn't consent to a search had weed on him, too.   But we didn't have grounds to search or detain him any longer... so he went on his way.


----------



## Kacey (May 18, 2008)

I found the officer to be very professional and controlled, and also very obviously following a prepared script (which makes perfect sense).  I too was impressed by the way she maintained her composure in the face of the video taper's repeated comments and refusal to answer her question.

Living in Colorado, Border Patrol has never been an issue (although perhaps it should be) and therefore I have never been exposed to this particular situation.  I find jks' explanation for the location of the checkpoint very reasonable, and have more issue with the taper's insistence on getting the answer he wanted at the expense of those behind rather more offensive than the checkpoint.  I also disagree with the taper's interpretation of the location of the checkpoint:


> The real purpose of these checkpoints is to condition Americans to get used to the police state.


People cannot, rationally, complain simultaneously about illegal immigrants and checkpoints intended to reduce illegal immigration; nonetheless, they do so, to the point that all of us suffer for their "convictions".  Had this checkpoint been asking more than "what is your country of origin" my response could well be different - but I wasn't there, and the taper's opinion was rather apparent.  Also - he had to have known the checkpoint was there, to have come up to it taping as he did.  No matter my opinion of his actions, I find his methods as questionable as his conclusions.


----------



## Imua Kuntao (May 18, 2008)

being a Texan, I understand checking for illegals, the guy taping I believe is a dork trying to cuase trouble. If we do find ourselves in a police state, I have the greatest confidence in the American people to overcome.


----------



## tellner (May 19, 2008)

Damn straight he's trying to cause trouble. People who insist that they have "rights" are trouble. They get in the way of the Authorities doing their job. They are messy. They are inefficient. And when people insist on their rights they start thinking that they're just as good as their Betters. If you let them get away with it they'll be disrespectful to people with badges and set up governments that are designed to insure their happiness and well being.

We can't have that. It would be *shudder* Revolutionary.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> EDIT: I'm not sure I understand you fully, *Upnorth*. Could you re-phrase or elaborate a little on what you mean by it being a set-up and profiling being involved.


 
I think it was a set up.  The guy was looking for a confrontation to get on tape.  He's lucky they didn't haul his *** out of the car beat it, take the camera and toss him in jail for something.

At an immigration checkpoint, they probably aren't looking for people with light skin.  I'm not sure about the people in the video, but from their accent, I'm assuming they were white.  If that's the case, then we are probably looking at a little racial profiling here.

Incidentally, I think we need more people going out and reminding "the authorities" that the proles still have rights in this country.  

For a little while.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 19, 2008)

Cheers, *Upnorth*.  I thought that's what you meant but my little grey cells were a bit turgid at that time of the morning .


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2008)

I give some props to the officer at that checkpoint.  Very professional, didn't lose her cool.  The driver on the other hand was an ***, plain and simple.  I wouldn't think that a checkpoint, no matter what the distance from the boarder, would be wrong.  Is there something written that says that it has to be a certain distance?  

As for racial profiling...I used to work with a guy who was hispanic, yet he didn't have dark skin, nor did he speak with an accent.  If you didn't know him, you would think he was white and non-Hispanic.  

This IMO, is no different than a routine DUI set-up.  Many times they check every so many cars, so tecnically someone who is drunk could pass while someone who isn't drunk gets stopped.  Regardless, I could bet that if you were an *** to the cop, like the guy in this clip was, that you'd be arrested for interfering.  

Bottom line is, the person at the checkpoint is conducting an investigation, and things will move a hell of alot faster if you just ask the questions.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 19, 2008)

The officer did an excellent job of controlling herself and acted in a most professional manner.  

I am not sure what the law says about not answering the question she asked but I know that if that had happened at at least one of the border crossings I have been to the car would have been pulled over and taken apart and the person being questioned would have been their a long time.

I see this stop and check  no different than the ones where authorities are checking for drunk drivers or checking to see if people have a drivers license. If you do not cooperate you are detained as this driver most likely should have been.

Now on a personal note do I like being stopped and asked for an ID no but I do understand why it sometimes happens


----------



## punisher73 (May 19, 2008)

tellner said:


> Damn straight he's trying to cause trouble. People who insist that they have "rights" are trouble. They get in the way of the Authorities doing their job. They are messy. They are inefficient. And when people insist on their rights they start thinking that they're just as good as their Betters. If you let them get away with it they'll be disrespectful to people with badges and set up governments that are designed to insure their happiness and well being.
> 
> We can't have that. It would be *shudder* Revolutionary.


