View Full Version : Man arrested by Border Patrol...lawful arrest?
The video depicts a man with family pulling up to BP checkpoint. The man ends up arrested. Lawful arrest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwR2CV6uSdQ#t=155
MountainRaven
03-20-15, 21:56
I guess that depends on whether the dog legitimately alerted its handler and, to a lesser extent, if anything was found in the vehicle.
I guess that depends on whether the dog legitimately alerted its handler and, to a lesser extent, if anything was found in the vehicle.
In 2010, a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis set out to test the reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs.
The team assembled 18 police dogs and their handlers and gave them a routine task: go through a room and sniff out the drugs and explosives.
But there was a twist. The room was clean. No drugs, no explosives.
In order to pass the test, the handlers and their dogs had to go through the room and detect nothing.
But of 144 runs, that happened only 21 times, for a failure rate of 85 percent.
Although drug-sniffing dogs are supposed to find drugs on their own, the researchers concluded that they were influenced by their handlers, and that's what led to such a high failure rate.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-questions-reliability-police-dogs
Gonna go out on a limb here, but......
1) A Border Patrol checkpoint waaayyy inside the border (sorry, 50+ miles ain't cutting it)
2) You're looking for illegal aliens (hey, that's a blast from the un-politically correct past), and contraband brought over the border
3) Even if the U.S. citizens had drugs on them can you prove they were involved in any freakin' way with the border?
Bottom line? Start using resources to f*****g arrest ILLEGALS and DEPORT them and stop with the federale attitude.
(Yeah, the dude in the video is a douche but see above)
Where was the checkpoint? Where was the driver coming from when he was stopped?
What was found in the vehicle? What were the charges?
Whiskey_Bravo
03-21-15, 00:03
If this is an inland "border" checkpoint I have been through similar ones many times in south Texas. I don't agree with them at all and they piss me off. I shouldn't have to stop and answer questions or show anything an hour + north of the border. If you want to check citizenship do that shit on the border.
Another article I read said a small amount of Marijuana was found in the car.
Whiskey_Bravo
03-21-15, 01:28
Another article I read said a small amount of Marijuana was found in the car.
Resources well spent then........ We should have more inland border check points, it's the only way to be sure.
BoringGuy45
03-21-15, 09:17
If this is an inland "border" checkpoint I have been through similar ones many times in south Texas. I don't agree with them at all and they piss me off. I shouldn't have to stop and answer questions or show anything an hour + north of the border. If you want to check citizenship do that shit on the border.
I don't understand what CBP is doing inland. Isn't it up to ICE to take care of investigations further away from border areas?
I don't understand what CBP is doing inland. Isn't it up to ICE to take care of investigations further away from border areas?
The supreme court ruled that the checkpoints are legitimate. This is absolutely a lawful detention and if drugs were found, arrest. The only reason he was pulled out of the car, was his refusal to answer simple questions.
The CBP did absolutely nothing wrong there. In fact, when the guy rolled up the window on the CBP agent's arm I thought he showed pretty good restraint from not escalating the issue further as that is a HUGE officer safety issue, and a precursor to how many officers get dragged by cars.
In every video like this, there is always one common denominator, an individual refusing to comply with simple, lawful orders.
El Vaquero
03-21-15, 09:29
Was he arrested or just detained while they search the car? I skimmed the video and never saw a related article. They weren't real friendly in their method of extracting him, probably couldve explained things a little better to him before jerking him out of the car. Maybe they've dealt with him before. The dude kinda looks like death warmed over, sunken in cheeks, pale in color. Maybe he has a medical condition, or maybe he self medicates.
If I'm a dope runner...that's not a bad way to try and avoid not being searched. Throw a camera on my dash and hope they don't want to mess with me at the checkpoint.
If the dog alerted than the checkpoints are doing what they're supposed to do. Stopping illegal activity. Until there is a huge wall set up along the entire border not everything is going to get caught at the border. A lot of drugs are caught at these type of checkpoints.
I lived in a border city former many years. Whereas the checkpoints were a minor inconvenience, I felt better knowing they were there especially post 9-11 when radical Muslims were trying to sneak in from the border.
Was he arrested or just detained while they search the car? I skimmed the video and never saw a related article. They weren't real friendly in their method of extracting him, probably couldve explained things a little better to him before jerking him out of the car. Maybe they've dealt with him before. The dude kinda looks like death warmed over, sunken in cheeks, pale in color. Maybe he has a medical condition, or maybe he self medicates.
If I'm a dope runner...that's not a bad way to try and avoid not being searched. Throw a camera on my dash and hope they don't want to mess with me at the checkpoint.
If the dog alerted than the checkpoints are doing what they're supposed to do. Stopping illegal activity. Until there is a huge wall set up along the entire border not everything is going to get caught at the border. A lot of drugs are caught at these type of checkpoints.
I lived in a border city former many years. Whereas the checkpoints were a minor inconvenience, I felt better knowing they were there especially post 9-11 when radical Muslims were trying to sneak in from the border.
The moment he started saying "i don't have to answer that" the sovreign citizen alarm bell goes off in my head, which is a very loud alarm bell, and then he actually rolled up his window on the CBP agent's arm. I thought he showed a ton of restraint in that video.
They scare me. Remember when some Louisiana cops on I-10 operated checkpoints for the express purpose of confiscating vehicles and cash from out of state travelers using fake charges? In Texas one county sheriff(Humpy Parker)was doing the same thing and giving ass whippings if you didn't like it. He ended up in a federal prison. He got caught by accident when he jacked up an off duty FBI agent passing through on vacation.
A registered nurse who worked for the Texas prison system encountered a check point in East Texas and agreed to a search of her motor home. This nice old lady(a friend) was horrified when the cops pulled out her possessions, threw them on the ground, and then drove off.
Check points scare me because I don't trust human nature. Good leadership prevents these types of abuses, but good leadership is not universal, and without it we are subject to whims of human nature--thus the need for balance. How many check points are too many? If you go through a couple, then you'll understand intrusion.
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 09:50
Im used to these checkpoints. Just answer the damn question. " yea I am a US citizen, we are headed home" most of the time its a "have a good day sir" (im hispanic, mind you) yes, one time they did hassle us when i was younger, our truck wa very muddy, so i guess that looks suspicious coming from mx. They took us in to the office while they combed through the truck. Lost 2 hours of trip time there.. These guys are just doing their job. I think they do a damn good job at it too. Just recently they caught a load in sierra blanca. (On i10inside the border)
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 09:59
Besides, that guy wasn't particularly friendly either. If anything, his asinine statement lit the fuse...
Resources well spent then........ We should have more inland border check points, it's the only way to be sure.
We should put them on every road, just to be extra sure. How about we start with Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.???
The supreme court ruled that the checkpoints are legitimate. This is absolutely a lawful detention and if drugs were found, arrest. The only reason he was pulled out of the car, was his refusal to answer simple questions.
The CBP did absolutely nothing wrong there except waste federal taxpayer dollars and violate this man's civil rights. In fact, when the guy rolled up the window on the CBP agent's arm, which he never should've put in the car in the first place I thought he showed pretty good restraint from not escalating the issue further as that is a HUGE officer safety issue, and a precursor to how many officers get dragged by cars. Because after all, violating a citizens civil rights is his right under color of law.
In every video like this, there is always one common denominator, an individual refusing to comply with simple, lawful orders.
Fixed it for you.
I can't believe anyone would support this agent's actions based on this video. From what we see on the dashcam, there was no RAS or PC to stick his arm in the window, and no RAS or PC to pull him bodily from the vehicle. After all, did anyone see a dog sniff the vehicle before the agent put his arm in the car at 2:38? I never saw a single agent around the car until that arm appeared. As a matter of fact, the driver gave the agent a lawful order to remove his arm from the car, which the agent ignored. That was civil rights violation #1. The dog doesn't show up until 2:41 and that agent moves the dog away from the car at 2:47, with the dog never stopping or "alerting". We never see the dog again. The man and his wife answered the citizenship question at 2:51 and he positively asserts his rights at 3:02. He follows the agent's order to put the car in park immediately at 3:09, yet the agent goes hands on at 3:17, having never articulated any RAS or PC. That was civil rights violation #2. The agent says the dog alerted at 4:33, but we've still never seen a dog sit or alert. Absent proof from a 2nd camera, I'd call BS on that statement. The agent goes for the trunk at 5:13, and we know the dog never stopped there. Ultimately, the agent seems most interested in halting the citizen's video recording of his actions at the very end of the video.
If the results of the search were pursuant to those actions, they should be fruit of the poison tree and tossed. If I were this man's lawyer, I'd use that video to crucify the agent's heavy handedness and rights violations. This is not how we're supposed to treat American citizens traveling peaceably, as is their lawful right. The only thing that agent didn't do wrong was forcibly remove the child when he said "no, I don't want to". Are we supposed to view this as "restraint" on the agent's part? This entire episode could've been handled better in a hundred different ways by the agent. It didn't have to go that way. From what we see on the video, all I see is an overzealous federal agent asserting his "authority" over an American citizen. The only word I can come up with is disgraceful. :mad:
Besides, that guy wasn't particularly friendly either. If anything, his asinine statement lit the fuse...
What asinine statement?
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 11:27
He didnt start out very friendly after being asked a simple question.
He didnt start out very friendly after being asked a simple question.
Does he have to? I am not LEO, but I saw a citizen traveling peacibly and exercising his rights, one of which is to be a dick through the first amendment. I know that border protection and patrol needs no PC to search vehicles at the border, but if he isn't at the border, then they shouldn't have been able to do that. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up and I felt really bad for the kid too when the officer opened the door and the kid was screaming "no, I don't want you." If that were my kid, I would be going ape shit trying to get to him.
He didnt start out very friendly after being asked a simple question.
Not being friendly to a man who's stopped you for doing something you have every right to do, is about as far from an "asinine statement" as I can imagine.
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 11:44
Okay maybe not "asinine" per say, but his attitude did not help at all. Not to "profile" the guy, but he looks like a crackhead.. Im not afraid to say it..
Act like an ass you get treated like one.
I frequently pass thru these checkpoints and while I don't think they do much good, I know they are there and play the game. Last time when asked citizenship, I replied 'native Texan' which got a chuckle and a wave thru.
Act like an ass you get treated like one.
I frequently pass thru these checkpoints and while I don't think they do much good, I know they are there and play the game. Last time when asked citizenship, I replied 'native Texan' which got a chuckle and a wave thru.
This.
They run a checkpoint north of Ft Huachuca, last time through I told the guy I was a US Citizen, but everyone else was from Texas. They laughed, and wished us well.
If I am running drugs then getting through the checkpoint fast should be on my too-do list.
be polite, answer the questions and move out. The longer I am there, the greater the risk in getting caught.
You think that would be taught in drug possession 101.
Not being friendly to a man who's stopped you for doing something you have every right to do, is about as far from an "asinine statement" as I can imagine.
There is no right to operate a vehicle on public roadways.
SpeedRacer
03-21-15, 13:09
Based on the video, and the followup story, seems pretty cut and dry. Dog alerted, BP went through protocol, Ruthless Toothless made it difficult, he was detained while they finished doing their job, was subsequently released after they found a small amount of marijuana (which would kinda explain the dog alerting). Makes all kinds of sense to me, but I've never been accused of having much of an imagination.
How is it some of you guys get the right to bear arms is as much about muskets from when it was written to any other form of firearm that came afterwards- yet the right to peacebly move about the country stopped when cars were invented because they weren't around back then?
Boggles my mind how people just pick and choose how to apply "rights"; as if a right isnt a universal thing that should not be watered down to a permission EVER!
Guy acted rudely, but that doesn't give the Federale carte Blanche to violate his rights.
One more thing to add- Thinking that these types of Check points will catch terrorists is laughable; King Obama and company are flying them in as refugees, haven't you heard?!
Aren't most of the illegals found just let out into the country anyways?
Checkpoints are about control not safety.
MountainRaven
03-21-15, 15:32
How is it some of you guys get the right to bear arms is as much about muskets from when it was written to any other form of firearm that came afterwards- yet the right to peacebly move about the country stopped when cars were invented because they weren't around back then?
Boggles my mind how people just pick and choose how to apply "rights"; as if a right isnt a universal thing that should not be watered down to a permission EVER!
Guy acted rudely, but that doesn't give the Federale carte Blanche to violate his rights.
Every road in the US should be made a turnpike, then. Turnpikes are as old as the Union and perfectly Constitutional.
That'll solve the problem: Checkpoints for every county, for every city, for every state. Every time you cross an invisible line that only exists on a map in some bureaucrat's office. Stop. Pay the nice man (or woman) in the booth. Carry on traveling. And then we can replace the CBP running these checkpoints with Federal Tollway Enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security. Don't - or can't - pay the toll and you'll get pulled over and fined - or your car will be confiscated to pay your toll and fine, since you obviously won't be able to afford to go back, either. Every where you go will be tracked and you'll pay for every where you go. This will, naturally, be on top of the taxes you already pay for gasoline and such enforcement will, naturally, be in addition to actions taken by municipal, local, and state law enforcement. Such tolls will be made based on the amount of carbon released by your vehicle and its weight.
:jester:
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 15:39
Aren't most of the illegals found just let out into the country anyways
They are deported.
Also, how are they controlling? You'd be surprised to know that they actually do catch bad guys at checkpoints.
We should put them on every road, just to be extra sure. How about we start with Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.???
Fixed it for you.
I can't believe anyone would support this agent's actions based on this video. From what we see on the dashcam, there was no RAS or PC to stick his arm in the window, and no RAS or PC to pull him bodily from the vehicle. After all, did anyone see a dog sniff the vehicle before the agent put his arm in the car at 2:38? I never saw a single agent around the car until that arm appeared. As a matter of fact, the driver gave the agent a lawful order to remove his arm from the car, which the agent ignored. That was civil rights violation #1. The dog doesn't show up until 2:41 and that agent moves the dog away from the car at 2:47, with the dog never stopping or "alerting". We never see the dog again. The man and his wife answered the citizenship question at 2:51 and he positively asserts his rights at 3:02. He follows the agent's order to put the car in park immediately at 3:09, yet the agent goes hands on at 3:17, having never articulated any RAS or PC. That was civil rights violation #2. The agent says the dog alerted at 4:33, but we've still never seen a dog sit or alert. Absent proof from a 2nd camera, I'd call BS on that statement. The agent goes for the trunk at 5:13, and we know the dog never stopped there. Ultimately, the agent seems most interested in halting the citizen's video recording of his actions at the very end of the video.
If the results of the search were pursuant to those actions, they should be fruit of the poison tree and tossed. If I were this man's lawyer, I'd use that video to crucify the agent's heavy handedness and rights violations. This is not how we're supposed to treat American citizens traveling peaceably, as is their lawful right. The only thing that agent didn't do wrong was forcibly remove the child when he said "no, I don't want to". Are we supposed to view this as "restraint" on the agent's part? This entire episode could've been handled better in a hundred different ways by the agent. It didn't have to go that way. From what we see on the video, all I see is an overzealous federal agent asserting his "authority" over an American citizen. The only word I can come up with is disgraceful. :mad:
Please go through a checkpoint, exercise your "rights" that you have poorly misconstrued, make the arguments that you have put out here in court and post back the results. I think you will be shocked. You have the right to travel, but remember you are on FEDERAL roads. Additionally, there have been numerous supreme court cases solidifying the legality of these checkpoints. At the moment the dog alerted to the car, you have PC for a lawful search. The moment the man started arguing with the CBP officer instead of answering questions, especially in the manner he does (which screams sovereign citizen), you have an officer safety issue. The moment he tried to roll the window up on his arm, that safety issue escalated.
An officer/agent does not have to explain his RAS or PC to you. But you DO have to comply with a lawful order, which all of those where, from a peace officer.
They can't put these checkpoints wherever they want, but they CAN put them on the interior of border states after the initial checkpoints.
Might want to read up on your law.
Eurodriver
03-21-15, 16:00
In every video like this, there is always one common denominator, an individual refusing to comply with simple, lawful orders.
What is that about perception, again?
Because I certainly see another common denominator in every single one of these situations...
Please go through a checkpoint, exercise your "rights" that you have poorly misconstrued, make the arguments that you have put out here in court and post back the results. I think you will be shocked. You have the right to travel, but remember you are on FEDERAL roads. Additionally, there have been numerous supreme court cases solidifying the legality of these checkpoints. At the moment the dog alerted to the car, you have PC for a lawful search. The moment the man started arguing with the CBP officer instead of answering questions, especially in the manner he does (which screams sovereign citizen), you have an officer safety issue. The moment he tried to roll the window up on his arm, that safety issue escalated.
An officer/agent does not have to explain his RAS or PC to you. But you DO have to comply with a lawful order, which all of those where, from a peace officer.
They can't put these checkpoints wherever they want, but they CAN put them on the interior of border states after the initial checkpoints.
Might want to read up on your law.
The supreme court has said a lot of things are lawful over the years... But that doesn't mean the nature of them is necessarily right fundamentally.
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 16:06
That video is just bad. Guy gave them a reason to f*ck with him, so they did. I don't want to pick the feds' side, but im sure they deal with jackasses like this guy all the time. They shouldn't have just yanked him from his car though..
brickboy240
03-21-15, 17:10
Yep...the one common denominator in these videos is the driver being belligerent and having an attitude right from the start.
These agents are working long hours in the high heat and for not much money. I am pretty sure they deal with douchebags like that all day long. So when you start out from the very beginning like this guy did...what the hell do you expect?
