Pastor Tazed in US "Constitution Free Zone"

[Bob Hubbard]

http://immigration.change.org/blog/view/pastor_tazed_beaten_by_border_patrol_in_warrantless_search

According to this pastor, the State Security Apparatus decided to break his car windows, taze him repeatedly, and then stomp on his head because he refused to consent to a warrantless search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

So, tell me again why US Border Patrol is manning road blocks outside Phoenix AZ? Isn't the border, quite a bit south of there?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/05/14/sr.tatton.tasered.pastor.cnn

I know, I know, shut up and do what they say, or else Osama will win.

 

[Archangel M]

These "internal checkpoints" are going to wind up in Supreme Court..I can see it coming.

I'll admit ignorance of what law these checkpoints are based on, immigration or some other federal law I assume, but most checkpoints i have ever run only allow me to temporarily stop you and ask a few questions. If I can articulate reasonable suspicion based on that (smell of alcohol for example) I can detain you for further investigation.

I'd like to know more about the legality of a "border style search" that far into my own country too.

But I do have to add that at checkpoints (namely sobriety checkpoints) I DO have the authority to stop you. The caselaw on that is fairly solid..I can ask a few questions..ask for ID..etc. You cant just drive through. If you try then you could be subject to arrest for obstruction. Refuse to exit and get arrested for said obstruction then your window could get busted and you get tasered as shown.

The totality of the stop here isnt clear. Not that it changes my opinion on these types of checkpoints however.

It also looks like these officers were State Police working for DHS/INS (whatever Fed bureau). I'd be really uncomfortable with that if I were a SP .

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I would, and am, very wary about assisting Federal law enforcement with any activity. They operate under very different rules then state and local agencies. Certainly, if they get into a fight or shooting, we'll be right there to help. But when it comes to taking enforcement actions, I am not too keen on doing so.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I saw the video a couple days ago. The Pastor screwed up. And by the way, ICE has had 'Checkpoint Charlie' on I-5 NB in the middle of Camp Pendleton for many decades - it was there when I was there, circa 1981. Last I heard, it is still there. This is nothing new.

I have to run, but briefly, you don't get a 'do over' on the dog alert, you will get out of your car when so directed by lawful authority. It's not an Obama thing, this stuff has been going on for some time. He sat there waiting in his car for a long time because that's how long it took local law enforcement to respond, I'd guess. Now he gets to plead or lose in court, regardless of what he thinks about his right to refuse to be searched.

 

[elder999]

We've talked about some of this on this thread, where I posted, in part:

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.

I'm fairly confident that the Border Patrol were within their jurisdiction to conduct a checkpoint, but I need to take another look into it: at most of the interior checkpoints I've gone through, if you state your country of origin, and refuse to be searched, they usually just let you go-though sometimes they'll detain you, and call the State Police or other law enforcement, that may be why the State Police were already there, and I'm pretty uncomfortable with that, though it may be the same way at the permanent internal checkpoint north of Las Cruces/el Paso, and I've just never seen them there.....there are provisions for local law enforcement working with the Border Patrol, and in some cases, like the famous Sheriff Arpaio of Pima County, Az, to take immigration action like the INS, but I don't know what happened there, except he refused a lawful order from local law enforcement, and should have just gotten out of the car.....

.......or maybe, when it comes to the cops, I've just got good-****** syndrome. Welcome to my world, white folks! Now, get out of the car! :lol:

 

[punisher73]

Ok, let me see if I got this right.

1) Is stopped at a lawful checkpoint and asked legitimate questions. No violation of 4th amendmant rights here.

2) Dog sniffs car and hits on something and is at that point detained for further investigation. No violation of 4th amendmant rights here.

At this point he refuses to obey lawful requests from LEO's repeatedly, and then suddenly turns on the camera when it gets to the point where they are going to arrest him for failing to obey a lawful command.

Hmmmm....