 
Wow, not even sure where to start with that.  There is a HUGE difference between knowing your rights and making sure that they are not being violated, and being a jerk to an officer who is performing well within the scope/powers of their duty and not violating your rights. 

The US Supreme Court has layed out VERY SPECIFIC guidelines for checkpoints so that they do not interfere with your rights as a citizen, from how/where the checkpoint is set up, to the questions asked, to what cars are stopped (every car, completely random, every 4th car, etc.)

I didn't realize ANY government ANYWHERE has been set up to insure someone's happiness.  Tell me how that works out when an individual's happiness interferes with someone else's happiness?  You mean I can illegally come into a country because it will make me happy?  Even though by doing so, it will cause a burden on the other happy citizens that are here legally?


----------



## CanuckMA (May 19, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> Now on a personal note do I like being stopped and asked for an ID no but I do understand why it sometimes happens


 
But keep in mind that asking the driver of a motor vehicle for a dreiver's license id NOT asking for ID. It is asking for proof that you are legally entitled to drive that vehicle. The passengers don't have to carry any form of ID.


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2008)

tellner said:


> Damn straight he's trying to cause trouble. People who insist that they have "rights" are trouble. They get in the way of the Authorities doing their job. They are messy. They are inefficient. And when people insist on their rights they start thinking that they're just as good as their Betters. If you let them get away with it they'll be disrespectful to people with badges and set up governments that are designed to insure their happiness and well being.
> 
> We can't have that. It would be *shudder* Revolutionary.


 
Judging by this as well as a few other posts you've made on the subject of LEOs, I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but, I get the impression you're anti police.  So tell me...do you condone what this clown in the vehicle did?  This guy was clearly being a rude, disrespectful jerk, who set out to do one thing and that was cause a scene.  He goes to a check point and starts taking pictures, video...come on.  This guy sounds like certain MMA clowns that always talk about video.  Who runs around with a video camera?  

What rights were violated?  He came upon a check point, was asked questions, and gave the officer a rack of crap.  It would be racial profiling if the cops only checked the people who clearly looked like they were not American.  Do we know this guys race?  Really doesnt matter.  There was nothing wrong, that I could see, with what was taking place.  The cop wasnt violating any rights, she was conducting a setup...setups that you see all the time.  Are speedtraps a violation of rights?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2008)

My opinion is the guy was a jerk, the officer was professional and kept her cool. That said, the questions he asked her were legit, and she did not answer them all. 

As to ID, it's not required that you carry it you are however required to present it when demanded or face an obstruction charge. It's only required when it's required has been deemed legal by the courts. We do live in a "Papers Please" society now. 

Cops are supposed to keep the peace and enforce the law, but are too often ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce. That's why every cop I've asked for legal advice has clearly said to talk to a lawyer. I've asked questions about particular laws while holding a copy of the law and had them answer incorrectly, and when I handed them that law, bee told -I- was in error and there was no such law. Mind you, these were friendly conversations in friendly situations. If they had been a confrontation, I would have been detained, possibly arrested. Sure, after a lengthy and expensive legal battle I would be vindicated, but it shouldn't be that way.

In todays cyber society, it should be a simple matter of "check it online at an authorized source" while briefly detaining someone (10-15 minutes), which I would find more acceptable than a few weeks or months, and a few grand.

Again, if he tried that here, he'd have been detained for being an ***. His camera would have been 'damaged' or 'lost' or confiscated for a while, and there's a good chance his car would have been disassembled and he handed a toolbox with instructions to get it out of there in 10 minutes or be fined for littering. (true story)


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My opinion is the guy was a jerk, the officer was professional and kept her cool. That said, the questions he asked her were legit, and she did not answer them all.
> 
> As to ID, it's not required that you carry it you are however required to present it when demanded or face an obstruction charge. It's only required when it's required has been deemed legal by the courts. We do live in a "Papers Please" society now.
> 
> ...


 
In a sense, yes, he was being detained, but he was making it sound like she was viewing him as a criminal.  He would have been detained long enough for her to check to make sure everything was ok, and he'd have been on his way.  He makes it sound like profiling.  IMO, its profiling if you only stop people that appear to be illegal.


