I have to go through a checkpoint in Southern Arizona that's been setup along an East-West highway over 40 miles North of the border & never intersects it at any point. The checkpoint has been setup along the outskirts of a nearby town with stores that can be found on either side. That means people who live & commute in the area are indeed stopped, seized & interrogated by Border Patrol agents on a routine basis merely for engaging in daily activities like going to work, school, the store, etc.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) at 384 U.S. 473-74. "if the individual indicates, in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease."
Jason C. Section 287(a) of the INA gives immigration officers broad authority to “interrogate” aliens, or persons believed to be aliens, about their “right to be or to remain in the United States.” It also authorizes immigration officers to arrest any alien in the United States whom there is “reason to believe” is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration law. A judicial or administrative warrant is not required for these and other actions authorized under INA § 287(a).
@Mark Gibson I'm not from your Country, so I may be wrong, perhaps you can educate me. Is not merely being an illegal alien in the USA, that is to say, having entered the Country unlawfully, a criminal offence, albeit, a misdemeanour? If I am correct, then the Miranda protection rights would apply, would they not? I'm just asking, but that would seem to make sense. Thanks for your time Mark.
ILLEGALS are not only from South of Southern Border. The farther you go south of MEXICO to have blonde blue eyes MEXICAN. My ancestors had blue eyes. My son's have green eyes. We need to work together until our borders are secure!
Part of Amendment 5, Bill of Rights, ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. So you are very correct
How to create a police state: 1. Start with normal border control checkpoints. 2. Introduce similar checkpoints further inland, under the pretext of 'security', 'safety', etc. Always make compliance effortless and non-compliance inconvenient (it's easier just to answer the questions, etc). Rely on the obedience to authority reaction. 3. Slowly increase the number of such checkpoints. 4. Establish state line/regional checkpoints. Get the people used to being stopped and questioned by police. Make non-compliance even more inconvenient (detainment for hours etc). 5. Extend police powers to allow them to stop and account any member of the public at will. Give this practice a friendly, feel-good name eg. 'positive policing', 'public safety check', etc. 6. Introduce a legal requirement that if you are stopped and questioned by police, you must provide identification. Constantly remind the public that this is necessary for safety reasons. Pump up the fear factor (crime, terrorism, infectious diseases etc) to make the public more afraid and willing to go along with it as a necessary evil for the good of society. 7. Once the people are thoroughly accustomed to being detained and identified at will, gradually phase in the right for police to perform physical searches without consent. 8. Once this has become the accepted norm, give police the power to enter and search homes at will. Can't say for sure this would work, but this is how I'd do it - remove the people's rights very, very gradually, so they don't realize what's happening until its too late.
Exactly. That is the exact outline for how things like this go. People lose their freedoms but stupidly smile about it because they want the false security. It's sad how many people defend these checkpoints on the basis of "it keeps drugs out" as if they don't have eyes or ears to see and hear about the abundance of drugs already here.
What people also have to keep in mind that the supreme court is heavily influenced by common opinion and social norms. When it was commonly accepted that black people are 2nd class citizens the supreme court refused to rule against racist laws or in favor of African Americans. So if circumstances as described by UncleFeedle were to become the norm and commonly accepted by the population its likely they would do nothing to stop it and even declare laws in favor of them as constitutional.
The officer in the first video says "All you have to do is to say yes and you'll be on your way". doesn't that in itself show us that these checkpoints are not really anything to do with checking immigration status?
Driver was talking. Agent wanted driver to say the word YES. Couldn't agent tell that the driver was a citizen be the way he, "Respectfully refused to answer the question"?