I used to go through the BP checkpoint on Hwy 281 outside Alice, TX every fall on a trip to the valley to go dove hunting with a buddy that lives in McAllen. Every time I got waived right on through after being friendly and acting normal....no problems. One time, I did get asked the "gun question" and I answered, "yeah...I have a shotgun and a Glock in the truck...do you need to see them?" The BP agent just said no and waived me on.
Some can blabber on all they want about rights but acting friendly or acting like a dick have VERY different outcomes everywhere in life...from the board room to...yes...the BP check point.
Think about it...every one of those black guys we have seen beaten by cops on those vids was doing WHAT before he got struck? Acting like a dick...hello!
You would think that some people would take a lesson from these films but some people are just wired to love pushing people's buttons.
Those people often get exactly what they deserve...sorry.
Guy acted rudely, but that doesn't give the Federale carte Blanche to violate his rights.
What did the "Federale" do to violate this man's rights?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-21-15, 19:01
Just released an illegal after being arrested on a DV Harassment. Was given a 24hr PR. During that time, Denver ICE conducted a phone interview with him and established he is illegal and has been deported once. They never placed an ICE detainer on him and he walked free.
These checkpoints are laughable, at best. Want to see changes, stop letting them go free....
Assholes, dicks, and saints all have the same thing in common= they all have the same rights.
SomeOtherGuy
03-21-15, 20:05
There is no right to operate a vehicle on public roadways.
Think about that statement for a minute. Yes, I know that is supposedly black-letter law and virtually any state or federal court will regurgitate it whenever the issue is presented. But it is totally illogical for our supposed system of government, nominally a constitutional republic with limited powers. There is no practical way to travel meaningfully without a vehicle. Taking this rule at face value means that all travel is a privilege and any rights you might have end at your front door.
As for the CBP checkpoints generally - I've been through one, in Texas about an hour east of El Paso. The agents were friendly and polite and I was on my way in 10 seconds (I was not a dick either). I can see the practical utility of the checkpoints. But I can't see any way that they are legally valid under the federal Constitution. If you want to control the border, which is indeed a legitimate government function, do it AT THE @#$# BORDER. Especially today when it doesn't seem that the administration allows CBP to make a serious effort at controlling THE ACTUAL BORDER, I can't see any legal justification for road checkpoints far away from the border.
Yep...the one common denominator in these videos is the driver being belligerent and having an attitude right from the start.
These agents are working long hours in the high heat and for not much money. I am pretty sure they deal with douchebags like that all day long. So when you start out from the very beginning like this guy did...what the hell do you expect?
I used to go through the BP checkpoint on Hwy 281 outside Alice, TX every fall on a trip to the valley to go dove hunting with a buddy that lives in McAllen. Every time I got waived right on through after being friendly and acting normal....no problems. One time, I did get asked the "gun question" and I answered, "yeah...I have a shotgun and a Glock in the truck...do you need to see them?" The BP agent just said no and waived me on.
Some can blabber on all they want about rights but acting friendly or acting like a dick have VERY different outcomes everywhere in life...from the board room to...yes...the BP check point.
Think about it...every one of those black guys we have seen beaten by cops on those vids was doing WHAT before he got struck? Acting like a dick...hello!
You would think that some people would take a lesson from these films but some people are just wired to love pushing people's buttons.
Those people often get exactly what they deserve...sorry.
You know, when I started in law enforcement I had this funny idea that I was actually working for the citizens, all of them, in one way or another. I also realized that a lot of times folks weren't going to be all perky when I contacted them, I kind of figured if I wanted a job where everybody was always going to be happy to see me I would have done something else, maybe sell ice cream.
These agents are working long hours in the high heat and for not much money. I am pretty sure they deal with douchebags like that all day long. So when you start out from the very beginning like this guy did...what the hell do you expect?
These folks weren't drafted, they knew the pay and the working conditions. They will walk out the door at 55 with a pretty good federal pension. Save the pity party for something else.
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 23:54
Think about that statement for a minute. Yes, I know that is supposedly black-letter law and virtually any state or federal court will regurgitate it whenever the issue is presented. But it is totally illogical for our supposed system of government, nominally a constitutional republic with limited powers. There is no practical way to travel meaningfully without a vehicle. Taking this rule at face value means that all travel is a privilege and any rights you might have end at your front door.
As for the CBP checkpoints generally - I've been through one, in Texas about an hour east of El Paso. The agents were friendly and polite and I was on my way in 10 seconds (I was not a dick either). I can see the practical utility of the checkpoints. But I can't see any way that they are legally valid under the federal Constitution. If you want to control the border, which is indeed a legitimate government function, do it AT THE @#$# BORDER. Especially today when it doesn't seem that the administration allows CBP to make a serious effort at controlling THE ACTUAL BORDER, I can't see any legal justification for road checkpoints far away from the border.
You went through sierra blanca. They caught a guy with a load of dope there last week.
SilverBullet432
03-21-15, 23:59
O yea and this gem from the other day :lol: :sarcastic:
Guy attempts to smuggle a condom full of heroin up his ass! (El paso)
http://m.permianbasin360.com/display/12010/story/20878c06480d569845cc7f011089812c
Just released an illegal after being arrested on a DV Harassment. Was given a 24hr PR. During that time, Denver ICE conducted a phone interview with him and established he is illegal and has been deported once. They never placed an ICE detainer on him and he walked free.
These checkpoints are laughable, at best. Want to see changes, stop letting them go free....
Assholes, dicks, and saints all have the same thing in common= they all have the same rights.
I know someone who is friends with a few BP agents and they complain about that all the time. People get released... they keep picking up the same people over and over and over...
Here's my take: I fundamentally agree with the "rights" people. I have the right to call a cop a "pig".
I also understand reality. If I speed all the time and get pulled over weekly and call every cop a "pig" - eventually I'm going get my ass beat.
Dont put yourself in a situation to be a victim - we need to keep changing things through the proper channels. The "rights" problems are not caused by the officers, so being a dick to them accomplishes nothing other than giving them and yourself a bad day. I almost don't like telling people I'm "libertarian" because they might picture vids like this of people doing things someone that is stupid would do.
People also have to understand that a lot of cops don't agree with every law. Overall, the job is doing a good thing. A lot of them deal with trash every day and acting like the bad guys will not help your cause.
Our Border Patrol needs to be on the border stopping people from entering this country illegally, and not running narc checkpoints 75 miles from the border. It is ridiculous, and their checkpoints are BS. The vast majority of their checkpoints are circumvented by the drug and human smugglers they claim to be attempting to apprehend. They need to be stopping that shit at the border. /thread
1. Supreme Court has ruled these worthless checkpoints are legal within 100 miles of the border.
2. Supreme Court also allowed discrimination against blacks and ruled they could not be citizens.
3. You are only required to answer your citizenship. Nothing more or less.
4. I have refused to answer addt'l questions as as well a request to search my vehicle. No arrest or getting ripped from my car.
5. If you are going to play the game, you need to know the rules and how to play.
1. Supreme Court has ruled these worthless checkpoints are legal within 100 miles of the border.
2. Supreme Court also allowed discrimination against blacks and ruled they could not be citizens.
3. You are only required to answer your citizenship. Nothing more or less.
4. I have refused to answer addt'l questions as as well a request to search my vehicle. No arrest or getting ripped from my car.
5. If you are going to play the game, you need to know the rules and how to play.
Did a k9 hit on your car though?
ramairthree
03-22-15, 08:34
So what if you are polite?
What is your citizenship and where are you going?
I am a US citizen on my way to Sea World in San Antonio.
Where are you coming from?
El Paso.
Please pull over.
No thank you, I would like to go on my way.
Pull over now we are going to search you car.
I do not consent to a warrantless search.
Our dog just alerted on your car.
I still do not consent to a warrantless search, I will pull over and wait for your warrant.
Then say I get the same treatment as Skeletor in the video did.
The SC has ruled the stops are constitutional.
I may have a different opinion but can't deny that.
I also cannot deny being a dick for the sake of being a dick makes no sense. Whether you are the driver or the LEO.
When we are giving amnesty to illegals and can't even get started on deporting illegals with other felonies,
what is the point of the stops?
With all the legalization of marijuana, etc. what is the point of busting some dipshit with a dime bag?
Alerting dogs and "I smelt some marijuana" are so abused and FOS and inaccurate I have hopes both will be quashed one day. Sure, they are true sometimes but many other times so without honesty, accuracy, and/or integrity.
I see how they are PC for a warrant.
How is it they are PC for a warrantless search?
If you do a warrantless search for marijuana based on smell or dog alert,
and find no drugs but do find two dead hookers in my trunk-
do they get to enter that into evidence?
I usually check my trunk before driving within one hundred miles of the border, but just in case want to know.
There was a time when a movie like Airplane showed little old ladies getting searched while dangerous looking Muslims went through airport security and it was a joke. That was pretty funny.
Now agencies go out of their way to not hassle people that fit a terrorist or illegal alien drug dealer profile, while hassling other people, and it is not very funny to me.
IIRC, the SC decision on DUI, random search stops/checkpoints, etc. was not that they were constitutional. It was that they were not, but that it was still legal to do so because in what in the greater common good/safety of the public, so we will give it a pass and say it is.
(Legal minds please correct me regarding the nuances)
Hopefully it was a joke, but if not, Sensei's comment about not having a right to use the roads is right up there with AlaskaPoPo's "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution." We are supposed to be free in our travels without the need to show papers, need for travel, etc. and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The news reports of cash seizures, uniformed cops pulling people over into commercial events that are not LE related, etc. are pretty shady.
I thought the BP was polite to the wife and kid, used minimal force needed to get the guy out and the car pulled over. Basically, he was professional about it. I just think his lawful role to do so should require more than a random stop on the road or a dog alert.
PC is a low standard. That is why odor or k9 alert is enough in most states. Some require them to impound the car and apply for a warrant at that point. Other jurisdictions in some states that even allow PC search off odor of MJ alone have SOP that make them get a warrant first.
I think your hypo is interesting. I think the k9 alert is enough for the search, but if the dog isn't trained to alert on bodies, I would hope they stop the search at that point and apply for a warrant to continue searching the vehicle.
The reason why many don't make you apply for a warrant is the huge burden it would take. If they had to get a warrant at each checkpoint they would pretty much have to keep a magistrate there 24/7
Our Border Patrol needs to be on the border stopping people from entering this country illegally, and not running narc checkpoints 75 miles from the border. It is ridiculous, and their checkpoints are BS. The vast majority of their checkpoints are circumvented by the drug and human smugglers they claim to be attempting to apprehend. They need to be stopping that shit at the border. /thread
As I understand it, the thought process is that illegals who sneak across the border will at some point think they are home free and jump on the highway to head wherever. Likely a state that stupidly gives DL's to anyone without documentation - but that's a different thread. Whether the interior checkpoints yield arrests of illegals I can't say. But LE is often driven by stats, so they must be getting some results out of it.
Aren't most of the illegals found just let out into the country anyways?
Checkpoints are about control not safety.
Excellent point. Since we're not currently deporting anyone WTF purpose does a CBP checkpoint serve? Drug enforcement? Gimme a break.....we have PLENTY of local/state LE organizations primarily responsible for that.
Seriously, if CBP is supposed to be in the business of catching illegals and sending them back, and aren't doing it, this is just another "paperz bitte" checkpoint. Some Mexican mule with 20 kilos of weed or coke? Fine. A U.S. citizen with a dime bag he didn't bring across the border? That's not what CBP is for and we all damn well know it.
They are deported.
Also, how are they controlling? You'd be surprised to know that they actually do catch bad guys at checkpoints.
What year are you living in? They have halted deportations under King Shitstain.
Please go through a checkpoint, exercise your "rights" that you have poorly misconstrued, make the arguments that you have put out here in court and post back the results. I think you will be shocked. You have the right to travel, but remember you are on FEDERAL roads. Additionally, there have been numerous supreme court cases solidifying the legality of these checkpoints. At the moment the dog alerted to the car, you have PC for a lawful search. The moment the man started arguing with the CBP officer instead of answering questions, especially in the manner he does (which screams sovereign citizen), you have an officer safety issue. The moment he tried to roll the window up on his arm, that safety issue escalated.
An officer/agent does not have to explain his RAS or PC to you. But you DO have to comply with a lawful order, which all of those where, from a peace officer.
They can't put these checkpoints wherever they want, but they CAN put them on the interior of border states after the initial checkpoints.
Might want to read up on your law.
SCOTUS schmotus. They upheld slavery too once upon a time. Didn't make it right. Wanna get more "modern"? Kelo ring a bell? Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
I'm against random checkpoints PERIOD, be they federal/local/state whatever. However, given that the gods-in-black have decreed that it is "legal", at least use the appropriate agency for it's intended use.
You guys (many of you LEO's) obviously cheer this kind of stuff, but remember when the TSA "Viper" teams were starting to show up on interstate highways? Didn't seem real popular now did it? My point is there are appropriate LE agencies to conduct certain things. Drugs in possession of a U.S. citizen, not brought across the border (because you're nowhere near it), is NOT within the purview of CBP.
You know, when I started in law enforcement I had this funny idea that I was actually working for the citizens, all of them, in one way or another. I also realized that a lot of times folks weren't going to be all perky when I contacted them, I kind of figured if I wanted a job where everybody was always going to be happy to see me I would have done something else, maybe sell ice cream.
These agents are working long hours in the high heat and for not much money. I am pretty sure they deal with douchebags like that all day long. So when you start out from the very beginning like this guy did...what the hell do you expect?
These folks weren't drafted, they knew the pay and the working conditions. They will walk out the door at 55 with a pretty good federal pension. Save the pity party for something else.
They also make a 25% (of their base wage) LE premium. Know what that works out to? I'm a federal employee and they blow me out of the water money-wise.
They also make a 25% (of their base wage) LE premium. Know what that works out to? I'm a federal employee and they blow me out of the water money-wise.
Gotta love that LEAP
SilverBullet432
03-22-15, 10:09
Crazy, i had a cousin caught walking through the desert last year, (he was clean) they locked him up for 6 months. Now hes back in mx. Im not sure if he has previous criminal run ins here before, but i guess it goes case by case.
They are deported.
Also, how are they controlling? You'd be surprised to know that they actually do catch bad guys at checkpoints.
No, the majority of illegals are not deported. Even the ones with vast criminal records are just released.
They are a form of control in many ways; the biggest one being psychological- make the citizens stop for no reason, get them used to being scrutinized by LE just for being out of their homes.
Forcing interactions to exert authority over the populace.
Also it makes it so they can go on fishing trips.
I'm sure they do catch bad guys at checkpoints; that doesn't make them any less abusive to our rights.
And don't give me the SCOTUS upheld this and that as constitutional BS; SCOTUS upheld ACA forcing people to buy insurance or be penalized monetarily for not doing so, they upheld making the right to bear arms a mere permission, commerce clause, imminent domain, etc and so on...
SCOTUS has subverted separation of power, usurped all sorts of authority not granted to them by the Constitution- Plain and simple.
SilverBullet432
03-22-15, 10:27
Everything you guys have stated is 100% true, yet this goon in the video didn't give the average citizen a good name either.
What did the "Federale" do to violate this man's rights?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The fourth is pretty clear.
Checkpoints viates ones 4a right; using them to create interactions to conduct warrantless searches of citizens and their vehicle is a violation of 4A.
Who cares, being an asshole or a saint should have no bearing on how ones rights are protected or pissed on.
I personally agree he was a dick and I personally wouldn't act that way, but it is his right to be a dick and not have his rights violated for it.
El Vaquero
03-22-15, 10:56
Fu*@ it! We'll do it live! No more checkpoints! We're opening up the borders, lol.
SpeedRacer
03-22-15, 11:01
As I understand it, the thought process is that illegals who sneak across the border will at some point think they are home free and jump on the highway to head wherever. Likely a state that stupidly gives DL's to anyone without documentation - but that's a different thread. Whether the interior checkpoints yield arrests of illegals I can't say. But LE is often driven by stats, so they must be getting some results out of it.
This is my understanding as well. It's literally impossible to guard every inch of the border. In theory it's easier to monitor a few rivers than patrol the whole ocean so to speak, and having a second line of defense is a good idea regardless of how well it's going at the border.
I believe that's the logic anyway, never seen any stats to know if it's actually working or not. And I think they'd probably have more luck just patrolling Home Depot parking lots. My best guess is this administration obviously isn't concerned with keeping illegals out, but is trying to shut down some of the related drug trafficking.
Fu*@ it! We'll do it live! No more checkpoints! We're opening up the borders, lol.
Or we could get our collective heads out of our asses and start going after the companies and people who create the illegal alien problem by giving them jobs here?
What does having a border and checkpoints even matter if we aren't deporting them? What does having them do if we don't go after the companies that illegally employ them to do cheap labor?
As long as it is safe and easy to employ illegals they will keep coming here as the employers create the demand for them to do so.
If we also got realistic about the stupidity of the war on drugs we could stop the influx of illegal Mexican drugs as well.
All of that is just crazy though right?
Keep the checkpoints going, keep letting the illegals go, don't do anything to the people/companies that employ these people illegally, keep the demand for Mexican drugs as high as possible and let's all keep our heads in the sand and believe that the problem will magically go away with the federal governments stellar job thus far...
I think your hypo is interesting. I think the k9 alert is enough for the search, but if the dog isn't trained to alert on bodies, I would hope they stop the search at that point and apply for a warrant to continue searching the vehicle.