----------



## shesulsa (May 19, 2008)

While I am *very* opposed to the continued and appalling loss of our rights in America, I frankly see little wrong with a border patrol checkpoint 50 miles in.  Those of us on the west coast who have driven I-5 south to the border and dodged the illegals running ON FOOT on the freeway in the opposite direction of traffic farther in than 50 miles know that it's not an unreasonable distance from the border to check.

1. She asked a reasonable question - one within her authority to ask.  Why not answer?  There is reasonable patrol and unreasonable patrol and I think people need to be very careful about deciding what is and is not unreasonable.

2. I'm *very* surprised they let them by unless her #2 (who we only saw from a distance a couple of times) managed to check under the car while they were waiting.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.


----------



## Archangel M (May 19, 2008)

"Solve the immigration problem but do it with ESP please."


----------



## Archangel M (May 19, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My opinion is the guy was a jerk, the officer was professional and kept her cool. That said, the questions he asked her were legit, and she did not answer them all.




I dont believe its a cops job to answer all questions. As long as their actions are legal.


----------



## Ping898 (May 19, 2008)

He was an ***....if I had been her and it was in my power, I wouldn't have let him go, but I was very impressed with the Border Patrol agent.  I wonder if he would have pulled that same stunt on an agent who looked like a 270lb line backer.  
I went through these checkpoints all the time when I was living in NM.  They are annoying but take all of 30 seconds to go through and usually constitute nothing more than 1 or 2 questions, are you a US citizen, and once I got asked what was in my trunk.  The agent had a hard time keeping a straight face when I said a bike rack and cereal....don't think that was the answer he was expecting....
If they were more invasive than that, I would have a problem with it, but hell they don't even demand proof of your citizenship unless you do something to raise their suspicions, just answer the question yes and they let you go...
These are no different than the DUI check points which as far as I am concerned are illegal....but the courts have consistently carved out a legal hole for them and as such accept it and move on as long as the cops stay within their little hole....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I dont believe its a cops job to answer all questions. As long as their actions are legal.


It's my understanding that certain questions are required to be answered. Badge number, name, supervisor, purpose for stop for example.


----------



## shesulsa (May 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I dont believe its a cops job to answer all questions. As long as their actions are legal.





Bob Hubbard said:


> It's my understanding that certain questions are required to be answered. Badge number, name, supervisor, purpose for stop for example.


Mr. Hubbard is correct.  A citizen has the right to ask these questions and the police officer must provide the answer.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 19, 2008)

Checkpoints are legal, and as it has been said before, there are specific guidelines regarding them.  

In this case, the unfortunate situation is that she didn't know what she was doing.  Was the driver being detained, absolutely, but perfectly legally as per the law.  The only problem was, she didn't know it was a legal detention.  When you start telling people what they have to do, it becomes a detention.  

Quite frankly, since in California, you have to have a U.S. Birth Certificate in order to get a driver's license, all they have to do is ask for that.  That would be simple enough, along with some training on how to spot fraudulent driver's licenses, on determining someone's county of origin within a reasonable degree.

And I don't have a problem with people protesting a point.  The problem usually lies in the way people do it.  He could have simply asked the woman after he answered the question what was the legal basis for the stop and questioning.  It's really that simple.  And if he wasn't satisfied with the answer, he needs to take more political action.  But there is no need to be rude to someone who is simply trying to do her job.  That's like complaining and causing an uproar to the cashier at McDonald's cuz you don't like the quality of the meat.  It isn't their responsiblity.

Quite frankly, and I say this a little facetiously, I am tired of people complaining and never doing anything about it.  Him making this video, and even posting it on the net, is not doing anything about it.  If it is so bad, rise up and get it over with.


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Checkpoints are legal, and as it has been said before, there are specific guidelines regarding them.
> 
> In this case, the unfortunate situation is that she didn't know what she was doing. Was the driver being detained, absolutely, but perfectly legally as per the law. The only problem was, she didn't know it was a legal detention. When you start telling people what they have to do, it becomes a detention.


 
Yes, she did seem almost a litle nervous.  In any case, if there was a supervisor nearby, I think calling them would have been a good idea.  




> And I don't have a problem with people protesting a point. The problem usually lies in the way people do it. He could have simply asked the woman after he answered the question what was the legal basis for the stop and questioning. It's really that simple. And if he wasn't satisfied with the answer, he needs to take more political action. But there is no need to be rude to someone who is simply trying to do her job. That's like complaining and causing an uproar to the cashier at McDonald's cuz you don't like the quality of the meat. It isn't their responsiblity.
> 
> Quite frankly, and I say this a little facetiously, I am tired of people complaining and never doing anything about it. Him making this video, and even posting it on the net, is not doing anything about it. If it is so bad, rise up and get it over with.