@@TurkistanSeneti that is against what the checkpoint is set up for I am a citizen of the us n i have an accent .. am I an illegal..we cant use those 3things u mention to weed out illegal immigrant
@@iwineverygame1995 I know the immigration checkpoint is for immigration purposes the issue is other crimes do arise from the checkpoint mostly smuggling
They can only hold you for 90 minutes if you refuse to answer and if they hold you for longer it is a felony. Always record, always be polite. Never give your id. If everyone does this, there won't be any checkpoints any more. One more thing. The US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that all border patrol MUST wear a name tag or they are not allowed to stop anyone. This comes out of the Portland protests where officers didn't wear name tags. Many of the charges have been dismissed as a result. No name tag, no lawful stop.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." One of our great forefathers said that. It is our freedom and right to travel unmolested unless there is reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime. If you are willing to sacrifice your liberties or freedoms for a little "safety" than you don't deserve them! If you won't fight for your freedom then you WILL lose it! That is a fact proven over and over by history.
The attitude of "you would comply if you had nothing to hide" holds zero water. That is like saying, I will put a camera in your home to monitor activities....If you say "no"....you obviously have something to hide. That is not a radical comparison. If a cop stops you randomly and says "empty your pockets"...Are you saying you would ignore your Constitutional Rights and give them up? In that case I do have something to hide (my privacy). Give the Police/Gov and inch, they will absolutely take it
I was told by a agent that the agents that work the checkpoints are considered junior agents and are power hungry and starved for action. I go through a checkpoint every day. A coworker of mine and had a very small amount of marijuana that an agent found and my coworker said that the agents got real excited for a small quantity and then called Az dps. My coworker said that when dps arrived the officer expected a large quantity and then chuckled and stated that Border Patrol was wasting his time for such a small find. Not even the dps officer had respect for these guys. Also, the checkpoint I cross, Ive only seens citizens stopped and have never seen a detained illegal.
manny6584 You would think that a reasonable illegal person would avoid the permanent checkpoint. But, there are many, many illegals who are caught at the checkpoints every year. Likely because the illegals thought they could outsmart the agents.
No it's not a waste of time and manpower to have a checkpoint. There have been many illegals caught by border patrol at checkpoints and in the surrounding areas around checkpoints. This people usually are hidden in compartments in vehicles or tractor trailers. Also many drugs people have been arrested over drugs at checkpoints. Of course this drug people want checkpoints to be taken down--- It will be a lot easier for them to get them through.
@@roelrequenez5970 Bullshit. Less than 3 percent of all illegal immigrants captured by BP agents are caught at inland checkpoints. These checkpoints have nothing to do with immigration.
While I would cooperate and answer the questions, simply because it's easier, I fully support people's right to travel freely without being stopped by law enforcement for no reason. The Border Patrol agents asked if they were U.S. citizens. They said all you have to do is say you are a U.S. citizen and you can be on your way. So, it seems that an illegal immigrant could just say they are a U.S. citizen. Always remember and never forget, the police are not your friends. They are looking for a reason, any reason, to arrest you.
That is so much bullshit. Where the hell did you get that.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +1
The phrase - widely used in discussions of Internet security and uttered by Pius Thicknesse in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - is most commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in 1933. However, there is an earlier precedent. Upton Sinclair used an inverted version in 1918 in The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation: Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends-people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.’
If I’m illegal and the Officer asks me If I’m an American citizen, I would say yes and be on my way. The people who don’t answer are probably all Americans. Someone who would be deported wouldn’t make a scene.
The Border Patrol they know right away in a millisecond if the person is an American Citizen Or not I just hope i n Heaven God dont have this Idiots asking are you An American citizen
The cues and suspicion of the Agents used to further detain people are purely subjective. They do not constitute probable cause. Some people are naturally nervous and impatient and it doesn't automatically mean that something is going on.
Why would any self-respecting US citizen allow their 'guys and gals' to seize them absent individualized suspicion along public roads inside the country, interrogate them regarding unknown crimes & seek to search them absent probable cause? Just another example of ignorant authoritarians mouthing off against folks exercising the rights these agents are supposed to defend & respect.
The right way to deal with checkpoints is to make a written statement about the checkpoints to the right people that stands for them and make sure it will be published. The statement must contain all the wrong things about the checkpoints, why it is wrong. Also details about the checkpoint vs the Amendment.
An unconstitutional statute, though it may walk like a law and quack like a law, is not a law, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it. In short, the decision of constitutionality is solely the Individual's responsibility.