This is what should happen. The dog's alert is most likely for drugs (unless they are running a cadaver dog around your car, which means you already have problems). Once they find something that is contraband, such as dead hookers, they should stop and get a warrant based on evidence of homicide. When I was a suit, we had it happen the other way around a few times. We would have a warrant on a house out of a shooting, and find a grow or large stash. We would call our narcs, who would then do a separate warrant for the dope based on our observations.
My comment on these type of checkpoint stops, be it for DWI or BP or ICE, they are currently legal. Same with dog hits being PC. While I do not advocate surrendering rights, I would recommend complying with the officers at scene. Case law is made in the courtroom, not the roadside. Attempts to legislate on the roadside almost always end badly, particularly if things get heated. You will probably not win a fight with eight deputies. Your attorney has much better odds in evidentiary hearings, motions, and any civil proceedings down the road.
As I understand it, the thought process is that illegals who sneak across the border will at some point think they are home free and jump on the highway to head wherever. Likely a state that stupidly gives DL's to anyone without documentation - but that's a different thread. Whether the interior checkpoints yield arrests of illegals I can't say. But LE is often driven by stats, so they must be getting some results out of it.
I understand this logic, but that could be extended even further.
There are cities that are known hot beds for illegals that are FAR from the border, should border patrol agents set up shop in say Greeley, CO? TONS of illegals up there.
Pretty much anywhere with a meat packaging plant or farm is going to have lots of illegals.
Border patrol should patrol the border.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The fourth is pretty clear.
Checkpoints viates ones 4a right; using them to create interactions to conduct warrantless searches of citizens and their vehicle is a violation of 4A.
No, it is your opinion that checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment.
While The fourth is clear, so is Article III of the U.S. Constitution that establishes judicial review. So much so that Article III recognizes only one court specifically, that being the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read U.S. vs Martinez-Fuente. The SCOTUS clearly recognizes USBP checkpoints and that those checkpoints are NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment.
So now that we have established the checkpoint is legal and constitutional, lets take a look at the agent.
As previously mentioned, U.S. vs Martinez-Fuente established the checkpoints are constitutional but went further and upheld the warrantless searches of vehicles at established checkpoints. This instance went further than Martinez-Fuente as the agent had additional articulable facts to support a search the vehicle with a K-9 alert. Numerous court cases have established that the warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible with the positive alert from a K-9. U.S. vs Stone and U.S. vs Donvali-Aviala are good places to start your research.
In this case, according to a USBP press release, our friendly traveler happened to have a small amount of marijuana under his front seat. The K-9 can't tell its handler how much narcotics are in the vehicle, a K-9 can only alert to an odor it has been trained to detect.
Lessons learned:
1. Screaming "I don't consent to this warrantless search" when there is a clear exception to the warrant rule won't help you.
2. If you are going through a checkpoint that uses K-9s and you know very well the checkpoint is there so you plan to film it and talk shit, it is probably best to leave your weed at home.
3. The police don't have to ask you "please, please, pretty please with sugar and spice and all those things nice" to comply with a lawful order.
So, in summary, while we may agree/disagree about the court's decisions, or about the effectiveness of the checkpoints themselves, or even the agent's demeanor and behavior the facts are under current law this "Federale" certainly did not violate this traveler's 4th Amendment.
SilverBullet432
03-22-15, 11:50
Or we could get our collective heads out of our asses and start going after the companies and people who create the illegal alien problem by giving them jobs here?
What does having a border and checkpoints even matter if we aren't deporting them? What does having them do if we don't go after the companies that illegally employ them to do cheap labor?
As long as it is safe and easy to employ illegals they will keep coming here as the employers create the demand for them to do so.
If we also got realistic about the stupidity of the war on drugs we could stop the influx of illegal Mexican drugs as well.
All of that is just crazy though right?
Keep the checkpoints going, keep letting the illegals go, don't do anything to the people/companies that employ these people illegally, keep the demand for Mexican drugs as high as possible and let's all keep our heads in the sand and believe that the problem will magically go away with the federal governments stellar job thus far...
Want to stop the drugs? Quit buying them! The "gringos" are the ones creating the demand!!! Think about that.
No, it is your opinion that checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment.
While The fourth is clear, so is Article III of the U.S. Constitution that establishes judicial review. So much so that Article III recognizes only one court specifically, that being the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read U.S. vs Martinez-Fuente. The SCOTUS clearly recognizes USBP checkpoints and that those checkpoints are NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment.
So now that we have established the checkpoint is legal and constitutional, lets take a look at the agent.
As previously mentioned, U.S. vs Martinez-Fuente established the checkpoints are constitutional but went further and upheld the warrantless searches of vehicles at established checkpoints. This instance went further than Martinez-Fuente as the agent had additional articulable facts to support a search the vehicle with a K-9 alert. Numerous court cases have established that the warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible with the positive alert from a K-9. U.S. vs Stone and U.S. vs Donvali-Aviala are good places to start your research.
In this case, according to a USBP press release, our friendly traveler happened to have a small amount of marijuana under his front seat. The K-9 can't tell its handler how much narcotics are in the vehicle, a K-9 can only alert to an odor it has been trained to detect.
Lessons learned:
1. Screaming "I don't consent to this warrantless search" when there is a clear exception to the warrant rule won't help you.
2. If you are going through a checkpoint that uses K-9s and you know very well the checkpoint is there so you plan to film it and talk shit, its probably best to leave your weed at home.
3. The police don't have to ask you "please, please, pretty please with sugar and spice and all those things nice" to comply with a lawful order.
So, in summary, while we may agree/disagree about the court's decisions, or about the effectiveness of the checkpoints themselves, or even the agent's demeanor and behavior the facts are under current law this "Federale" certainly did not violate this traveler's 4th Amendment.
US vs Martinez-Fuente was a terrible decision.
Justice William Brennan hit the nail on the head when he wrote in his dissent that the decision marks a radical new intrusion on citizens' rights, and that it "empties the reasonableness requirement of the Amendment". He also says:
"The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard . . . . Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction"
Watering down the constitution and our collective rights through judicial review is abhorrent and needs to stop.
Again, it is your opinion that Martinez-Fuente was a bad decision and we can disagree on that. The fact remains, the decision held and the agent's actions were lawful.
I'm sure plenty of gun grabbers think the DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago decisions were horrible decisions too, but that is why we have a SCOTUS.
Ha! Laws prohibiting them create the demand, people have used drugs all throughout history and will continue to do so forever into the future.
See alcohol prohibition for all the proof you need to show that prohibiting use of substances only creates more crime and violence.
I don't do drugs other than alcohol and the occasional ibuprofen, but I don't believe our government should be telling us what drugs, food, etc we should or should not be able to Imbibe in the privacy of our homes.
By all means if peoe are out in public on drugs or driving there are and should be laws to deal with this.
Prohibiting drug use doesn't stop people from using them; some would argue it does the opposite.
Colorado legalized MJ and it's not as if a ton of people just up and started toking and committing crimes all of the sudden.
In fact, we have seen a decrease in criminal activity since it passed.
You think the cartels are trying to bring a bunch of MJ to CO? The black market still exists yes, but it is not nearly as robust as it was when Mj was illegal.
Who would risk buying weed from some stranger/criminal whe. They can just go to a legal shop with controls in place?
Same thing would apply for all drugs.
End thread shift...
El Vaquero
03-22-15, 12:12
Or we could get our collective heads out of our asses and start going after the companies and people who create the illegal alien problem by giving them jobs here?
What does having a border and checkpoints even matter if we aren't deporting them? What does having them do if we don't go after the companies that illegally employ them to do cheap labor?
As long as it is safe and easy to employ illegals they will keep coming here as the employers create the demand for them to do so.
If we also got realistic about the stupidity of the war on drugs we could stop the influx of illegal Mexican drugs as well.
All of that is just crazy though right?
Keep the checkpoints going, keep letting the illegals go, don't do anything to the people/companies that employ these people illegally, keep the demand for Mexican drugs as high as possible and let's all keep our heads in the sand and believe that the problem will magically go away with the federal governments stellar job thus far...
If it were only that easy.... I for one am not ready to pay $10 for a head of lettuce at the grocery store because it was picked by legal workers who the farmer is now having to pay more per hour with benefit"s and such. I don't know much about the meat packing industry but I'm guessing it's very similar. I've never heard an outcry from citizens because they can't get jobs they really want picking lettuce or cutting meat at packing plants.
The war on drugs however futile it is will not end until there is no longer a demand for it, which I don't see happening anytime soon.
Possible solution might be having those on welfare go pick lettuce and pack meat instead of illegals. Thereby keeping people off the free lunch program, keeping illegals out of employment, and keeping consumer cost down. But we know that will never happen.
The fact is, it is a complicated problem with no easy solution.
Again, it is your opinion that Martinez-Fuente was a bad decision and we can disagree on that. The fact remains, the decision held and the agent's actions were lawful.
I'm sure plenty of gun grabbers think the DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago decisions were horrible decisions too, but that is why we have a SCOTUS.
I understand.
The difference in the cases you cited is vast and important. In Hellar the court sided WITH the constitution and its intent- not so much in Martinez-Fuente.
That is an important distinction. Judicial review should always error on the side of Liberty and the Constitution. For obvious reasons I'm sure I don't have to explain here.
SCOTUS has made quite a few bad decisions when viewed through the lens of "intent/nature of the constitution".
Everyone has an opinion and everyone interprets things differently, but When it comes to the supreme law of our country- we should not take things lightly.
Everyone has an opinion and everyone interprets things differently, but When it comes to the supreme law of our country- we should not take things lightly.
100% agree with you.
I think we can agree we have good laws and bad laws, but our system while imperfect is still the best in all man kind.
Sure there are plenty of laws and SCOTUS decisions I disagree with. Take the NFA for example. I may disagree with it, but I'm not strapping on a video camera and walking down to my local BATFE office with an unregistered SBR and scream "I don't consent to registering this firearm!" What I will do is continue to lobby our elected officials to change the laws.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
If it were only that easy.... I for one am not ready to pay $10 for a head of lettuce at the grocery store because it was picked by legal workers who the farmer is now having to pay more per hour with benefit"s and such. I don't know much about the meat packing industry but I'm guessing it's very similar. I've never heard an outcry from citizens because they can't get jobs they really want picking lettuce or cutting meat at packing plants.
The war on drugs however futile it is will not end until there is no longer a demand for it, which I don't see happening anytime soon.
Possible solution might be having those on welfare go pick lettuce and pack meat instead of illegals. Thereby keeping people off the free lunch program, keeping illegals out of employment, and keeping consumer cost down. But we know that will never happen.
The fact is, it is a complicated problem with no easy solution.
It is definitely complicated problem.
Your looking at the issue a bit one dimensionally though.
Let's think about this: $6.00 heads of lettuce-
Well the lettuce and meat and manual labor will be more expensive, but just imagine what we would save not having to support the illegals with our tax dollars.
And that's not even getting into the political cost and long term/future damage of illegals; amnesty anyone?
Think of how much of that money earned from illegal labor isn't taxed and gets sent to Mexico's economy instead of ours?
The price tag of so many illegals here and the demand created by employers is incredibly high!
$6.00 lettuce sounds better and better when you and I are not footing bill for the $100's of millions wasted on illegal aliens in so many ways.
100% agree with you.
I think we can agree we have good laws and bad laws, but our system while imperfect is still the best in all man kind.
Sure there are plenty of laws and SCOTUS decisions I disagree with. Take the NFA for example. I may disagree with it, but I'm not strapping on a video camera and walking down to my local BATFE office with an unregistered SBR and scream "I don't consent to registering this firearm!" What I will do is continue to lobby our elected officials to change the laws.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
And I agree with you also and am enjoying the discussion.
I'm not advocating acting like the dude in the video, just trying to point out the problems and issues with checkpoints in general- IE how they run counter to our Constitution and its intent.
SCOTUS has a lot of power and they abuse it often, with bad consequences for all of us. One day I fear they will make some decisions that will completely divide this country and cause great unrest.
No system is perfect and ours is truly the best- that should never stop us from striving to make it better and holding ourselves and our government to a higher standard.
We can't just have the attitude that- it's the current law just follow it; we need to constantly push each other to protect and uphold what is just and right and not just follow and enforce "bad laws" because we are told to do so.
No, hence the refusal and telling them to pound sand.
Did a k9 hit on your car though?
That's a pretty ignorant statement even for the internet.
Want to stop the drugs? Quit buying them! The "gringos" are the ones creating the demand!!! Think about that.
SilverBullet432
03-22-15, 15:08
It is definitely complicated problem.
Your looking at the issue a bit one dimensionally though.
Let's think about this: $6.00 heads of lettuce-
Well the lettuce and meat and manual labor will be more expensive, but just imagine what we would save not having to support the illegals with our tax dollars.
And that's not even getting into the political cost and long term/future damage of illegals; amnesty anyone?
Think of how much of that money earned from illegal labor isn't taxed and gets sent to Mexico's economy instead of ours?
The price tag of so many illegals here and the demand created by employers is incredibly high!
$6.00 lettuce sounds better and better when you and I are not footing bill for the $100's of millions wasted on illegal aliens in so many ways.
Not only that, americans bitch about how illegals steal "their" jobs, yet i dont see any mexicans standing on a corner holding a sign, theyre all cutting grass, washing dishes and cleaning bathrooms or houses...
Dude was a dick and got handled. I don't agree with the way he or the BP acted, but people are gonna act they way they act.
I've been through checkpoints all over the Southern US and all over Mexico. Look nice, act nice, and you'll have a good trip.
Those checkpoints are a total joke and a huge waste of time. Many times I've seen traffic stopped for 15 miles just to roll through and wave.
As a law abiding citizen, most especially well inland, I don't think it reasonable to answer any intrusive questions about citizenship (or anything else for that matter) or be forced to stop by a BPO agent as long as I've not given them probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Let me go about my business. I don't have to answer to you just because you're a BPO agent for gawds sake. Talk about jack booted thugs...
This isn't WW11 Nazi Germany where innocent citizens going about their everyday business had to tolerate being treated liked a criminal and better be ready to answer by the uniformed/armed with questions like: Your papers Schweinhund! Schnell Schnell! If you didn't promptly produce papers to their liking and appropriately grovel, all kinds of bad things would be coming your way.
Some of you think, go along to get along, be nice...my aching posterior. You that quickly knuckle under are willing to be be mistreated, when the BPO has no reasonable suspicion, other than you are legally driving in America and forced to stop and be interrogated. You've got to be shitting me.
The BPO get to treat you like a criminal and you should be pleasant and hope like hell you're cowering/groveling self will be let go, when you've not done anything illegal when should've never been stopped to begin with.
You're O.K. with this in America?
My Dad, who fought in WW11 (Okinawa for one of the islands he fought on and saw much, much combat and death) would roll over in his grave if he knew this is what America is like today...
Seems to me they should be arresting illegals and not scaring kids in the back seat. I saw no probable cause for the BP agent to reach into his vehicle, much less drag him out of the car.
Finding drugs via an illegal search will get tossed in court.
This guys going to sue and be a millionaire with our tax dollars.
I'm guessing you missed the part where the agent tells him that the dog hit on the truck of the vehicle.
Seems to me they should be arresting illegals and not scaring kids in the back seat. I saw no probable cause for the BP agent to reach into his vehicle, much less drag him out of the car.
Finding drugs via an illegal search will get tossed in court.
This guys going to sue and be a millionaire with our tax dollars.
Eurodriver
03-22-15, 17:29
As a law abiding citizen, most especially well inland, I don't think it reasonable to answer any intrusive questions about citizenship (or anything else for that matter) or be forced to stop by a BPO agent as long as I've not given them probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Let me go about my business. I don't have to answer to you just because you're a BPO agent for gawds sake. Talk about jack booted thugs...
This isn't WW11 Nazi Germany where innocent citizens going about their everyday business had to tolerate being treated liked a criminal and better be ready to answer by the uniformed/armed with questions like: Your papers Schweinhund! Schnell Schnell! If you didn't promptly produce papers to their liking and appropriately grovel, all kinds of bad things would be coming your way.
Some of you think, go along to get along, be nice...my aching posterior. You that quickly knuckle under are willing to be be mistreated, when the BPO has no reasonable suspicion, other than you are legally driving in America and forced to stop and be interrogated. You've got to be shitting me.
The BPO get to treat you like a criminal and you should be pleasant and hope like hell you're cowering/groveling self will be let go, when you've not done anything illegal when should've never been stopped to begin with.
You're O.K. with this in America?
My Dad, who fought in WW11 (Okinawa for one of the islands he fought on and saw much, much combat and death) would roll over in his grave if he knew this is what America is like today...
Maybe you missed that some folks in this thread are the ones demanding the papers. Of course they're okay with it.
They also make a 25% (of their base wage) LE premium. Know what that works out to? I'm a federal employee and they blow me out of the water money-wise.
I don't know if Border Patrol gets that bump, but not all federal LEO's get LEAP. And I know some who do get it are required to work an average of 2 extra hours a day. In other words, it's built in over time. They must work 50hr weeks or their LEAP is retroactively taken away.
My best guess is this administration obviously isn't concerned with keeping illegals out, but is trying to shut down some of the related drug trafficking.
I have no love for our current administration. But these inland checkpoints are not new. I encountered them in the mid 1990's while stationed in New Mexico and then a decade later in Texas.