 

Thanks you!!!  I'm in full agreement.  People vent by writing letters to the editor of a paper to complain about something, people do what this jerk did and run around with a camera and video and post things, but is it really doing anything?  Not at all.


----------



## Archangel M (May 19, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's my understanding that certain questions are required to be answered. Badge number, name, supervisor, purpose for stop for example.


 
Thats why I said "all questions". Some people think the cop has to answer their every question. And lecture them on how "they know the law".


----------



## jks9199 (May 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I dont believe its a cops job to answer all questions. As long as their actions are legal.





Bob Hubbard said:


> It's my understanding that certain questions are required to be answered. Badge number, name, supervisor, purpose for stop for example.





shesulsa said:


> Mr. Hubbard is correct.  A citizen has the right to ask these questions and the police officer must provide the answer.



It depends on agency policy and possibly local law.  I'm not aware of any federal law or ruling that requires this.  My agency requires me to provide my name and unit number when asked -- but not all agency have a badge number.


----------



## Archangel M (May 19, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> It depends on agency policy and possibly local law. I'm not aware of any federal law or ruling that requires this. My agency requires me to provide my name and unit number when asked -- but not all agency have a badge number.


 
True. I know of no "law" in my state that "requires" an officer to submit that info. Most policies require it. It only makes good sense to do so.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2008)

The Border Patrol is underfunded, and lacks vital infrastructure for monitoring traffic into the country. The advent of DHS has led to a concentration of assets and personnel in places that have infrastructure-border crossings like el Paso, or San Diego's, for example. This has led to an increase in traffic near places like Tuscon-illegal aliens are using corridors that have less monitoring. The activity recorded on the video is an "interior checkpoint." For the record, there is a permanent "interior checkpoint" maintained by the Border Patrol about a half-hour north of Las Cruces, New Mexico that is easily "50 miles from the border," where they routinely "ask" to search vehicles. They have let vehicles go through that refused to be searched I'm sure there are more "interior checkpoints,"though I don't know of any. In any case, the Border Patrol is reduced to setting up checkpoints with trailers and personnel to search corridors near old highways, Forest Service and BLM roads that are known to carry illegal alien, drug and possibly "other" traffic.

I have a house and a boat in Mexico-I cross the border pretty routinely in my leisure time-at least, I used to when I had "leisure time." I also have traveled through the El Paso port of entry and the "interior checkpoint" (which is not always manned) for Indian ceremonies for close to ten years without incident, in spite of the fact that I have had my eagle feathers and other "questionable items" with me.

This  guy was a jerk:if he'd simply said "I refuse to tell you my country of origin," there's no telling what the outcome might have been-it's likely that between his obvious American english, the bed of the pickup being open,and the passenger compartment being easy to observe, he'd have told to move on withbout being "detained." What the Border Patrol was doing here was no different than those DWI checkpoints, where they simply ask you if you've been drinking (to which I always reply "Coffee.")As far as his apparent confusion over their jurisdiction ("50 miles from the border....") the Border Patrol operated interior stations as far from a border as Sacramento, California and Denver, Colorado-until post 9/11 changes to Naturalization and Immigration from DHS changed their mandate. In any case, they were operating within their jurisdiction, and probably had set up a checkpoint in response to detected activity-it was probably apparent to them that the guy with the video was not the activity they had detected, and he was sent on his way.

In any case, Border Patrol agents have federal authority _*nationwide*_.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2008)

A few key points:
 - US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police, however, the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document. This applies to identification purposes only. You are required to produce a current licence on demand if engaged in the operation of a moter vehicle.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html




> Dealing with the Police
> If You're Stopped By The Police:
> 
> * Say that you want a lawyer and don't say anything else until your lawyer is present.
> ...