No it's not. If individuals decided the constitutionalty of a law, nobody would get arrested. States have the right to make laws/statutes/et al given to them by the 10th Amendment - you know, the one Sovereign idiots forget to read.
The thing most people don't know - and should be included in EVERY video about the border patrol checkpoints - is this: Of the (approx.) 329 million people in the US, about 200 million live within 100 miles of a US border. *ALMOST 2/3 of ALL citizens in the US* are potentially subject to these checkpoints (since a checkpoint can be set up either permanently or temporarily ANYWHERE within that 100 mile limit).
If you had told me this back in the day I wouldn't have believed it. I came across checkpoints in foreign countries where wars are going on. I would never have believed that people here would stop to be questioned. So much for the 4th amendment.
One thing not mentioned is the drug dog they use to sniff around your vehicle. The courts have ruled that a "drug" checkpoint is illegal. So when they start using "drug" dog(s) to sniff around a vehicle it goes from an immigration check point to a "drug" checkpoint for criminal activity.
There is no law or federal ordinance requiring US citizens to carry national ID or US citizenship papers, so there is no reason to admit one's status one way or the other.
Well How the hell is it legal for them to do random patdowns in NYC? From what is said there have never been more people arrested for small amounts of marijauna in any other city or state at any other point in time in history due to random pat downs.
+piss offed Stop and frisk is a violation of the 4th amendment. No police officer in the united states is allowed to detain you, or ask you for ID without probable cause! Say no to stop and frisk! No real crimes have ever been stopped due to this practice in NYC. Most cases are violations for carrying weed, and get dismissed anyway due to a unconstitutional search. Welcome to police state america, if you don't flex your rights, you will lose your rights!
YEP your right I typed out all the marijauna stuff then saw you already had it there. NO ONE HERE CARES. NO ONE CARES man. People dont consider themselves americans they consider themselves democrats and republicans. So everyone worries about the other party. If a democrat politician does it and you consider your self a democrat here then its ok and vice versa. Our govt has divided us almost directly 50/50 and the govt can and will do whatever it wants and the poeple just dont seem to care.
The distinction needs to be made clear. Being arrested doesn't mean shit so we as a society need to wake up and realize that. It's being convicted of something that holds weight (and even then it's questionable). Looking solely at the arrest numbers tell you nothing of the effect because you have to also see the verdict in each case. Most people won't look that far because they think their lives are too busy or whatever, but the information is out there and you'd be surprised at what you'll find.
They not only allowed it, they approved it. This in and of itself is unconstitutional as their ruling flies in the face of the 4th amendment. Article 4 gives them the power to make a ruling but not one that is contrary to the constitution, for them to properly do that, they must first repeal the 4th amendment.
It started with border agents at the border, very understandable, then they sat up shop 100 miles from the border, somewhat questionable, next it will be every 100 miles, in every state, everyone think that's ok, are you good witht, because as sure as I am sitting here typing this, its coming.
So what. Every time I have been through one it takes me less than 5 seconds to go through. Why? Cuz I answer yes. Get over yourself and answer the fucking question.
I thinks its great to bring legal experts on you tube to educate the public. I hope more Americans stand up and challenge Authority figures. I trust also these individuals educate themselves about there rights in every situation before challenging the police. Don't want to see anyone going to jail by mistake.
"Why would you not want to show that you are a legal citizen?" Because I would rather help these agents understand that I don't have to, so they won't continue to violate the law Thanks for asking
interesting but he is mistaken at one point..He says you need to give your licence and details if they show probably cause that you have committed a traffic violation.. this is simply not true.. a traffic violation is NOT a crime..they have to show evidence that you have actually 'caused harm'.. so long as you don't cause harm you a free to move around this planet however you choose.. and he's a lawyer.. seemingly on the right side too and he still doesn't get it.. still assuming that invented regulations can be imposed by force.. and that victimless crimes are the same as actual crimes..