Has anyone dug up a report from a media outlet or LE agency on this incident? I have to say the agents gave me the impression they were aware he had drugs in the car from the beginning. Maybe the dog hit immediately out of view from the camera, but they might have had other Intel on the driver and/or vehicle. I noticed a plain clothes agent helping with the search. I've been involved in vehicle stops we conducted based on wiretap information. If those subjects refuse consent because they were stopped for speeding, we will still be searching the car. Our PC was obtained before the traffic stop. I'd love to see an after action of this because I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to the story than Mr Sunken Eyes wants his YouTube audience to know.
Eurodriver
03-22-15, 18:18
Has anyone dug up a report from a media outlet or LE agency on this incident? I have to say the agents gave me the impression they were aware he had drugs in the car from the beginning. Maybe the dog hit immediately out of view from the camera, but they might have had other Intel on the driver and/or vehicle. I noticed a plain clothes agent helping with the search. I've been involved in vehicle stops we conducted based on wiretap information. If those subjects refuse consent because they were stopped for speeding, we will still be searching the car. Our PC was obtained before the traffic stop. I'd love to see an after action of this because I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to the story than Mr Sunken Eyes wants his YouTube audience to know.
99% of the time, you're right. And in this situation, I'd be willing to bet the guy got hammered for more than a roach.
However, the big picture here are checkpoints. Be damned what SCOTUS says - they are ridiculously illegal, ineffective, and unnecessary. (Remember, SCOTUS said slavery was legal at one time, too.) While that guy may have gotten nailed for something a bit more than a ciggaweed, is anyone really safer for it? Are you going to sleep more soundly tonight because he is off the streets?
The problems that bother me more than weed are not idiots bating LE into arresting them and police dogs being coached to hit. They are the problems as a result of massive illegal immigration (Meningitis in elementary schools, generations of Democrat welfare leeches) and "Papers, Please" checkpoints.
One problem isn't being solved in this video. The other is a problem itself.
99% of the time, you're right. And in this situation, I'd be willing to bet the guy got hammered for more than a roach.
However, the big picture here are checkpoints. Be damned what SCOTUS says - they are ridiculously illegal, ineffective, and unnecessary. (Remember, SCOTUS said slavery was legal at one time, too.) While that guy may have gotten nailed for something a bit more than a ciggaweed, is anyone really safer for it? Are you going to sleep more soundly tonight because he is off the streets?
The problems that bother me more than weed are not idiots bating LE into arresting them and police dogs being coached to hit. They are the problems as a result of massive illegal immigration (Meningitis in elementary schools, generations of Democrat welfare leeches) and "Papers, Please" checkpoints.
One problem isn't being solved in this video. The other is a problem itself.
I share your opinion on them, as well as DUI checkpoints. Unfortunately to even get an audience with SCOTUS means getting arrested and fighting it. I'm not willing to be that guy. If it finds me then I'll try to find an exceptional attorney or an organization like the NRA to help me fight it.
I don't hink SCOTUS overall is bad these days. They gave us Heller and others related to the 2nd Amendment. They stopped warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest. That decision made my job more challenging as a LEO but I'm okay with it as I thought it was the right thing constitutionally. They are human and prone to the same failings as all of us. I just pray the current POTUS doesn't get to fill any of those seats before he leaves office.
Heavy Metal
03-22-15, 18:56
It is definitely complicated problem.
Your looking at the issue a bit one dimensionally though.
Let's think about this: $6.00 heads of lettuce-
Well the lettuce and meat and manual labor will be more expensive, but just imagine what we would save not having to support the illegals with our tax dollars.
And that's not even getting into the political cost and long term/future damage of illegals; amnesty anyone?
Think of how much of that money earned from illegal labor isn't taxed and gets sent to Mexico's economy instead of ours?
The price tag of so many illegals here and the demand created by employers is incredibly high!
$6.00 lettuce sounds better and better when you and I are not footing bill for the $100's of millions wasted on illegal aliens in so many ways.
10 bucks for a head of legal picked lettuce? Shit, he better be making six figures at that rate of compensation!
Hell, if you paid somebody $20.00 a hour, they should easily be able to pick a 120 head an hour. That's still less than 17 cents an hour labor per head at 120 head and in the real world the average cutter can cut nearly 300 head an hour. At 20 dollar an hour at 300 head per hour , that would end up less than ten cents of labor per head ASSUMING A FAT WAGE OF TWENTY PER HOUR!!
Eurodriver
03-22-15, 19:19
I share your opinion on them, as well as DUI checkpoints. Unfortunately to even get an audience with SCOTUS means getting arrested and fighting it. I'm not willing to be that guy. If it finds me then I'll try to find an exceptional attorney or an organization like the NRA to help me fight it.
I don't hink SCOTUS overall is bad these days. They gave us Heller and others related to the 2nd Amendment. They stopped warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest. That decision made my job more challenging as a LEO but I'm okay with it as I thought it was the right thing constitutionally. They are human and prone to the same failings as all of us. I just pray the current POTUS doesn't get to fill any of those seats before he leaves office.
I appreciate your post, and agree with everything you said.
Especially the part about POTUS. If Ginsberg and especially the Conservatives can survive (literally and figuratively) and we somehow get an R into the WhiteHouse we could potentially remove the swing vote and have a majority for a very long time when Ginsberg retires. No way she's doing another 4-8 years.
The moment he started saying "i don't have to answer that" the sovreign citizen alarm bell goes off in my head, which is a very loud alarm bell, and then he actually rolled up his window on the CBP agent's arm. I thought he showed a ton of restraint in that video.
Funny part is illegals answer yes, while citizens argue the question.
As I understand it, the thought process is that illegals who sneak across the border will at some point think they are home free and jump on the highway to head wherever.
They head to cities and then go to Day Worker centers to get jobs everyday, and nobody in Law Enforcement seems to care at all.
So the message to illegals is, cross the border, get more than 100 miles inland, and you will be left alone.
The whole system is an utter joke.
I see how they are PC for a warrant.
How is it they are PC for a warrantless search?
If you do a warrantless search for marijuana based on smell or dog alert,
and find no drugs but do find two dead hookers in my trunk-
do they get to enter that into evidence?
IIRC, the SC decision on DUI, random search stops/checkpoints, etc. was not that they were constitutional. It was that they were not, but that it was still legal to do so because in what in the greater common good/safety of the public, so we will give it a pass and say it is.
The news reports of cash seizures, uniformed cops pulling people over into commercial events that are not LE related, etc. are pretty shady.
What you are talking about is referred to as 'the Carroll Doctrine' - from a prohibition era Supreme Court case. The courts upheld the doctrine that because of it's mobility, a car could be searched based upon probable cause with the provision that where it is practical to secure a warrant, a warrant should be used.
Over time this has/had morphed into 'based on PC, you can search a vehicle without a warrant.'
IIRC - and I looked it up, I do, Carroll was adamant that 'Such a rule fulfills the guaranty of the Fourth Amendment. In cases where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used, and when properly supported by affidavit and issued after judicial approval, protects the seizing officer against a suit for damages.'
So now we come to what is reasonably practicable? Securing the vehicle and driver and the resources required to do so, for several hours while a warrant is applied for?
In terms of the last two comments, DUI check lanes and drivers license check lanes are legal because of the collective, overriding societal concern for insuring that drunk drivers and unqualified persons aren't endangering the public. They have to be done is a prescribed manner to ensure that, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the intrusion is brief.
In the last sentence you wrote I believe your intent was to proclaim that 'turning LE contacts into commercial events, via cash seizures are pretty shady,' if you did I whole heartedly agree. Interdiction/Asset Forfeiture has become a stain on the collective moral compass of many LE officers - note I said many, not all.
Just actually processed the dead hooker in the trunk thing - you get arrested, you would have standing to object to the probable cause search based on no dope found, if you prevailed you would probably just have to put up with cops following you until you screwed up and killed more hookers. :D
The government would say the officers were acting on good faith, there was a reason the dog alerted, and that the discovery of the dead hookers should be admitted because the officers acted in good faith. This is one of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule which keeps the government from using illegally seized evidence.
I'm thinking you ought not travel with dead hookers - you'll lose.
JMO
Funny part is illegals answer yes, while citizens argue the question.
Yep, I have not been able to shake the same thought...
ramairthree
03-22-15, 20:00
What you are talking about is referred to as 'the Carroll Doctrine' - from a prohibition era Supreme Court case. The courts upheld the doctrine that because of it's mobility, a car could be searched based upon probable cause with the provision that where it is practical to secure a warrant, a warrant should be used.
Over time this has/had morphed into 'based on PC, you can search a vehicle without a warrant.'
IIRC - and I looked it up, I do, Carroll was adamant that 'Such a rule fulfills the guaranty of the Fourth Amendment. In cases where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used, and when properly supported by affidavit and issued after judicial approval, protects the seizing officer against a suit for damages.'
So now we come to what is reasonably practicable? Securing the vehicle and driver and the resources required to do so, for several hours while a warrant is applied for?
In terms of the last two comments, DUI check lanes and drivers license check lanes are legal because of the collective, overriding societal concern for insuring that drunk drivers and unqualified persons aren't endangering the public. They have to be done is a prescribed manner to ensure that, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the intrusion is brief.
In the last sentence you wrote I believe your intent was to proclaim that 'turning LE contacts into commercial events, via cash seizures are pretty shady,' if you did I whole heartedly agree. Interdiction/Asset Forfeiture has become a stain on the collective moral compass of many LE officers - note I said many, not all.
Thank you.
The commercial events I referred to were when companies hired LE Depts. to do in uniform traffic stops and detainment for the companies to ask surveys, collect DNA, etc. Very shady.
With regards to PC, I get if there is info some nut has a trunk full of fertilizer bomb, and my truck smells like fertilizer,
they can search me without my consent based on reason and danger. Being pissed off I don't consent to a search, then saying they smell pot or a dog alerts, no threat of danger, I would like to wait for the warrant.
The thing I hate the most about the SC check point decision is how the overriding social concern for safety can be/might be/afraid it someday will be applied to trash other constitutional rights.
Controversial speech- goodbye 1st. It is for the public good.
2nd- sorry, safer if only cops and mil have guns. It is for the public good.
Thank you.
The commercial events I referred to were when companies hired LE Depts. to do in uniform traffic stops and detainment for the companies to ask surveys, collect DNA, etc. Very shady.
With regards to PC, I get if there is info some nut has a trunk full of fertilizer bomb, and my truck smells like fertilizer,
they can search me without my consent based on reason and danger. Being pissed off I don't consent to a search, then saying they smell pot or a dog alerts, no threat of danger, I would like to wait for the warrant.
The thing I hate the most about the SC check point decision is how the overriding social concern for safety can be/might be/afraid it someday will be applied to trash other constitutional rights.
Controversial speech- goodbye 1st. It is for the public good.
2nd- sorry, safer if only cops and mil have guns. It is for the public good.
Liberty for safety...we have been making this trade for far too long.
Liberty for safety...we have been making this trade for far too long.
Terrorism proved to be quite the boogyman eh?
Terrorism proved to be quite the boogyman eh?
No kidding.
Again, it is your opinion that Martinez-Fuente was a bad decision and we can disagree on that. The fact remains, the decision held and the agent's actions were lawful.
I'm sure plenty of gun grabbers think the DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago decisions were horrible decisions too, but that is why we have a SCOTUS.
A bunch of comments in this thread are pointing out that while the citizen can be a dick but shouldn't be, can be turned back on the agent and CBP. Just because you can use a bad SCOTUS decision against the citizenry, doesn't mean you should. No one put a gun to CBP's head and told them they must use Martinez-Fuente to detain as many citizens as possible. They make decisions every day to ignore laws on the books, based on what PC BS is being floated by whichever administration in charge at the moment.
I'm guessing you missed the part where the agent tells him that the dog hit on the truck of the vehicle.
I still haven't seen any evidence to support the agent's utterance that the dog hit on the car. I broke it down pretty well on the 2nd page and no one has adequately refuted it yet. I'm allowing for the fact that CBP may have a video which reinforces their claim of course, but no one one here has seen it, yet quite a few are taking the dog hit as gospel.
I still haven't seen any evidence to support the agent's utterance that the dog hit on the car. I broke it down pretty well on the 2nd page and no one has adequately refuted it yet. I'm allowing for the fact that CBP may have a video which reinforces their claim of course, but no one one here has seen it, yet quite a few are taking the dog hit as gospel.
Two things - there is no need for them to show you the evidence - you have no standing in the case. :D They need to present the evidence in court.
Second, actual serious point, it is too bad that the actions of very few officers have eroded public confidence to the point that every action that officers take is viewed with distrust. Keep in mind that I thought the BP guy broke several officer safety rules and didn't try very hard to avoid using the minimal force that he did actually use - that doesn't mean that I automatically don't believe the dog alerted.
I've been involved in training cops for over 30 years, I'm hypercritical of the product we turn out, but even to my jaundiced eye, well over 90% of the officers I have a hand in training mean well.
Another case of a meth head with a wife on "disability, and Medicaid" that watched too many Youtube videos looking for another free paycheck.
Uh-Ohh, forgot about the marijuana in the car.
K9 hit, weed found, sorry guy no paycheck for you.
I appreciate your post, and agree with everything you said.
Especially the part about POTUS. If Ginsberg and especially the Conservatives can survive (literally and figuratively) and we somehow get an R into the WhiteHouse we could potentially remove the swing vote and have a majority for a very long time when Ginsberg retires. No way she's doing another 4-8 years.
Amen brother!
Another case of a meth head with a wife on "disability, and Medicaid" that watched too many Youtube videos looking for another free paycheck.
Uh-Ohh, forgot about the marijuana in the car.
K9 hit, weed found, sorry guy no paycheck for you.
Depending on how long he's down for, he might get some new teeth.
Whiskey_Bravo
03-22-15, 23:37
Resources well spent then........ We should have more inland border check points, it's the only way to be sure.
We should put them on every road, just to be extra sure. How about we start with Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.???
I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.
They are deported.
Also, how are they controlling? You'd be surprised to know that they actually do catch bad guys at checkpoints.
Hmmmm, Can I buy some of that ocean front property in Arizona?
Fu*@ it! We'll do it live! No more checkpoints! We're opening up the borders, lol.
I don't think anyone is talking about opening borders. Check points 100 miles inland that I have to deal with are the issue. I was born in Texas, I shouldn't have to stop at a checkpoint and answer a damn thing when driving from town to town.
Travel to the valley area for work(McAllen, Brownsville)......go through a damn check point. Travel to South Padre with the family for vacation....checkpoint. Bullshit. P
Permanent inland BP checkpoints
32338
SilverBullet432
03-22-15, 23:39
So what do you guys want done?
So what do you guys want done?
Is it not obvious that the BP need to get their efforts on the border to stop people from entering this country illegally, and stop pulling back from the border to hassle citizens of this nation?
Whiskey_Bravo
03-23-15, 01:56
So what do you guys want done?
Seriously? Maybe the border patrol should I don't know.... be on the border? Maybe we could better staff and patrol the border if we didn't have an ass load of "border" checkpoints 100 miles inland.
You don't have to see it, and neither do I. If I pass through a checkpoint and am told that a dog hit on my vehicle, and they want to search it, I can't do anything. They are then free to search my vehicle, but of course I will then have to contact a lawyer after the fact.
I am curious about one or two things though. And it may be moot because it's a car and it's a checkpoint.
Florida v. Jardines and then what seems to be contradictory to me in Florida v. Harris (which was heard by SCOTUS).
A bunch of comments in this thread are pointing out that while the citizen can be a dick but shouldn't be, can be turned back on the agent and CBP. Just because you can use a bad SCOTUS decision against the citizenry, doesn't mean you should. No one put a gun to CBP's head and told them they must use Martinez-Fuente to detain as many citizens as possible. They make decisions every day to ignore laws on the books, based on what PC BS is being floated by whichever administration in charge at the moment.
I still haven't seen any evidence to support the agent's utterance that the dog hit on the car. I broke it down pretty well on the 2nd page and no one has adequately refuted it yet. I'm allowing for the fact that CBP may have a video which reinforces their claim of course, but no one one here has seen it, yet quite a few are taking the dog hit as gospel.
Real simple. Proper enforcement of the law. I would be willing to bet that if I was to ask most Americans, they would say that they are Ok with these checkpoints if they actually saw tangible results elsewhere. If we didn't see the President as well as local cities instituting "sanctuary" and disregarding the law and allowing illegals to cash in on benefits when they shouldn't be eligible, you might find more cooperation.
So what do you guys want done?
Real simple. Proper enforcement of the law. I would be willing to bet that if I was to ask most Americans, they would say that they are Ok with these checkpoints if they actually saw tangible results elsewhere. If we didn't see the President as well as local cities instituting "sanctuary" and disregarding the law and allowing illegals to cash in on benefits when they shouldn't be eligible, you might find more cooperation.
+1, fire for effect.
Eurodriver
03-23-15, 06:58
If we didn't see the President as well as local cities instituting "sanctuary" and disregarding the law and allowing illegals to cash in on benefits when they shouldn't be eligible, you might find more cooperation.
Correct!
If there were zero illegal immigrants in the USA, and many of them had been deported and kept out as a result of these checkpoints I might actually smile as I roll through, hand the BP officers some cold water, and go about my business.
What is the ****ing point of having these checkpoints when EO after EO prevents more and more protected classes of illegals from being deported?
This is my take on it. All of us that live south of these checkpoints, are we now written off? Is the Fed Gov just going to let illegals fill up this area and call it good as long as they don't go north?
That is what it seems is going on. Because of this Texas has ramped up DPS, Rangers, and NG on the border to cover down on the weak sh$# that the Feds are doing.