> When dealing with the police, you have Constitutional rights:
> 
> * The Right to Remain Silent. You do not have to answer any questions by the police. Do not talk without a lawyer. If questioned, say, "I'm sorry officer, I'd rather not answer any questions. I would like to see a lawyer." If the police continue to question you, keep repeating these two sentences. It is the job of police officers to get information, and police are legally allowed to lie when they are investigating. Don't be manipulated. Repeat, "I'm sorry officer, I'd rather not answer any questions. I would like to see a lawyer."


and


> Signing documents. With the exception of a ticket or summons, you do not have to sign any document without a lawyer with you. When an officer writes you a ticket or summons, you must sign it as your promise to appear, or be taken straight to jail.


http://sls.colostate.edu/default.cfm?menu=home&lvl1=4&lvl2=4&lvl3=45


I went digging looking for specifics, and what I found was a confusing mess.  It basically is summed up as: You have a right to obtain information on the LEO who is stopping you so that they can be held responsible if they do anything wrong. You have the right to ask if you are being detained, or if you are under arrest, and if the answer to those is no, to ask if you may go. You are required to answer certain questions depending on circumstances.  Keeping your cool and not yelling, swearing or such will work in your favor. You are not required to submit to being searched, or allowing your vehicle, home or such to be searched, except by warrant, or when crossing the border/flying. That's what I've pulled ou so far, though I'm not finding specific legal citations to point at and say "this law says this".


----------



## jks9199 (May 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> True. I know of no "law" in my state that "requires" an officer to submit that info. Most policies require it. It only makes good sense to do so.


I'm not aware of any law that requires identification, either... but I can easily see a bunch of busy body town council members doing something like that.  And while I'm sure most agencies do have a policy... we all know of those agencies that only write a policy after there's been a major problem.  And I'm sure you've heard the same stories I have from salty road dawgs about removing or taping over name plates and badge numbers...


----------



## jks9199 (May 19, 2008)

elder999 said:


> In any case, Border Patrol agents have federal authority _*nationwide*_.



Yeppers...

And, in fact, the BP has historically been the go-to agency for lots of federal activities that needed extra bodies, fast.  The Border Patrol Academy has had a very good reputation for many years, and many former BP agents move to other federal agencies or local agencies without a problem


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2008)

As ever when I'm nosing in on discussions like this one, I have to preface any comments by noting that it's not my country.

Regardless of the current *law* as distinct from *policy*, do you chaps not think that it would be better for civilian law enforcement agencies to be required to give their 'badge number' if asked by a citizen?  

It just seems so open to abuse to allow anonymity given the latitude of authority that officers seem to have.  

What recourse can a person expect, if those tasked with upholding the law breach acceptable conduct, if such a citizen cannot identify the officers concerned?

Just to be clear, these are not hostile questions.  I am intrigued to hear what my fellows here at MT think on the issue, especially those LEO's we have.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2008)

I think that cops need to be held accountable for their actions, both good and bad. Identifying who they are, and why they are stoppng/detaining/questioning you should be (and I believe it is) required. I'm looking for the specific statutes, but it's a mudwalk.


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I think that cops need to be held accountable for their actions, both good and bad. Identifying who they are, and why they are stoppng/detaining/questioning you should be (and I believe it is) required. I'm looking for the specific statutes, but it's a mudwalk.


 

I see nothing wrong with those questions.  On the other hand, it would be nice for the person whos stopped to also return the favor and provide answers to the cop that stopped them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2008)

Very true.  I've never had problems when I was polite with LEO's.


----------



## jks9199 (May 20, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> As ever when I'm nosing in on discussions like this one, I have to preface any comments by noting that it's not my country.
> 
> Regardless of the current *law* as distinct from *policy*, do you chaps not think that it would be better for civilian law enforcement agencies to be required to give their 'badge number' if asked by a citizen?
> 
> ...





Bob Hubbard said:


> I think that cops need to be held accountable for their actions, both good and bad. Identifying who they are, and why they are stoppng/detaining/questioning you should be (and I believe it is) required. I'm looking for the specific statutes, but it's a mudwalk.



I don't think that you're going to find that statute, Bob.  I'm very confident that there's not one at the state level in Virginia, and certain that my jurisdiction doesn't have one.  Most of the time, there is no reason why an officer who's doing his or her job should have a problem identifying themselves and explaining why they made contact with a given person.  I'll skip the obvious need of an undercover officer to protect their identity.  In a very small number of other situations, an officer may not identify themselves; generally this is going to be due to operational needs or the nature of the situation.  Again -- they are quite rare.   In one example, I often assist in search warrants in different jurisdictions in my current assignment.  I seldom give my name during these; instead I point to "Detective Copper" who is the case agent.  Were there to be a question about my actions -- there are records of each person who was present.  It saves confusion, since my badge number and name are meaningless if you go to the wrong department!

