Rejecting Authority at Police State Checkpoint

[Ping898]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.
* You only have to tell them your name and address.
* If you're under 16, ask them to contact a parent or guardian as soon as possible.
* Remember that the police get nervous when they can't see your hands.
* If they ask to search you or your property, say that you do not consent, but do not resist.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jks9199]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.