Another reason that DPS has gunboats now.....:dance3:
SilverBullet432
03-23-15, 09:01
Is it not obvious that the BP need to get their efforts on the border to stop people from entering this country illegally, and stop pulling back from the border to hassle citizens of this nation?
Seriously? Maybe the border patrol should I don't know.... be on the border? Maybe we could better staff and patrol the border if we didn't have an ass load of "border" checkpoints 100 miles inland.
Real simple. Proper enforcement of the law. I would be willing to bet that if I was to ask most Americans, they would say that they are Ok with these checkpoints if they actually saw tangible results elsewhere. If we didn't see the President as well as local cities instituting "sanctuary" and disregarding the law and allowing illegals to cash in on benefits when they shouldn't be eligible, you might find more cooperation.
This is my take on it. All of us that live south of these checkpoints, are we now written off? Is the Fed Gov just going to let illegals fill up this area and call it good as long as they don't go north?
That is what it seems is going on. Because of this Texas has ramped up DPS, Rangers, and NG on the border to cover down on the weak sh$# that the Feds are doing.
Another reason that DPS has gunboats now.....:dance3:
Out of all the things said here, the last sentence is the one that hits the nail on the head. Texas has always been about border security, am Im so used to it, that maybe the BP crap doesnt bother me. I am not sure what BP does in other states (maybe jack off all day??) but here in Texas, I see them patrolling not just the border, but inside as well. On the frontera, i see an elevated DPS presence on the highway, which is a good thing. I am glad that TX has stepped up and is filling the void that the feds are leaving. I know CBP operates drones stationed in marfa, dps also deploys helicopters as well as the patrol boats.
I know all of you are pissed that anyone can just hop over here. It is a concern, trust me (coming from the son of immigrants) eveyone should wait their turn!
What concerns me is the safety. Alot of folks dont realize the very real danger they face out here. You can very easily get lost stumbling around big bend, the coyotes dont give a shit all they want is their money. Many of them abandon the group and I am willing to bet, they alert the very corrupt CBP guys they have on their payroll. Yes i said it. Corrupt officers. They exsist and contribute to the problem every day.
Bolt_Overide
03-23-15, 09:04
Just because one version of SCOTUS called it good doesn't make it right or them right. How long before I get stopped randomly about my business in town and have to show my papers?
Bolt_Overide,
Exactly,
Those willing to routinely stopped, demanded to know if they're citizens, etc. is NOT the way the U.S. used to be run.
One of the things my combat vet Dad was proud of was how we as citizens (unlike Europe in WW11) aren't required to have proof of I.D. if say you're out walking your dog or some other innocent exercise of freedom.
The principle of having to respond to any LEO who just whimsically decides to check you out for a potential crime is B.S.!
Yet, many now seem O.K. with it.
Wimps!
Colorado legalized MJ and it's not as if a ton of people just up and started toking and committing crimes all of the sudden.
In fact, we have seen a decrease in criminal activity since it passed.
You think the cartels are trying to bring a bunch of MJ to CO? The black market still exists yes, but it is not nearly as robust as it was when Mj was illegal.
Who would risk buying weed from some stranger/criminal whe. They can just go to a legal shop with controls in place?
Same thing would apply for all drugs.
End thread shift...
This is beyond true. I know a guy that used to grow marijuana and sell it because he was netting $20k a month doing that. He no longer does this because, according to him, there is no money in it. The "voters ****ed him and his business" so now he is doing a legit job. He is all for marijuana legalization, he just didn't want it to affect his cash cow. Drug dealers would be feeling this same. Remove the incentive, remove the associated crime.
It's easy and safe to harass an american citizen.
It's hard and dangerous to patrol the boarder and actually get into a gun battle with real bad guys.
You don't have to see it, and neither do I. If I pass through a checkpoint and am told that a dog hit on my vehicle, and they want to search it, I can't do anything. They are then free to search my vehicle, but of course I will then have to contact a lawyer after the fact.
I am curious about one or two things though. And it may be moot because it's a car and it's a checkpoint.
Florida v. Jardines and then what seems to be contradictory to me in Florida v. Harris (which was heard by SCOTUS).
The Jardines and Harris decisions are in direct contradiction of each other. The car is an extension of ones home.
The fact is that many conservatives confuse "law and order" conservatism with "collectivist authoritarianism." And freedom gets lost in the confusion!
4A is pretty clear and drug sniffing dogs, checkpoints et al are completely unconstitutional and illegal but the courts uphold them and LEO's "just following orders" enforce them in the name of "safety"; which is such a misplaced notions that we are safer when we water down rights and increase dangerous and illegal powers to people in positions of authority- instead of the reverse.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 14:18
One of these days someone is going to get a case to SCOTUS about drug dogs- and pretty much LEOs will lose them as a search tool. It seems that any double-blind test done with dogs in real world conditions fails. It lost likely won't happen until they develop some other tech to replace the dogs or drugs get legalized and the need (really the profits from seizures) goes away.
Why in the hell would an officer reach inside a car like that? Yep, the guy is a prick, but he doesn't actually have to answer about where he was and where he's going correct? Aside from having a dash-cam, he doesn't seem like he is trolling for trouble. I don't understand CBP. They seems totally pskyzto- is it a management labor thing? It seems the management is all about not securing the border and you get officers getting in trouble for pointing out the lack of control of the border. At the same time you seem to have officers that take stuff way out of hand.
Man, his wife has some guns on her...
This is beyond true. I know a guy that used to grow marijuana and sell it because he was netting $20k a month doing that. He no longer does this because, according to him, there is no money in it. The "voters ****ed him and his business" so now he is doing a legit job. He is all for marijuana legalization, he just didn't want it to affect his cash cow. Drug dealers would be feeling this same. Remove the incentive, remove the associated crime.
I'm not so sure that crime is down in CO since legalization. Granted, this article comes from the HuffPo which can certainly lower your IQ more than a joint, but I found it interesting because it seems to draw into question stats put forth by the media and legalization supporters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-a-sabet-phd/crime-is-up-in-colorado-w_b_5663046.html
The Denver Police statistics show that summing across all crime types -- about 35 in all -- the crime rate is up almost 7 percent compared with the same period last year. Interestingly, crimes such as public drunkenness are up 237 percent, and drug violations are up 20 percent.
So why are advocates claiming a crime drop? Easy: They blended part of the FBI data with part of the DPD/NIBRS data to cook up numbers they wished to see. When one picks the Part I data from UCR and uses DPD/NIBRS property-crime numbers only while studiously avoiding the DPD/NIBRS data on all other crimes, one can indeed manufacture the appearance of a decline. As one can see here, even when using the FBI UCR numbers -- in their entirety -- crime has risen.
It seems that legalization has also not stopped the black market.
Personally, I don't really care if people toke in the privacy of their home. I just thought that this article was interesting because it challenges some of the assumptions that we have about drug legalization.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 14:44
I'm guessing you missed the part where the agent tells him that the dog hit on the truck of the vehicle.
The first mention I hear about the dog alerting is at 4:33 when the agent is talking to the wife- a long time after the guy gets snippy, the agent tells him to pull over to the side, agent reaches in the car and they cuff and stuff him. If the dog ahd alerted, why didn't the interviewing agent say "The dog has alerted, I need you to pull over here." If I were going thru there and some agent told me to pull to the side (or basically anything other than 'proceed') with out any rationale, I'd pitch a bitch too.
Have fun arresting his kid in 15 years.
There has to be security footage from the station to clear things up.
You got a lot of weed in the car and you are going to get snitty with the CBP?
I don't believe the car is an extension of ones home, is an across the board thing. I believe that is up to the states.
The Jardines and Harris decisions are in direct contradiction of each other. The car is an extension of ones home.
The fact is that many conservatives confuse "law and order" conservatism with "collectivist authoritarianism." And freedom gets lost in the confusion!
4A is pretty clear and drug sniffing dogs, checkpoints et al are completely unconstitutional and illegal but the courts uphold them and LEO's "just following orders" enforce them in the name of "safety"; which is such a misplaced notions that we are safer when we water down rights and increase dangerous and illegal powers to people in positions of authority- instead of the reverse.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-15, 14:50
I'm not so sure that crime is down in CO since legalization. Granted, this article comes from the HuffPo which can certainly lower your IQ more than a joint, but I found it interesting because it seems to draw into question stats put forth by the media and legalization supporters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-a-sabet-phd/crime-is-up-in-colorado-w_b_5663046.html
It seems that legalization has also not stopped the black market.
Personally, I don't really care if people toke in the privacy of their home. I just thought that this article was interesting because it challenges some of the assumptions that we have about drug legalization.
All I can say is that maybe it is the economy actually finally getting better, but it seems since pot got legal and even more illegals came driving around Denver has gotten silly-stupid and by that I mean slow. Throw in people on there phones or reading texts and I feel like I'm the only actually driving correctly. My son thinks I'm a psychic because I tell him what drivers are going to do before they do it - people just aren't paying attention.
I also seem to see more homeless/street people than before, in areas that I haven't seen them around. All I can say is that home robberies during the day seem to be way up in our neighborhood.
All I can say is that maybe it is the economy actually finally getting better, but it seems since pot got legal and even more illegals came driving around Denver has gotten silly-stupid and by that I mean slow. Throw in people on there phones or reading texts and I feel like I'm the only actually driving correctly. My son thinks I'm a psychic because I tell him what drivers are going to do before they do it - people just aren't paying attention.
I also seem to see more homeless/street people than before, in areas that I haven't seen them around. All I can say is that home robberies during the day seem to be way up in our neighborhood.
Hope and change for sure...
The issue isn't this guy being a dick. Or looking less like an appropriately attired, approved and acceptably groomed citizen.
Perhaps, if he was pulled over for speeding, or going through a stop sign or whatever and he'd then (maybe) say, "yes, I know why you stopped me. I was speeding" or admit he ran a stop sign, but to just harass him when he actually was simply driving as an American citizen he shouldn't be stopped at checkpoints and answer questions like: "Are you a citizen". This situation is damned Orwellian...
And, no I'm not a sovereign citizen, (whatever that is) I'm simply a citizen who believes that unless I've done something wrong, I don't have to prove anything at checkpoints akin to eastern European checkpoints as in some petty official demanding: Give me your Passport, what is your business in our country, where are you going, blah, blah, blah...damn people, we live in America, not Russia, not Lithuania, Moldavia, etc. or do we...? Mr. Officialdom, it's none of your damn business where I'm going or doing unless you've some reasonable excuse to stop me.
And you that have no problem with this, you've been brainwashed.
Inland Border Patrol checkpoints are the kind of thing the communists/socialists masses were trying to escape by immigrating here. Some of these folks are friends of mine.
They wanted freedom. That's why they came here. To escape this kind of tyranny.
And yet, some of you are perfectly happy to accommodate this type treatment of innocent citizens going about their everyday business.
When some don't look acceptable to the dress standards of joe schmoe or even act rightfully pissed when they've done nothing wrong, those with power think they can treat you as if you were some gulag prisoner. Then the meek band together on the side of officialdom and say things like "well, he should've acted nicer when he was being mistreated"...(and looked more like me, none threatening, meek and mild)
If I'm simply going about my business as a U.S. citizen (ex-vet too) and some petty badge wearer decides he going to question my citizenship and demand an explanation as to why I'm freely going about my lawful business, I will invoke the fifth and have a lawyer present before I speak another work.
Will this mess up my day?
Undoubtedly, but we all have to start standing up for our freedom or simply keep our eyes down to the ground and say: Yes Sir, whatever you say sir, cuz I'm just a worm!
The issue isn't this guy being a dick. Or looking less like an appropriately attired, approved and acceptably groomed citizen.
Perhaps, if he was pulled over for speeding, or going through a stop sign or whatever and he'd then (maybe) say, "yes, I know why you stopped me. I was speeding" or admit he ran a stop sign, but to just harass him when he actually was simply driving as an American citizen he shouldn't be stopped at checkpoints and answer questions like: "Are you a citizen". This situation is damned Orwellian...
And, no I'm not a sovereign citizen, (whatever that is) I'm simply a citizen who believes that unless I've done something wrong, I don't have to prove anything at checkpoints akin to eastern European checkpoints as in some petty official demanding: Give me your Passport, what is your business in our country, where are you going, blah, blah, blah...damn people, we live in America, not Russia, not Lithuania, Moldavia, etc. or do we...? Mr. Officialdom, it's none of your damn business where I'm going or doing unless you've some reasonable excuse to stop me.
And you that have no problem with this, you've been brainwashed.
Inland Border Patrol checkpoints are the kind of thing the communists/socialists masses were trying to escape by immigrating here. Some of these folks are friends of mine.
They wanted freedom. That's why they came here. To escape this kind of tyranny.
And yet, some of you are perfectly happy to accommodate this type treatment of innocent citizens going about their everyday business.
When some don't look acceptable to the dress standards of joe schmoe or even act rightfully pissed when they've done nothing wrong, those with power think they can treat you as if you were some gulag prisoner. Then the meek band together on the side of officialdom and say things like "well, he should've acted nicer when he was being mistreated"...(and looked more like me, none threatening, meek and mild)
If I'm simply going about my business as a U.S. citizen (ex-vet too) and some petty badge wearer decides he going to question my citizenship and demand an explanation as to why I'm freely going about my lawful business, I will invoke the fifth and have a lawyer present before I speak another work.
Will this mess up my day?
Undoubtedly, but we all have to start standing up for our freedom or simply keep our eyes down to the ground and say: Yes Sir, whatever you say sir, cuz I'm just a worm!
Awesome post Abraham! Also, as I alluded to earlier and others have, much (too much) faith is being put in SCOTUS' hands; sure, it's deemed "legal" but that doesn't make it either truly Constitutional or right. I reference Dredd Scott and Kelo to prove my point. They are human, they are not infallible. Someone a page or so back also mentioned that conservatives often cross into authoritarianism when going for "law and order".
ramairthree
03-23-15, 16:37
Yes, the left and the right will take it to an authoritative boot on your neck for different reasons, but is still a boot on your neck.
People also love being in charge of others and telling them what to do, making them act, think, etc. in the correct way.
So both systemic and individual tendencies to get out of hand.
Another article I read said a small amount of Marijuana was found in the car.
Maybe I missed it but is this all everyone's going on for the whole weed thing? Any verifiable proof, facts or is everyone just going on conjecture?
Two things - there is no need for them to show you the evidence - you have no standing in the case. :D They need to present the evidence in court.
Second, actual serious point, it is too bad that the actions of very few officers have eroded public confidence to the point that every action that officers take is viewed with distrust. Keep in mind that I thought the BP guy broke several officer safety rules and didn't try very hard to avoid using the minimal force that he did actually use - that doesn't mean that I automatically don't believe the dog alerted.
I've been involved in training cops for over 30 years, I'm hypercritical of the product we turn out, but even to my jaundiced eye, well over 90% of the officers I have a hand in training mean well.
You're right, they don't need to show any of us evidence in a criminal case. I merely pointed out that some on here were taking the alert as gospel, while there is no evidence to show the dog ever alerted on the trunk prior to the agent saying it did.
I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.
I was merely adding my sarcasm to yours. :)
So what do you guys want done?
Reinforce the actual border with these guys and stop the inland checkpoints.
You don't have to see it, and neither do I. If I pass through a checkpoint and am told that a dog hit on my vehicle, and they want to search it, I can't do anything. They are then free to search my vehicle, but of course I will then have to contact a lawyer after the fact.
I am curious about one or two things though. And it may be moot because it's a car and it's a checkpoint.
Florida v. Jardines and then what seems to be contradictory to me in Florida v. Harris (which was heard by SCOTUS).
Agreed. All you can do is fight it in court. My point was simply how many here take "my dog alerted" as gospel.
Maybe I missed it but is this all everyone's going on for the whole weed thing? Any verifiable proof, facts or is everyone just going on conjecture?
Lot's of speculation and following the .gov party line. There's room to agree that CBP may have the evidence to back up their claim. We just don't see it in the video.
So I missed the part of the, way too long, video where the dog alert was mentioned.
Regardless, what is the checkpoint for? Drugs? Illegal immigrants? Polygamists?
Or, is it just a checkpoint where no matter what you might be doing they'll catch you? They certainly aren't deporting anyone, so it looks like a fishing expedition to arrest some poor schmuck with a spliff in the trunk who probably has a hard time keeping his woman in food, let alone the kid(s).
There are far too many federal LE agencies, with overlapping powers of arrest, burning through my tax dollars like its their job.
BATFE - CBP - FBI - DHS - TSA - SS - Treasury - What else? I'm sure I missed at least three.
".....particularly describing" in the 4th Amendment has been largely discarded. It would negate fishing expeditions. Being searched for drugs, but no drugs are found......HOWEVER, that Class III item you don't have paperwork for and you're busted. I am neither condoning drug use or illegal weapon possession but I think the point is clear: a warrant has to be SPECIFIC (particularly describing) in what it's looking for. No type of "whatever we find" allowed.
Oh BTW, I don't give a rat's ass what SCOTUS thinks about it. The 4th Amendment is pretty specific in what it says.
MountainRaven
03-23-15, 21:30
There are lots of things that the Constitution is pretty specific about.
I don't see anybody lining up to engage in civil disobedience to push the point.
There are lots of things that the Constitution is pretty specific about.
I don't see anybody lining up to engage in civil disobedience to push the point.
Most of us are too busy making a living to burn down our neighborhoods.
MountainRaven
03-23-15, 22:43
Most of us are too busy making a living to burn down our neighborhoods.
MLK Jr burned down neighborhoods? I must have missed that part in my history books.