As far as breaking out the window, that is SOP for many departments when you have to get into a vehicle that the occupant is refusing to get out of. Same with using the TASER, it is dangerous to try and enter a closed in space like that and engage somebody. Also, from their standpoint, they have to be thinking about their safety and what is this guy trying to hide in the car? If they "stomped" on his head like he claims then that does need to be addressed, but the other actions were lawful.

Whether you agree with what they ask or not, it's best to do what they request and file a complaint/lawsuit later if you truly feel your rights were violated at a checkpoint like this.

 

[Big Don]

He should have taken Chris Rock's advice on how NOT to get your *** kicked by the cops...

 

[clfsean]

...snipped.. like the famous Sheriff Arpaio of Pima County, Az, to take immigration action ... snipped...

Sheriff Joe is in Maricopa County. Pima County is next door.

One of my old roommates is a former SO Deputy. He said the majority of people he ended up taking to jail wasn't for the original reason for his being there. Normally, as he put it "I took them to jail for FWTP". So of course I asked with all sincerity since I didn't know what that was & he said bluntly... "****ing with the Police".

At a TKD school I teach at, I was talking with a PO from a local jurisdiction & he echoed the sentiment & went on to say if the person being arrested or questioned even will just cooperate, 99.99% of the time, things go a smooth as ice. But when people decide they want to "bow up", well that's what makes the news.

 

[Archangel M]

I missed the dog hit part. When I saw the "warrantless search" part I kind of thought that the "pastor" here was just told to "get out so we can search".

This dude screwed up.

 

[Marginal]

Look at what else comes up on Youtube when you search for that pastor's name. The man's a tool.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The guy's interesting, to say the least. Seems to have some issues with cops whose reason for giving an order is "because I'm a cop". He also thinks that the US Constitution matters and that citizens have rights to things like privacy. What a tool. Doesn't he know that he could avoid a world of pain, and lots of expensive medical bills and legal bills if he would just do whatever is asked of him, whenever it's asked, by anyone wearing a badge and a gun? I mean, is it really so bad to just roll over and submit? I mean, if he's done nothing wrong, he'll be fine right?

 

[Archangel M]

Thats all true Bob. But what really happened in THIS incident?

If the checkpoint is legal and it wasnt a "step out so we can search your car" type set-up and there was a dog hit then I dont think that what you wrote applies to this situation.

If these guys ARE running a border style search checkpoint then I would take issue with it. If its run like a normal CP (temp stop, a few questions, dog run around etc.) then my opinion is a little different.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Thats all true Bob. But what really happened in THIS incident?

If the checkpoint is legal and it wasnt a "step out so we can search your car" type set-up and there was a dog hit then I dont think that what you wrote applies to this situation.

If these guys ARE running a border style search checkpoint then I would take issue with it. If its run like a normal CP (temp stop, a few questions, dog run around etc.) then my opinion is a little different.

From what I've read, half the dogs out there will hit on me. There's your PC.
Catch is, I don't do & never have. Various forensic surveys of American currency have shown that the percentage contaminated with cocaine, especially in big cities, ranges from 75 percent to 97 percent. According to Barbara Grantland, who is the national president of Forfeiture Endangers Americans' Rights (FEAR), "The sorting belts at the Federal Reserve have this residue on them. Janet Reno's money has drugs on it. You have money with drugs on it in your pocket right now."

As Justice Souter stated in his dissent in Illinois v. Caballes:

"The infallible dog, however, is a creature of legal fiction... [T]heir supposed infallibility is belied by judicial opinions describing well-trained animals sniffing and alerting with less than perfect accuracy, whether owing to errors by their handlers, the limitations of the dogs themselves, or even the pervasive contamination of currency by cocaine... In practical terms, the evidence is clear that the dog that alerts hundreds of times will be wrong dozens of times.
Once the dog’s fallibility is recognized, however... the sniff alert does not necessarily signal hidden contraband, and opening the container or enclosed space whose emanations the dog has sensed will not necessarily reveal contraband or any other evidence of crime."
​

From everything I've seen on this, and related cases, it's the USBP setting up Border Inspection stations, miles from any actual border, airport, port, or other 'point of entry'. Kind of like building a Navy base in the middle of the Mohave.