Returning to the main issue, I think it helps to understand the different ways you can find yourself dealing with the police.  There are three basic levels of police encounters.  The lowest is a consensual encounter; any cop can walk up and ask anyone to chat, for any or no reason.  Just like any other person can...  and just like if it was any other person, if you don't want to talk, you can say no, and leave.  A step higher is a detention based on reasonable articulable suspicion.  In this case, the officer has possession of facts and information that lead him to suspect that criminal activity is afoot, and may detain a person briefly in order to dispel or confirm that suspicion.  The highest level is arrest; probable cause exists or a warrant has been issued that allege that the person has committed a crime and they are being taken into custody.  Notice that the burden of proof rises as the intrusion or restriction of liberties rises.  Also, the responsibility of the officer during the stop to explain what's happening rises.  During a consensual encounter, I can just say "I just wanted to chat"; but during an arrest, I must (at some point) explain why you are arrested.  

A roadside checkpoint has been ruled to be a detention, not a full arrest.  It's a brief detention for a specific purpose, and, unless grounds to detain a person further are developed, they are free to go as soon as that purpose is met.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2008)

As ever *Jks* your answers are articulate and enlightening.  Thank you :tup:.

In particular, I now definitely feel that my earlier response to the OP may have been in the wrong in certain elements.  It seems a lot less 'sinister' to hear how the purview of the checkpoints is delineated and how narrowly prescribed their purpose is allowed to be.

From the beginning I thought that the officer was most commendable in her behaviour and that the 'film' maker was clearly spoiling for an incident but I also thought that there may be something in the implicit accusation that these check-points were to get people 'used' to having to present 'papers' to move about their own country.

That may indeed be the background case but it seems more doubtful now we have the input of some knowledgeable professionals on the matter.  It is certainly true that such 'tabloid' efforts actually harm the cause of those seeking to protect civil rights by sprinkling a cachet of 'loony fringe' over proceedings.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 20, 2008)

I think the border agent in that Video did a good job remaining calm despite the actions of the driver.

That said, I personally have issues with these types of stops... we dont have them here as "Immigration Checkpoints" but we have them as "Roadside Saftey Checks" to ensure drivers have A valid license and insurance, and are often used as reasons to search vehicles as well.   Yes, They are legal here... but I do have a HUGE issue with them... because the only "Probable Cause" for stopping me and checking my documentation and searching my vehicle is the fact that I am using the road... and I'm strongly of the mind that if our government doesn't have valid reason to believe someone is doing something wrong, they should leave them the hell alone.

But I'm sure that type of attitude twords freedom is in the minority... cuz we'd all rather live "safe" than "free" right? ​


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2008)

A random check to ensure that the vehicle meets safety requirements? Ok.
A random check to ensure the driver has a valid licence? Ok

Someone stupidly smoking pot while driving, being pulled over, busted, etc? ok.


----------



## Archangel M (May 20, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

Decent overview of the legal basis for checkpoints.


----------



## Archangel M (May 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I think that cops need to be held accountable for their actions, both good and bad. Identifying who they are, and why they are stoppng/detaining/questioning you should be (and I believe it is) required. I'm looking for the specific statutes, but it's a mudwalk.


 
Heres an NYPD document. There its a matter of Dept policy, not state law apparently.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/nmshldanalysis4pg.pdf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Heres an NYPD document. There its a matter of Dept policy, not state law apparently.
> 
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/nmshldanalysis4pg.pdf


So, in NYC at least, is is policy that LEO must "provide upon a civilian&#8217;s request his or her name, badge number, or other identifying information" and that simply pointing at their badge or saying "its on the ticket" is not sufficient.


The interesting thing about this thread is, it deals with 3 interrelated topics.
- Right of Gov. to setup checkpoints
- Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens at those checkpoints
- Powers and Responsibilities of Officers at those checkpoints


----------



## Archangel M (May 20, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, in NYC at least, is is policy that LEO must "provide upon a civilian&#8217;s request his or her name, badge number, or other identifying information" and that simply pointing at their badge or saying "its on the ticket" is not sufficient.


 
Apparently. As far as I know, most PD's have similar policy. Im not 100% but I would believe that for a department to meet accreditation standards (which is a voluntary process) they may have to. But thats still not "law". From what I see in that link, the issue of what is sufficient notification is still being clarified. Of course the issue then is what is the consequence for not obeying the policy? Most likely, the officer would face some departmental discipline, such as a written reprimand at the least or time off w/o pay, or having some casual time docked at the most.


----------