Lot's of speculation and following the .gov party line. There's room to agree that CBP may have the evidence to back up their claim. We just don't see it in the video.
Let's not bother with facts. Insults, innuendos and speculation is all appropriate when the person isn't wearing a badge.
If it were an article about an officer then everyone would be jumping up and down about waiting for the facts.
I think this Border Patrol news (http://www.kvia.com/news/el-paso-border-patrol-agent-arrested-for-alleged-sexual-assault-of-a-child/31700120) is far more interesting.
El Paso Police arrested a U.S. Border Patrol agent assigned to the El Paso sector on Friday, March 6 for alleged sexual assault of a child.
Customs and Border Protection officials confirmed the arrested Border Patrol agent's name is Luis Angel Lozada. Lozada started working for the Border Patrol in January 2009 and is assigned to the Ysleta Station. He is currently on administrative leave pending review...
MLK Jr burned down neighborhoods? I must have missed that part in my history books.
MLK died almost fifty years ago. Flip ahead to the chapters titled "Can't We All Just Get Along, We Are the 99%, and Black Lives Matter."
SilverBullet432
03-24-15, 15:38
Meanwhile, CBP actually doing their job:
Presidio Border Patrol Agents Seize $453,000 in Marijuana
http://www.newswest9.com/story/28603507/presidio-border-patrol-agents-seize-453000-in-marijuana
And a tragic/rescue mission:
Undocumented Alien Found Dead, Another Rescued in Big Bend Sector
http://www.newswest9.com/story/28603102/undocumented-alien-found-dead-another-rescued-in-big-bend-sector
Let's not bother with facts. Insults, innuendos and speculation is all appropriate when the person isn't wearing a badge.
So you're suggesting interpretation of the 4th amendment is dependent on whether or not one is wearing a badge? It is rather obvious everyone here is commenting on the video presented that probably doesn't contain all of the facts.
Facts don't change the tax dollars being spent on duplicate federal LE agencies and the retirement obligations, healthcare etc....for life.
Border patrol should be patrolling the border, not working checkpoints 100 miles North of the border. This is very simply, poorly managed use of what we are told are "scarce" resources unable to keep the borders secure.
You went through sierra blanca. They caught a guy with a load of dope there last week.
So you're suggesting interpretation of the 4th amendment is dependent on whether or not one is wearing a badge? It is rather obvious everyone here is commenting on the video presented that probably doesn't contain all of the facts.
Facts don't change the tax dollars being spent on duplicate federal LE agencies and the retirement obligations, healthcare etc....for life.
Border patrol should be patrolling the border, not working checkpoints 100 miles North of the border. This is very simply, poorly managed use of what we are told are "scarce" resources unable to keep the borders secure.
Nope. I was referring to anytime a scandalous news report about an LEO pops up here that LE on this site scream to wait for the facts! Yet some of those same officers don't offer this guy the same privilege.
I agree with the rest of your statement. As an American citizen I don't feel compelled to stop inside the borders of my own country to state that I'm a citizen. It's all security theater and I ain't buying.
MountainRaven
03-24-15, 21:17
MLK died almost fifty years ago. Flip ahead to the chapters titled "Can't We All Just Get Along, We Are the 99%, and Black Lives Matter."
So then you're saying that you'd pick their form of civil disobedience over that of MLK?
SeriousStudent
03-24-15, 21:32
......
Undocumented Alien Found Dead, Another Rescued in Big Bend Sector
http://www.newswest9.com/story/28603102/undocumented-alien-found-dead-another-rescued-in-big-bend-sector
I grew up not far from where that body was found. If you are not careful there, it is very easy for the desert to kill you.
SilverBullet432
03-24-15, 22:09
I grew up not far from where that body was found. If you are not careful there, it is very easy for the desert to kill you.
O yea, my buddies ranch is south of van horn. We go mulie hunting every year. Dangerous place. Plenty of BP out there BTW.
Nope. I was referring to anytime a scandalous news report about an LEO pops up here that LE on this site scream to wait for the facts! Yet some of those same officers don't offer this guy the same privilege.
I agree with the rest of your statement. As an American citizen I don't feel compelled to stop inside the borders of my own country to state that I'm a citizen. It's all security theater and I ain't buying.
Completely mis-understood your original post. Thanks for clarifying.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-25-15, 16:59
So I missed the part of the, way too long, video where the dog alert was mentioned.
It is at 4:30 when the BP is driving the car to the side. Maybe there was a comment earlier, there is a bit of cross talk right before the guy gets pulled from his car, but I think you see the dog coming around at that point, so I don't know if it had alerted and was searching again.
If I were the guy, I'd fight the charge in court and say the BP planted the weed to justify the dog alerting.
If you have a lot of weed in your trunk, do you get snippy with the BP?
I'm not a pot head, but why would you drive around with a small bag of weed in your trunk? Isn't that bad for your weed? I know it's bad for cigars.
End your summation by quoting the guys son, "Bad man, bad man."
It is at 4:30 when the BP is driving the car to the side. Maybe there was a comment earlier, there is a bit of cross talk right before the guy gets pulled from his car, but I think you see the dog coming around at that point, so I don't know if it had alerted and was searching again.
If I were the guy, I'd fight the charge in court and say the BP planted the weed to justify the dog alerting.
If you have a lot of weed in your trunk, do you get snippy with the BP?
I'm not a pot head, but why would you drive around with a small bag of weed in your trunk? Isn't that bad for your weed? I know it's bad for cigars.
End your summation by quoting the guys son, "Bad man, bad man."
IIRC, the dog allegedly alerted on the trunk, but the small amount of weed was under his seat?
IIRC, the dog allegedly alerted on the trunk, but the small amount of weed was under his seat?
It is of my opinion; with what I can make out from the video and audio we have available- that the dog "alerting" was nothing more than a reaction to the scuffle between the BP agent and the dude in the car.
Dogs alerting has been proven to be less than accurate at best. Especially when one considers other factors that could provoke a "false alert" such as action towards aggression or a scuffle by people's nearby. Even reacting to the high emotions/energy of the situation, seeing as most people are tense as hell (guilty or not, something to hide or not) when LEO's and drug dogs are on scene.
It is of my opinion; with what I can make out from the video and audio we have available- that the dog "alerting" was nothing more than a reaction to the scuffle between the BP agent and the dude in the car.
Dogs alerting has been proven to be less than accurate at best. Especially when one considers other factors that could provoke a "false alert" such as action towards aggression or a scuffle by people's nearby. Even reacting to the high emotions/energy of the situation, seeing as most people are tense as hell (guilty or not, something to hide or not) when LEO's and drug dogs are on scene.
This has zero to do with a dog alerting. A dogs alert to narcotics is either sit, down, or scratching. Someone emotions/energy have zero to do with a dog alerting. It also has not been proven to be less than accurate.
...........................
...........................
El Vaquero
03-25-15, 19:33
IIRC, the dog allegedly alerted on the trunk, but the small amount of weed was under his seat?
It is of my opinion; with what I can make out from the video and audio we have available- that the dog "alerting" was nothing more than a reaction to the scuffle between the BP agent and the dude in the car.
Dogs alerting has been proven to be less than accurate at best. Especially when one considers other factors that could provoke a "false alert" such as action towards aggression or a scuffle by people's nearby. Even reacting to the high emotions/energy of the situation, seeing as most people are tense as hell (guilty or not, something to hide or not) when LEO's and drug dogs are on scene.
If a person recently handled marijuana, smoked a joint, pipe etc, then recently touched the trunk area then the canine will most likely alert to the trunk area via transfer.
And regards to the "false alert," is this something you learned as a trained canine handler, personal experience, or what you read on the internet? Or have you recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express?
This has zero to do with a dog alerting. A dogs alert to narcotics is either sit, down, or scratching. Someone emotions/energy have zero to do with a dog alerting. It also has not been proven to be less than accurate.
Can you back up those claims?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/how-even-a-well-trained-narcotics-detect
http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-questions-reliability-police-dogs
I'd like to see more data on false alerts in the real world. Wouldn't you? Before making statements that they aren't inaccurate; as many studies and sifting through real world data suggets?
I mean, let's see the facts before the verdict is in right, like we do when LEO's are implicated in any unsavory activity?
If a person recently handled marijuana, smoked a joint, pipe etc, then recently touched the trunk area then the canine will most likely alert to the trunk area via transfer.
And regards to the "false alert," is this something you learned as a trained canine handler, personal experience, or what you read on the internet? Or have you recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express?
Personal experience. I was falsely alerted on during a road trip to SXSW to play a show when I used to be a musician.
Was going 7 over the limit and pulled over, told the HP where I was going and why. K-9 unit shows up minutes later.
No drugs, nothing, dog alerts- had to sit on the side of the road while my car was searched for hours.
Ended up making my first gig by minutes, and only because a very friendly Austin Sheriff let me park illegally after hearing my story and empathazing.
Didn't stay at a holiday inn, stayed at a much nicer hotel.
And I can also read, like reading reports of false alerts from drug sniffing dogs such as those posted here already.
Also, I was unaware drug sniffing dogs sniff for "burned" contraband. I was under the impression. It was for drugs, not the remnants of smoked MJ- can someone with better knowledge of this advise please?
This has zero to do with a dog alerting. A dogs alert to narcotics is either sit, down, or scratching. Someone emotions/energy have zero to do with a dog alerting. It also has not been proven to be less than accurate.
Which I pointed out the dog in the video did none of. I've repeatedly stated that it's possible CBP has their own video which may show the dog alerting. However, the video the OP posted doesn't, yet we've had quite a few posters acting like it must have happened and the agent stating it happened means it happened, period. :rolleyes:
El Vaquero
03-25-15, 21:18
Personal experience. I was falsely alerted on during a road trip to SXSW to play a show when I used to be a musician.
Was going 7 over the limit and pulled over, told the HP where I was going and why. K-9 unit shows up minutes later.
No drugs, nothing, dog alerts- had to sit on the side of the road while my car was searched for hours.
Ended up making my first gig by minutes, and only because a very friendly Austin Sheriff let me park illegally after hearing my story and empathazing.
Didn't stay at a holiday inn, stayed at a much nicer hotel.
And I can also read, you know like reading reports of false alerts from drug sniffing dogs such as those posted here already...
Also, I was unaware drug sniffing dogs sniff for "burned" contraband. I was under the impression. It was for drugs, not the remnants of smoked MJ- can someone with better knowledge of this advise please?
I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience with a false alert. Glad you were able to make it your gig. I've had family members I know for a fact we're not drug runners and were stopped and searched after an officer "smelled" contraband. Also happened in Texas. Can be frustrating and is troubling.
Most dogs are trained to alert to burnt marijuana. They generally alert to the presence of contraband, be it in solid form or remnants. Now whether marijuana is a "drug," is up for debate, lol. There are a few here with better knowledge, maybe they will chime in.
Can you back up those claims?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/how-even-a-well-trained-narcotics-detect
http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-questions-reliability-police-dogs
I'd like to see more data on false alerts in the real world. Wouldn't you? Before making statements that they aren't inaccurate; as many studies and sifting through real world data suggets?
I mean, let's see the facts before the verdict is in right, like we do when LEO's are implicated in any unsavory activity?
You might want to contact the Supreme Court, because they have ruled that dogs are good to go.
Dogs indicate on odor, not the physical presence, or lack of. If someone smokes weed, or has had coke etc. in the vehicle that odor gets in the seats, headliner etc. The dog smells the odor of said illegal substance. Are they 100%, of course not but they are extremely good.
Also when was the last time npr had anything positive about law enforcement, if you put trust into anything npr says about law enforcement you must be a left winger.
DreadPirateMoyer
03-25-15, 22:32
You might want to contact the Supreme Court, because they have ruled that dogs are good to go.
Dogs indicate on odor, not the physical presence, or lack of. If someone smokes weed, or has had coke etc. in the vehicle that odor gets in the seats, headliner etc. The dog smells the odor of said illegal substance. Are they 100%, of course not but they are extremely good.
Also when was the last time npr had anything positive about law enforcement, if you put trust into anything npr says about law enforcement you must be a left winger.
SCOTUS also said Obamacare was not a tax but was a tax, and that not growing crops is interstate commerce. They also got it wrong on dogs.
And no, they're not 100%. They're barely 50%. Dog searches on cars and many other LE uses are a joke. A coin flip would be just as good: http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/06/a-drug-sniffing-coin-would-be
There are many well-performed, scientific studies showing that when used by LE for LE purposes, dogs are influenced just as much by their handler as odors. Dogs for drugs are absolute hogwash.
What's your expiereance? Mine is 18 years on the street with 8 as a K9 handler. You don't know what these dogs can do.
This is why I try not to post in these LEO threads. People without actual expiereance that have an opinion based off of the Internet. That are so set in their opinions on law enforcement , that no matter what someone with expieareance tries to get across, the people with the expieareance are wrong.
Ohh well let the experts carry on.
You might want to contact the Supreme Court, because they have ruled that dogs are good to go.
Dogs indicate on odor, not the physical presence, or lack of. If someone smokes weed, or has had coke etc. in the vehicle that odor gets in the seats, headliner etc. The dog smells the odor of said illegal substance. Are they 100%, of course not but they are extremely good.
Also when was the last time npr had anything positive about law enforcement, if you put trust into anything npr says about law enforcement you must be a left winger.
Yep, you got me- I'm a "left winger. For ****s sake man. NPR can be whatever it wants, I'm not the biggest fan by any means- I get my info from every source and decide I my own- no echo chamber for me.
How about you refute the state on real world false alerts? Please.
Show me they drug dogs are "extremely good" with facts that back up your assertion- back up your claims.
There is plenty of studies showing that drug dogs are not as "extremely good" as we are lead to believe.
Do you really take SCOTUS decisions as gold? Infalible? I would think that through a little more if I were you; eminent domain, ACA, turning 2A rights into permissions, etc. can we be honest here?
Read through my entire post history on this site and try to posit that I am a "left winger". I am freighteningly consistent in my libertarian views and 100% FOR the constitution and its intent; even when it might not be "safe" or conform to SCOTUS' warped view of reality so many take the bait on.
Tell me again how an waranteless search is 4A kosher without a rogue power corrupt court opining as such.
Please articulate how the writers of our founding document would allow such brazen hypocrisy as "right".
It is sad how many have fooled themselves into believing that something is "right" and okY just because they have been given the order to do so by those in authoritative positions.
If you really believe warrantless searches of any kind are okay because SCOTUS says so; would you have much of a problem restrictions g any other right just because they said so?
What if they rule that ammo is not part of our right to bear arms, would you jump on board an enforce those laws as well?
You may not see the connection, but limiting 4A due to drug sniffing dogs, BP checkpoints 100 miles inland, et al- is about as relevant and logical as limiting ammo due to it not being specifically written as lRt of 2A right.
Please enlighten me on how a search of any kind without a warrant is in line with the constitution or its intent. I'm dying to hear more real answers from individuals that carry out these actions and less hiding behind SCOTUS BS decisions when it comes to a sacred oath and right being pissed into the wind.
What's your expiereance? Mine is 18 years on the street with 8 as a K9 handler. You don't know what these dogs can do.
This is why I try not to post in these LEO threads. People without actual expiereance that have an opinion based off of the Internet. That are so set in their opinions on law enforcement , that no matter what someone with expieareance tries to get across, the people with the expieareance are wrong.
Ohh well let the experts carry on.
Please elaborate and show some statistics then. No reason to get defensive, just debate your point with stats showing what is or is not wrong.
Show me the statistics of your departments drug dogs alerting being negative or positive for actually finding what they alerted for.
I take my rights seriously, and someone saying "I know from experience" doesn't just magically make me feel okay with what Many including myself perceive to be in violation of these rights.
So help those of us that are ignorant out and educate us with some real world facts that can be backed up.
Use your expertise and experience to show me I am wrong. Please.
When people says "false alerts" where no drugs where located.
Again the K9 searches and indicates on odor. If someone smoked weed or transported narcotics a day, a week, etc before the stop was made the odor is still there, the physical dope might be long gone but the K9 will still indicate.
So when someone says false alerts at 50% because no physical drugs were located doesn't ring true.
The dogs indication was still correct.
Once again people that question LE on a certain aspect should contact their local department and ask to talk.
If anyone is in the Jacksonville Florida area has an open invitation. I'll sit down face to face and discuss K9 , and then demonstrate what a K9 can do, and what it can't.
Any survey, article, tv show whatever can be set up to provide whatever agenda they want it to be, yes that goes both ways as far as supporting LE, or trying to discredit LE.
IIRC, the dog allegedly alerted on the trunk, but the small amount of weed was under his seat?
Again, and I'm not trying to be a prick, where is there any mention of weed? Is this a fact or are we just going off of somebody's post still?
A K-9 handler can get his dog to alert. He can also just as easily lie and say the dog alerted. Nearly 90% of U.S. dollars have been contaminated with cocaine residue so getting a hit ain't too ****in' hard either.
When people says "false alerts" where no drugs where located.
Again the K9 searches and indicates on odor. If someone smoked weed or transported narcotics a day, a week, etc before the stop was made the odor is still there, the physical dope might be long gone but the K9 will still indicate.
So when someone says false alerts at 50% because no physical drugs were located doesn't ring true.
The dogs indication was still correct.
Once again people that question LE on a certain aspect should contact their local department and ask to talk.
If anyone is in the Jacksonville Florida area has an open invitation. I'll sit down face to face and discuss K9 , and then demonstrate what a K9 can do, and what it can't.