So what's it all mean? It means that Bob is going to stay the hell away from Arizona (where most of these stories are coming from) and relocate his butt somewhere more than 100 miles from the US Border to minimize his risk of such nonsense. Hopefully they won't slap a checkpoint between me and the supermarket in the mean time as I rarely travel with all my papers. Of course, should I run into such, and they taze me, I hope it's a cute brunette, because than I can tell my friends her touch sent me tingling. LOL

 

[Marginal]

The guy's interesting, to say the least. Seems to have some issues with cops whose reason for giving an order is "because I'm a cop". He also thinks that the US Constitution matters and that citizens have rights to things like privacy. What a tool. Doesn't he know that he could avoid a world of pain, and lots of expensive medical bills and legal bills if he would just do whatever is asked of him, whenever it's asked, by anyone wearing a badge and a gun? I mean, is it really so bad to just roll over and submit? I mean, if he's done nothing wrong, he'll be fine right?

I doubt it went down quite like he claims.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that there is a disturbing tendency for the courts to increase police powers in response to ill-defined 'threats'. These can be exacerbated or driven by citizens - some with their constant droning demands to 'enforce the laws we have' with respect to illegal aliens, and some with 'save us from the terrorists, I don't care what civil liberties I lose in the process.'

The officers in question do what they are told to do, and use the legal authority they have been given. If this is excessive, it is up to the legislature and the courts to restrict it - it is not the cops running amok (not to say that there are not bad cops out there, there are).

With respect to individual situations like the Pastor's - he was stopped (legally) and asked to proceed to secondary inspection (legal), which he initially refused to comply with on the basis that the government agents had no right to search his vehicle.

Herein lies the problem. When the government intrudes unreasonably - a potential violation of the Fourth Amendment, the cure for it is not to resist the officers charged with implementing what is, to them, the law. The cure for it rests in registered your complaint at the time and later seeking redress through proper channels. This usually involves getting a lawyer and filing a civil suit.

When this pastor goes to court, IMHO he is going to find that the excuse that he resisted obeying police instructions because he believed their search to be unconstitutional won't fly very far.

There are cures for problems of unreasonable government intrusion. Refusing to obey the lawful orders of police is not really one of them. My opinion.

 

[Archangel M]

I'm sort of falling in with Bill on this one. Asking questions is all fine and good as long as the officers keep giving you answers. Once the officer starts pointing a Taser at you its probably in your best interest to go with "the program". Get an attorney or call the ACLU and see if they will take it. Otherwise you should be able to see whats coming.

It looks like this Pastor perhaps wanted this little event to happen....

 

[Archangel M]

I doubt it went down quite like he claims.

So if he doesnt like Obama than Tase the hell out of him? LOL!

 

[Marginal]

So if he doesnt like Obama than Tase the hell out of him? LOL!

Nah. He has similar rants about Bush too. He's just really easy to wind up. He spends all his time explaining, "I was completely calm and reasonable..." Riiiight.

 

[Archangel M]

Nah. He has similar rants about Bush too. He's just really easy to wind up. He spends all his time explaining, "I was completely calm and reasonable..." Riiiight.

I get ya. He impresses me as a person who went out looking for trouble (so he could tape it) and found some.

I'm betting he probably had no business in the direction he was going other than stirring up some video footage at the local checkpoint.

 

[Carol]

Haven't read what's on the link. But lemme guess...

1. Attention-seeking dude finds a way to cause a ruckus

2. Emotionally-charged blog article/youtube clip covers the ruckus

3. Post made in The Study claiming an infringement of rights.

Am I close?