Any survey, article, tv show whatever can be set up to provide whatever agenda they want it to be, yes that goes both ways as far as supporting LE, or trying to discredit LE.
Now we are getting somewhere. This is an understandable reply, and a good perspective to mull over- thank you.
Now let's get into the guts of it.
Let's really think about it- even if a drug sniffing dog is correct 100% of the time; how does one negate the constitutional right that states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A dogs nose and ability to sniff drugs should not negate this well thought out and important right.
Please articulate a counter long as to why a "sniff is up to snuff" beats out the fundamental inalienable rights of our country?
I just can't make a reasonable leap from what 4A states to allowing literal warantless searches based I a dogs ability to smell stuff good.
If the intent and meaning of the constitution is that weak and our rights so easily exhausted- God save us all.
Please explain your personal reasoning as to why you can conduct a warantless search- and at the same time upholding your path to the constitution.
SCOTUS be damned. I want individual reasoning.
A K9 is a tool for law enforcement . Just like a gun, baton, or taser. That tool can be used appropriately or inappropriately.
It's up to the individual behind the tool. If the handler properly trains with the K9, and has personal integrity without a doubt a K9 is an invaluable tool that can be used to locate illegal drugs, and lead to large narcotics cases.
That is fact.
I've never made my K9 indicated, I've never lied, I run my K9 exactly like I was trained. 3 times around the vehicle, if the dog indicates, I' m searching, wheather you like it or not, disagree, doesn't matter because it's been established by the Supreme Court. If the dog doesn't indicate after the third pass, I say no go.
It is what it is. I have integrity, I trust my dog through expiereance, and training, and I follow the law as it stands.
My post wasn't directed towards you and I wasn't questioning your integrity.
I wouldn't put a vehicle in the same class as a home. Vehicles are used to transport large quantities of illegal drugs.Vehicles are on public roads. Not private property. As a K9 handler I can run my dog around a vehicle as long as it's on public property, or public roadway. I can not run the dog around a vehicle that is parked on private property.
People can use, or view the Constitution in very different ways.
Some people say that the 2nd Amendment is to be taken not as an individual's right to arms. Because it says "for a well regulated militia" meaning that the States have a right for a "National Guard", but an individual does not per the Amendment .
If the Supreme Court would reverse its self someday on the use of K9's and warrantless searches then I'll abide by that.
No worries, I didn't take it as it was.
I wouldn't put a vehicle in the same class as a home. Vehicles are used to transport large quantities of illegal drugs.Vehicles are on public roads. Not private property. As a K9 handler I can run my dog around a vehicle as long as it's on public property, or public roadway. I can not run the dog around a vehicle that is parked on private property.
People can use, or view the Constitution in very different ways.
Some people say that the 2nd Amendment is to be taken not as an individual's right to arms. Because it says "for a well regulated militia" meaning that the States have a right for a "National Guard", but an individual does not per the Amendment .
If the Supreme Court would reverse its self someday on the use of K9's and warrantless searches then I'll abide by that.
So the let me ask- if SCOTUS decides tomorrow that 2A rights are not individual, would you then abide by that ruling and follow orders to confiscate firearms from the citizenry?
If it decides any right protected under the constitution moot, would you then enforce the laws that run against the constitution?
"Because SCOTUS says so" isn't too far off from "just following orders".
We have a bill of rights for a reason, it is resolute (supposed to be anyways), we both know what "well regulated militia" meant at the time of the documents inception and simply going along with SCOTUS is not an excuse for trampling the rights so many died to give us.
A warrantles search is just that; all the legal ease, dog noses and BS aside.
Just how anyone convinces themselves it is constitutional when it literally runs counter to what is established in the constitution is beyond lunacy to me and quite troubling.
Averageman
03-26-15, 08:22
There is one of these checkpoints east of El Paso out on Hwy 10.
I don't see at this point how it does much good, but I could be wrong. It's been there the last 20 years that I know of, so I'm pretty sure the folks moving dope and illegal aliens know it is there.
The only people that seem to be unaware are the Californians who end up throwing their weed out of the window when they realize this thing is about a mile away.
Whiskey_Bravo
03-26-15, 08:31
There is one of these checkpoints east of El Paso out on Hwy 10.
I don't see at this point how it does much good, but I could be wrong. It's been there the last 20 years that I know of, so I'm pretty sure the folks moving dope and illegal aliens know it is there.
The only people that seem to be unaware are the Californians who end up throwing their weed out of the window when they realize this thing is about a mile away.
Pretty much the same for the one on 77 about an hour or so north of South Padre/Harlingen in Texas. Been there for a long time and the only people that don't know it's there are the dumb as spring breakers that fail to pay attention as they pass it going south.
Averageman
03-26-15, 10:47
Pretty much the same for the one on 77 about an hour or so north of South Padre/Harlingen in Texas. Been there for a long time and the only people that don't know it's there are the dumb as spring breakers that fail to pay attention as they pass it going south.
Imagine what you might find walking the shoulder of that road?
What's your expiereance? Mine is 18 years on the street with 8 as a K9 handler. You don't know what these dogs can do.
This is why I try not to post in these LEO threads. People without actual expiereance that have an opinion based off of the Internet. That are so set in their opinions on law enforcement , that no matter what someone with expieareance tries to get across, the people with the expieareance are wrong.
Ohh well let the experts carry on.
Some might also say that it's possible you have a bias towards trust in the K9 system, specifically because 8 years of your work product is dependent upon that trust. Before you get your knickers in a twist, I'm absolutely not accusing you of any misconduct or lack of integrity. I'm merely saying your absolute trust in these K9's is a direct product of your training and you're not seeing it from any other perspective. In other words, you may not see the forest for the trees.
When people says "false alerts" where no drugs where located.
Again the K9 searches and indicates on odor. If someone smoked weed or transported narcotics a day, a week, etc before the stop was made the odor is still there, the physical dope might be long gone but the K9 will still indicate.
So when someone says false alerts at 50% because no physical drugs were located doesn't ring true.
The dogs indication was still correct.
Once again people that question LE on a certain aspect should contact their local department and ask to talk.
If anyone is in the Jacksonville Florida area has an open invitation. I'll sit down face to face and discuss K9 , and then demonstrate what a K9 can do, and what it can't.
Any survey, article, tv show whatever can be set up to provide whatever agenda they want it to be, yes that goes both ways as far as supporting LE, or trying to discredit LE.
Before you try to refute my position, know that I've had 10 years working in close coordination with EDCH teams trained out of Lackland. I'm basing my valid points on knowledge of the training and annual qualification reports of those dogs.
Again, and I'm not trying to be a prick, where is there any mention of weed? Is this a fact or are we just going off of somebody's post still?
A K-9 handler can get his dog to alert. He can also just as easily lie and say the dog alerted. Nearly 90% of U.S. dollars have been contaminated with cocaine residue so getting a hit ain't too ****in' hard either.
I don't have time at the moment to go back and verify this. I'm going off an undoubtedly fallible memory on that point. If someone does and can correct any misinformation, it would be appreciated.
A K9 is a tool for law enforcement . Just like a gun, baton, or taser. That tool can be used appropriately or inappropriately.
It's up to the individual behind the tool. If the handler properly trains with the K9, and has personal integrity without a doubt a K9 is an invaluable tool that can be used to locate illegal drugs, and lead to large narcotics cases.
That is fact.
I've never made my K9 indicated, I've never lied, I run my K9 exactly like I was trained. 3 times around the vehicle, if the dog indicates, I' m searching, wheather you like it or not, disagree, doesn't matter because it's been established by the Supreme Court. If the dog doesn't indicate after the third pass, I say no go.
It is what it is. I have integrity, I trust my dog through expiereance, and training, and I follow the law as it stands.
I think this just reinforces what I was stating above. I have no reason to doubt your integrity on the matter.
The only info I could find with a quick search pertaining to Richard James Herbert getting arrested by Border Patrol... GoFundMe account here. (http://www.gofundme.com/p8wpus) An article here (http://newsasylum.com/2015/03/19/inland-border-patrol-checkpoint-arrest/) quoted below. I tried to verify the quote but the link on PINAC's site wasn't working just now.
In a statement to PINAC, the border patrol stated: “On March 12, 2015, at around 10:54 am, the driver of a Chevrolet Cavalier approached the El Centro Sector Highway 86 checkpoint where a Border Patrol K-9 detection team produced a positive alert to the vehicle for contraband. Because of this alert for contraband, the male driver was directed by agents to the secondary inspection area for a more thorough examination of the car. The man failed to follow the agents directions to drive to secondary and was removed from the vehicle. Agents searched the vehicle and discovered a small testable amount of marijuana under the driver’s seat. The California Highway Patrol was called to the scene where an CHP officer conducted a roadside sobriety test on the driver as a precaution. The driver was eventually released without any charges.”
Again the dog is a tool it's up to the person using the tool to use it properly and with integrity.
The issue I have is with the reported false alerts. Just because no physical drugs are not located doesn't mean the dog was wrong or the handler made the dog indicate.
A properly trained dog and handler that uses the dog with integrity is a valuable tool.
If someone is proven to not use that tool appropriately then they should pay the piper for that misuse.
The Second Amendment for the people to have arms is not going to be dismissed. The Govt knows that would not fly.
Some might try to pull sneak moves but they know what the end result would be if they tried a full on ban/ confiscation.
Averageman
03-26-15, 14:28
Again the dog is a tool it's up to the person using the tool to use it properly and with integrity.
The issue I have is with the reported false alerts. Just because no physical drugs are not located doesn't mean the dog was wrong or the handler made the dog indicate.
A properly trained dog and handler that uses the dog with integrity is a valuable tool.
If someone is proven to not use that tool appropriately then they should pay the piper for that misuse.
The Second Amendment for the people to have arms is not going to be dismissed. The Govt knows that would not fly.
Some might try to pull sneak moves but they know what the end result would be if they tried a full on ban/ confiscation.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but has a handler ever been punished for misuse?
I'm pretty sure having had a number of dogs, the "cues" don't have to be consciously verbal, I think these dogs (if anything like mine) read body language and perhaps cues even more subtle.
Where as a dog may be fine to find a bomb, they may be dandy for a quick go over of a shipping container, they may help finding a lost child, it becomes a bit more personal when the dog and the handler are going through your own personal property such as around your car especially without warrant.
Once that dog has climbed all over and around my car, just who pays for any possible damage?
Once that dog has keyed on my vehicle and everything inside it has been dumped on the side of the road and nothing is found, is there recourse?
At some point an Awww Sucks, I guess the dogs having a bad day isn't going to cut it and all of the above is without malice. Just who has ever prosecuted a handler who has used a dog incorrectly to gain access?
The Second Amendment for the people to have arms is not going to be dismissed. The Govt knows that would not fly.
Some might try to pull sneak moves but they know what the end result would be if they tried a full on ban/ confiscation.
I would have thought the same for the entire bill of rights; like 4A, but if you're driving a car you really don't have your 4A rights as discussed in this thread in great detail.
Or if you are in New York and an LEO wants to check your bag...
And some other ways 4A rights are pissed away.
When people says "false alerts" where no drugs where located.
Again the K9 searches and indicates on odor. If someone smoked weed or transported narcotics a day, a week, etc before the stop was made the odor is still there, the physical dope might be long gone but the K9 will still indicate.
So when someone says false alerts at 50% because no physical drugs were located doesn't ring true.
The dogs indication was still correct.
Once again people that question LE on a certain aspect should contact their local department and ask to talk.
If anyone is in the Jacksonville Florida area has an open invitation. I'll sit down face to face and discuss K9 , and then demonstrate what a K9 can do, and what it can't.
Any survey, article, tv show whatever can be set up to provide whatever agenda they want it to be, yes that goes both ways as far as supporting LE, or trying to discredit LE.
So every single person who's had a drug dog alert but no drugs or contraband was found- had just dropped off their drugs or smoked some just before the stop?
That is total BS.
Your above statement opens up an entirely new can of worms. So there doesn't even need to be drugs for a drug sniffing dog to alert? And if none are found; whoops oh well, rights violated, put the stuff back in your vehicle don't mind the scratch marks, go about your day and we'll hopefully get you next time.
So if a spliff smoking person walking along decides to touch your vehicle, you could get a "false alert" that "really isn't false" and that's just fine and dandy? 4A be damned, someone who smoked a doobie was near the car, forget constitutional rights and proceed to the warantles search?
It's quite troubling that an alert with no drugs found automatically means the driver is a user or the drugs aren't there anymore.
In my case I hadn't smoked marijuana since my college days years before the incident took place and I had a different vehicle at the time anyways. I don't allow people to smoke or use drugs in my vehicle, and I had absolutely zero zip zilch of illegal anything on me.
So how could that alert not be false by your estimation?
Did I ever say that 100% of alerts were good to go? A dog is not infallible, the handler is not infallible.
Has there ever been a handler that has bullshitted on an alert, of course.
Again if the dog is well trained, and maintained, and the handler has integrity the dogs are an invaluable tool to use.
If you had a bad expiereance involving a K9, I apologize.
Does that mean the use if K9's as a whole are bogus and b.s.?
Just like if someone runs into an asshole cop, does that make every cop an asshole, or racist, excessive force using, civil rights violating jack booted, uneducated Barney Fife?
The use of K9's and how they can be used for a warrantless search has been challenged at every level of the judicial system, and has been upheld.
Did I ever say that 100% of alerts were good to go? A dog is not infallible, the handler is not infallible.
Has there ever been a handler that has bullshitted on an alert, of course.
Again if the dog is well trained, and maintained, and the handler has integrity the dogs are an invaluable tool to use.
If you had a bad expiereance involving a K9, I apologize.
Does that mean the use if K9's as a whole are bogus and b.s.?
Just like if someone runs into an asshole cop, does that make every cop an asshole, or racist, excessive force using, civil rights violating jack booted, uneducated Barney Fife?
The use of K9's and how they can be used for a warrantless search has been challenged at every level of the judicial system, and has been upheld.
I think the point he's getting at is just because something is allowed to be done a certain way doesn't mean it should in the grand scheme of things. It never should have got to the point where it was deemed permissible in the first place going by the plain language and intent of our constitution. The efficacy of k9 usage in contemporary America is irrelevant under such context.
Again, I think that's what he's getting at.
I think the point he's getting at is just because something is allowed to be done a certain way doesn't mean it should in the grand scheme of things. It never should have got to the point where it was deemed permissible in the first place going by the plain language and intent of our constitution. The efficacy of k9 usage in contemporary America is irrelevant under such context.
Again, I think that's what he's getting at.
Yes, this is my main point.
Did I ever say that 100% of alerts were good to go? A dog is not infallible, the handler is not infallible.
Has there ever been a handler that has bullshitted on an alert, of course.
Again if the dog is well trained, and maintained, and the handler has integrity the dogs are an invaluable tool to use.
If you had a bad expiereance involving a K9, I apologize.
Does that mean the use if K9's as a whole are bogus and b.s.?
Just like if someone runs into an asshole cop, does that make every cop an asshole, or racist, excessive force using, civil rights violating jack booted, uneducated Barney Fife?
The use of K9's and how they can be used for a warrantless search has been challenged at every level of the judicial system, and has been upheld.
I definitsmy dont view all LEOs in a negative light, I judge the individual as with all people from all walks of life.
I am also not looking for sympathy for my experience; I wasn't even going to mention it but another poster specifically asked me if I had first hand experience and so I shared.
A lot of bad things are held up by courts and have been for centuries; it doesn't make them right and it doesn't make them any less unconstitutional.
I have enjoyed this discussion. And appreciate the viewpoint and personal experience you've shared. Thank you for the civil discussion.
We don't have to agree that a warantles search is just that and as such unconstitutional, but I find it hard to accept good people such as yourself who are charged with defending and upholding the constitution can logically accept a literal warantles search as NOT violating 4A; court decisions, judges, attorneys, politicians et al be damned.
I look forward to discussing it further with you.
So every single person who's had a drug dog alert but no drugs or contraband was found- had just dropped off their drugs or smoked some just before the stop?
That is total BS.
Your above statement opens up an entirely new can of worms. So there doesn't even need to be drugs for a drug sniffing dog to alert? And if none are found; whoops oh well, rights violated, put the stuff back in your vehicle don't mind the scratch marks, go about your day and we'll hopefully get you next time.
So if a spliff smoking person walking along decides to touch your vehicle, you could get a "false alert" that "really isn't false" and that's just fine and dandy? 4A be damned, someone who smoked a doobie was near the car, forget constitutional rights and proceed to the warantles search?
It's quite troubling that an alert with no drugs found automatically means the driver is a user or the drugs aren't there anymore.
In my case I hadn't smoked marijuana since my college days years before the incident took place and I had a different vehicle at the time anyways. I don't allow people to smoke or use drugs in my vehicle, and I had absolutely zero zip zilch of illegal anything on me.
So how could that alert not be false by your estimation?
That's my main problem with when using them without RAS or PC. If they "alert" and nothing is found, you're still a guilty scumbag, just a lucky one. :(
Did I ever say that 100% of alerts were good to go? A dog is not infallible, the handler is not infallible.
Has there ever been a handler that has bullshitted on an alert, of course.
Again if the dog is well trained, and maintained, and the handler has integrity the dogs are an invaluable tool to use.
If you had a bad expiereance involving a K9, I apologize.
Does that mean the use if K9's as a whole are bogus and b.s.?
Just like if someone runs into an asshole cop, does that make every cop an asshole, or racist, excessive force using, civil rights violating jack booted, uneducated Barney Fife?
The use of K9's and how they can be used for a warrantless search has been challenged at every level of the judicial system, and has been upheld.
You're beginning to make a pretty good case for why the courts were wrong. :(
El Vaquero
03-26-15, 23:30
Some very valid points and concerns have been brought up. History has shown the courts have not always gotten right. Thankfully our system allows laws to be changed, modified, and overturned. Law makers, governments, and the courts, have at times granted LE too much authority and often keep it in check (fairly recent examples, off the top of my head are search warrant requirements for GPS trackers, and AZ vs Gant). I think most LE view these decisions as just as no one wants to intentionally violate any laws or peoples rights (which unfortunately, for right or wrong, is often determined by SCOTUS).
I think the overwhelming consensus (in this posting) is that LE should not be granted carte blanch to either use dogs period or use them as PC for a search. What many are not aware of is that many departments require an extra step before allowing a dog to be run around a car. The extra step being reasonable suspicion. True, not a huge hurdle to overcome, but nonetheless an extra step in place. Now will a dirty cop say and make things up to get around this? Sure, the human factor will always be in play and they will always be there in some form or fashion just like there are crooked doctors, teachers, and such. (My fix to limit this in LE is raise the requirements, and PAY! Strange how I never get any support on this. A little sarcasm haha).
As cop1211 was pointing out, dogs are used as tools and are not infallible. Now the last ten times I used a dog for a car they alerted 10 out of 10 times. Does this mean he has 100% accuracy rate? The correct answer being no, but could easily be spun as yes. Heck even radar units have a margin of error but there is generally very little dispute over whether those are lawful as means for a temporary detention.
LE (at least most are) is always looking at better ways to conduct operations more fairly, and better. Until someone invents a reliable, affordable machine that can detect drugs with 100% accuracy the dog is the best there is. I'm all for having an extra step (such as reasonable suspicion), so that officers just don't go randomly running dogs around cars. This has been effective and makes for a better officer which benefits us all.
So...whats the solution if an officer suspects there are drugs in a vehicle? Is a requirement such as reasonable suspicion good enough to run a dog around it? Or maybe using dogs has been ruled unconstitutional. Mere suspicion is not enough for a warrant, so that rules a warrant out. What next??
(And THCDDM4 no sarcasm directed at you in this post ;)this is not a rhetorical question)
Some very valid points and concerns have been brought up. History has shown the courts have not always gotten right. Thankfully our system allows laws to be changed, modified, and overturned. Law makers, governments, and the courts, have at times granted LE too much authority and often keep it in check (fairly recent examples, off the top of my head are search warrant requirements for GPS trackers, and AZ vs Gant). I think most LE view these decisions as just as no one wants to intentionally violate any laws or peoples rights (which unfortunately, for right or wrong, is often determined by SCOTUS).
I think the overwhelming consensus (in this posting) is that LE should not be granted carte blanch to either use dogs period or use them as PC for a search. What many are not aware of is that many departments require an extra step before allowing a dog to be run around a car. The extra step being reasonable suspicion. True, not a huge hurdle to overcome, but nonetheless an extra step in place. Now will a dirty cop say and make things up to get around this? Sure, the human factor will always be in play and they will always be there in some form or fashion just like there are crooked doctors, teachers, and such. (My fix to limit this in LE is raise the requirements, and PAY! Strange how I never get any support on this. A little sarcasm haha).
As cop1211 was pointing out, dogs are used as tools and are not infallible. Now the last ten times I used a dog for a car they alerted 10 out of 10 times. Does this mean he has 100% accuracy rate? The correct answer being no, but could easily be spun as yes. Heck even radar units have a margin of error but there is generally very little dispute over whether those are lawful as means for a temporary detention.
LE (at least most are) is always looking at better ways to conduct operations more fairly, and better. Until someone invents a reliable, affordable machine that can detect drugs with 100% accuracy the dog is the best there is. I'm all for having an extra step (such as reasonable suspicion), so that officers just don't go randomly running dogs around cars. This has been effective and makes for a better officer which benefits us all.
So...whats the solution if an officer suspects there are drugs in a vehicle? Is a requirement such as reasonable suspicion good enough to run a dog around it? Or maybe using dogs has been ruled unconstitutional. Mere suspicion is not enough for a warrant, so that rules a warrant out. What next??
(And THCDDM4 no sarcasm directed at you in this post ;)this is not a rhetorical question)
I fully support your contention that cops should make more. I also support a RAS requirement for running the dog and no, refusal to allow a fishing expedition is not RAS to call for a dog and have someone stuck on the roadside waiting for one. If you have enough to call for a dog, you have enough to do a non-consensual search or get a warrant.
FWIW, I don't agree that driving down an highway staffed with an internal CBP checkpoint is RAS either, which I think is the primary issue in this thread.
Bolt_Overide
03-27-15, 08:57
Being approved at some level of the judiciary doesn't necessarily make something right. I am no LEO hater by any means, but I truly believe they have been granted too much authority and power. It becomes more of an US vs Them situation by the day, and that is unacceptable. The mantra of officer safety over all else is a farce, public safety should be first, catching the bad guys needs to be next. If you don't like that, find a new line of work. The military puts the mission first, they do try to minimize risk, but not at the expense of completing the mission.
BoringGuy45
03-27-15, 09:13
Being approved at some level of the judiciary doesn't necessarily make something right. I am no LEO hater by any means, but I truly believe they have been granted too much authority and power. It becomes more of an US vs Them situation by the day, and that is unacceptable. The mantra of officer safety over all else is a farce, public safety should be first, catching the bad guys needs to be next. If you don't like that, find a new line of work. The military puts the mission first, they do try to minimize risk, but not at the expense of completing the mission.
The exact opposite of this is the truth. Police authority has actually been greatly restrained over the past 100 years. Read the case law. You think it's bad now? Up until Garner v. TN, it was lawful for a police officer to use deadly force on a fleeing felon even if he did NOT pose a threat to public safety. All use of force, per Graham v. Connor, is regulated by the 4th Amendment and a police officer CANNOT use any kind of force if the totality of the circumstances don't dictate the use of force. Also, officer safety and public safety go hand in hand; a dead cop doesn't make society safer. This isn't Hollywood, and cops should not be expected to charge into suicidal situations rather than tactically retreat, regroup, and wait for back up.
Other than for the purpose of securing the border - at the border - domestic checkpoints are unconstitutional, period.
I fully support your contention that cops should make more. I also support a RAS requirement for running the dog and no, refusal to allow a fishing expedition is not RAS to call for a dog and have someone stuck on the roadside waiting for one.
a controlling case on this is: https://casetext.com/case/us-v-beck-16 It really goes through reasonable suspicion to detain for a drug dog.
If you have enough to call for a dog, you have enough to do a non-consensual search or get a warrant.
Actually, not so. If I see a baggie on a console and it contains a film canister and cigarette papers, I can ask the drive 'Say, mind telling me what's in the baggie?' 'Yes, I would.' I'm at a decision point, in this case I do not have probable cause to seize the items, but I believe I do have reasonable suspicion to tell the driver 'based on my training and experience, I believe those items to be contraband, and I'm detaining you for the department's drug dog to arrive and see if my suspicions are correct.'
FWIW, I don't agree that driving down an highway staffed with an internal CBP checkpoint is RAS either, which I think is the primary issue in this thread.
I agree, not as far from the border as these boys were. Plus, vehicles coming over the border, and people entering over the border are subject to search upon entry. The inland checkpoints are authorized to check for illegal immigrants, there shouldn't be a dog at the checkpoints, and it shouldn't be run around the vehicle as SOP - that would not fly at a DL or DUI checkpoint - it is action firmly outside the scope of the checkpoint. JMO
I agree, not as far from the border as these boys were. Plus, vehicles coming over the border, and people entering over the border are subject to search upon entry. The inland checkpoints are authorized to check for illegal immigrants, there shouldn't be a dog at the checkpoints, and it shouldn't be run around the vehicle as SOP - that would not fly at a DL or DUI checkpoint - it is action firmly outside the scope of the checkpoint. JMO
Border Patrol K-9s are dual purpose dogs. They detect narcotics and humans, so yes, rather than asking every traveler to open their trunks or inspecting the cargo of every tractor-trailer, the K-9s are used to find conceal humans as well as dope.
Also, there is zero reasonable expectation of privacy for the air around a vehicle, or anything else for that matter, in a public place. All the dog is doing is sniffing that air. It is no different than a cop walking through a mall parking lot looking at cars, running license plates etc. Now, if you're talking about a traffic stop and detaining someone specifically for the purpose of waiting for the K-9 to arrive, yes, you need to articulate the detention.
Please enlighten me on how a search of any kind without a warrant is in line with the constitution or its intent. I'm dying to hear more real answers from individuals that carry out these actions and less hiding behind SCOTUS BS decisions when it comes to a sacred oath and right being pissed into the wind.
I'm genuinely interesting in your opinion given the following scenario.
If I follow you correctly, you think ALL vehicle searches should require a warrant? If that is so, then lets assume there aren't any exceptions to the 4th, like the inherent mobility of a vehicle, or search incident to arrest, or the warrantless search based on a K-9 alert.
What do you propose in the following scenario:
Police stop a car for a lawful reason. During the stop the officer starts to develop probable cause for a search. It could be anything. Maybe the driver appears intoxicated. Maybe he is driving around with more blood all over the back seat than Vincent Vega had after he blew Marvin's head off in Pulp Fiction. Ultimately the officer wants to search the car for evidence of a crime.
a) Should the police have the authority to detain the driver and vehicle for several hours; maybe even overnight while writing and then finding a judge to sign the search warrant?
b) Should the police have the authority to only detain the vehicle, but the driver is free to leave?
c) Should the police have neither the authority to detain the driver OR vehicle, have to go apply for a warrant then attempt to find the vehicle and driver again only after the warrant is signed?
d) Do we not want the police searching our vehicles under any circumstances?
All use of force, per Graham v. Connor, is regulated by the 4th Amendment and a police officer CANNOT use any kind of force if the totality of the circumstances don't dictate the use of force.
I think you mean should not.
I'm genuinely interesting in your opinion given the following scenario.
If I follow you correctly, you think ALL vehicle searches should require a warrant? If that is so, then lets assume there aren't any exceptions to the 4th, like the inherent mobility of a vehicle, or search incident to arrest, or the warrantless search based on a K-9 alert.
What do you propose in the following scenario:
Police stop a car for a lawful reason. During the stop the officer starts to develop probable cause for a search. It could be anything. Maybe the driver appears intoxicated. Maybe he is driving around with more blood all over the back seat than Vincent Vega had after he blew Marvin's head off in Pulp Fiction. Ultimately the officer wants to search the car for evidence of a crime.
a) Should the police have the authority to detain the driver and vehicle for several hours; maybe even overnight while writing and then finding a judge to sign the search warrant?
b) Should the police have the authority to only detain the vehicle, but the driver is free to leave?
c) Should the police have neither the authority to detain the driver OR vehicle, have to go apply for a warrant then attempt to find the vehicle and driver again only after the warrant is signed?
d) Do we not want the police searching our vehicles under any circumstances?
I appreciate this question, and thank you for asking it.
A balance must be struck between the privacy afforded to citizens by 4a and the ability of LE to do its job.
This is where "unreasonable" wording in 4A becomes very important.
If a man and his vehicle is slathered in blood, it is quite reasonable for LE to detain the vehicle and man to obtain a warrant to conduct a search; without a warrant this may still be reasonable; as it is reasonable by any standard to do so- even if it turns out he is innocent and it is deers blood from an huntig trip or accident, etc.
admittedly this is where a thin line exists and balance can sometimes be hard to obtain.
There is a stark difference between a car soaked in blood and a dog sniffing when It comes to reasonable and unreasonable. Just like BP at the border versus 100 miles inland presents a stark difference.
The job of LE is hard; and realistically it should be, that's reality and those getting into it shouldnt candy coat it. If we made it easy by limiting rights we would catch a lot more bad guys; but that's not a net positive.
It would be easiest to catch wrongdoers In a totalitarian state, no rights, everyone bow down to authority; but is that what we truly need or want? Is that what this country is about? Would there still be justice?
Balance must be struck, I'm not satisfied with what currently poses for balance as per SCOTUS & CO.
Interpretations of what reasonable is and is not is where the real guts of the matter lies.
When we debate the merits of what is and is not reasonable, we should ALWAYS error on the side of liberty; no matter the outcome. SCOTUS and this country in general has lost its path in this regard.
This is where truly free men separate themselves from slaves allowing themselves to be controlled in The name of "safety".
Freedom is not easy, it is not safe and sometimes it is ugly, but it is wonderful, right and just- the positives worth all of the negatives and then some.
Rights are rights. Watering them down in the name of ease or safety is a fools errand at best.
The Constitution we have is quite amazing; but Only if we stand up for it, only if it is protected.
It is no mere coincidence our country falls further into chaos as our constitution is neglected and ignored. The Constitution as great as it is; is just words on paper- the true magic is in the benevolence within the intent and the codification of what is just and right for us all- that which is ours as individuals and as a whole that exists beyond the petty laws of man.
Border Patrol K-9s are dual purpose dogs. They detect narcotics and humans, so yes, rather than asking every traveler to open their trunks or inspecting the cargo of every tractor-trailer, the K-9s are used to find conceal humans as well as dope.
Also, there is zero reasonable expectation of privacy for the air around a vehicle, or anything else for that matter, in a public place. All the dog is doing is sniffing that air. It is no different than a cop walking through a mall parking lot looking at cars, running license plates etc. Now, if you're talking about a traffic stop and detaining someone specifically for the purpose of waiting for the K-9 to arrive, yes, you need to articulate the detention.
Okay two points, 1) at a check point you have temporarily detained the vehicle without reasonable suspicion; 2) the Supreme Court, has asserted that actions taken must within the scope of the roadblocks purpose - in this case catching illegal immigrants, not drugs. In fact, the courts have ruled drug interdiction check points are unconstitutional.
Lets continue on to the reason this guy was pulled over - what the border patrol says goes on at these inland checkpoints is that the folks are visually scanned as they approach, and if there is an articulable reason for further investigation regarding immigration issues, they are pulled into a lane for further investigation.
So in my view, absent articulable reasonable suspicion of an immigration offense, Rover shouldn't be run around the vehicle to sniff that free air, since the vehicle WAS mobile until stopped without reasonable suspicion. They stooped the car and ran the dog around the car because the guy looked like a doper, not an illegal alien.
JMO
Okay two points, 1) at a check point you have temporarily detained the vehicle without reasonable suspicion; 2) the Supreme Court, has asserted that actions taken must within the scope of the roadblocks purpose - in this case catching illegal immigrants, not drugs. In fact, the courts have ruled drug interdiction check points are unconstitutional.
Lets continue on to the reason this guy was pulled over - what the border patrol says goes on at these inland checkpoints is that the folks are visually scanned as they approach, and if there is an articulable reason for further investigation regarding immigration issues, they are pulled into a lane for further investigation.
So in my view, absent articulable reasonable suspicion of an immigration offense, Rover shouldn't be run around the vehicle to sniff that free air, since the vehicle WAS mobile until stopped without reasonable suspicion. They stooped the car and ran the dog around the car because the guy looked like a doper, not an illegal alien.
JMO
Checkpoints are unconstitutional and violative of our freedom of movement. Anyone suggesting to the contrary is wrong.
FlyingHunter
03-28-15, 17:45
Other than for the purpose of securing the border - at the border - domestic checkpoints are unconstitutional, period.
Truth
ramairthree
03-28-15, 18:08
I have no experience with drug sniffing dogs.
I have lots of time involved with working dogs searching for other things.
Assuming there is no magical difference between dogs alerting to drugs vs. something else:
Dogs do sometimes appear to alert when the handler seems very excited or very frustrated, but nothing is found.
Dogs do sometimes appear to alert when nothing is found and it looks like nothing could possibly have been there.
For the sake of argument, say neither of the above ever happens dogs only alert if the scent of the intended target is present. They never alert in the absence of the intended scent. They are never prompted or influenced by their handler to alert.
I have seen dogs alert, and you find what you are looking for.
I have seen more time spent searching and finding nothing after the dog alerts though. But mostly when that happens it looks like something HAD been there that the dog should have alerted on. It just was not there anymore.
People with years of experience as handlers with drug sniffing dogs have flat out said that in their experience, dogs often alert to where a substance might have been, used to be, etc.
So, lets look at the checkpoints.
Why should I be subjected to a warrantless search, or detained to wait for a warrant, based on a dog alerting to the trunk of a rental car when the guy that had it last week had a suitcase of hash in there. Or because my wife's medical marijuana friend from college visited who always reeks of weed sat in the car yesterday when my wife took her to the airport. Or because a guy that had just toked up a bunch tried to open my door handle at the gas station a few miles back trying to open my door thinking it was his car?
A random guy on the road, not a suspect in anything,
is stopped to look for immigration issues that are not enforced,
or to check for a license or registration when it is not really for that just to see if he is drunk,
has a dog sniff his car when there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion for nothing.
Why is he subject to the sniffing?
Why is the dog alerting,
on what is fully known to often be alerting on something that is not there, no longer there, not even related to the person in the car,
grounds for a warrantless search or PC to detain and get a warrant for a search.
The reality is,
much like the "I smell alcohol" or "I smelled marijuana" line,
it is a means to subject random, non suspects to warrantless searches.
Or detain them with PC for a warrant.
It is a means to circumvent constitutional rights.
SilverBullet432
03-28-15, 18:21
Damn good point. ^
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.