Your thinking of "common Law", which is pretty much dead in the U.S. Showing ID while in a vehicle is very tricky. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to pull you over and ID you. A police officer cannot pull you over for no reason at all, although they can always find or claim a reason. Check points are no different then being pulled over for no admitted reason at all. Therefore a police officer has no right to ID you because the stop wasn't based on any suspicion at all. However, the only thing a cop has to say is " Your eyes look glazed over and I suspect you of drinking and driving." Now you have to show your ID or risk being charged with "Failure to provide ID". This is why checkpoints should be found 100% unconstitutional, it makes it way to easy for police officer to fudge the fact and infringe on our rights.
"He says you need to give your licence and details if they show probably cause that you have committed a traffic violation.. this is simply not true.. a traffic violation is NOT a crime.."....... my response to THIS was my point, so yeah. So you need to show your ID to a cop in a suspected DUI is the point (That's why I said he was talking about the DUI, not the checkpoint)
Julia Cunnington Yes but my point apples equally to a DUI.. this is merely a government regulation which cannot be enforced without your consent. No Victim- No Crime.. You are a conscious living being. you are autonomous and self governing. You are free to consume alcohol and move around in a motor vehicle if the mood takes you.. i don't recommend it and i think it's a generally irresponsible thing to do and can be dangerous but my thoughts do not govern you actions.. If, in the process of operating your motorised vehicle, you hit somebody and cause them loss or harm then this IS a CRIME.. and they can say "you have caused me this loss/ harm" and you have a moral and social obligation to make retributions towards them.. and if you refuse then your community/ a group of your piers reserve the right to exert force against you to extract retribution and maybe limit your freedom in order to protect themselves from your irresponsible behaviour.. this is a very different thing from a fictitious corporate entity extracting profit from you for an action that causes no harm and is none of their concern..you of course (most likely) also HAVE a fictional legal personality that you are free to ACT though if you wish to engage with other fictional legal entities like states or corporations.. you may like to do this for the benefits that result and in so doing you are then responsible for any corresponding obligations that ensue.. so while ACTING though such a title you are indeed obliged to do everything that that body requires of you.. but you must be clear that you can never be forced to ACT though this channel. Commonwealth law is very clear.. God then Man (living human) then legal fictions (corporations etc) we have just been tricked/trained to believe that corporations have automatic authority over us all of the time and we are obliged to obey their edits when this is simply not the case and never was..
You do know that this could be stopped if the politicians in Washington DC. If the people of America got them off their lazy ass and make a law to stop it.
So if it's a crap statement, if you don't assert your rights you really believe those intending to usurp them will respect them anyway? It doesn't matter, because your statement is a troll statement and I actually clicked on this comment to post my own troll statement before I allowed you to troll me...
I really thought you were. Probably because I really was here to troll in this case ( because of the Blue Beard credit). LOL I actually gave your last statement a thumbs up just now. While the sentiment is accurate, I am sick of seeing it myself. Which is probably the rest of the reason I felt compelled to troll it. I probably need to stop assuming everyone else is as big an @$$#0£€ as I am.
Border patrol: Are you a US citizen? Driver: Are YOU a US citizen? Show me your green card. Border patrol: Where were you born? Driver: Earth. What planet are you from? Uranus? Border patrol: Show me your ID. Driver: ( I ) (D). Border patrol: Where are you coming from? Driver: Back there. Border patrol: Where are you going? Driver: Up there. Border patrol: Are you trying to be smart with me? Driver: If I was, you wouldn't understand. Do you need a translator, or do I just need to speak slower?
I would, but I have no rights. I'm a German. We have no freedom of speech anymore. Can You guys come over again, please! Because something went wrong in Germany. Please help !!!
I think? Doesn't sound too sure of his answers. I guess he hasn't even visited the ACLU's own website which totally disagrees with what he said: If you are stopped for questioning, DO... DO give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal. DO remember you have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested or detained for refusing to answer questions. But it can look suspicious to the police. DO make sure the officer knows you do not agree to be searched (they might search you anyway, but make your opposition known. You can say “I do not consent to a search.”). DO ask if you are free to leave. If they say ‘yes,’ leave; if they say ‘no,’ DO ask to know why. If you are stopped for questioning, DON'T... DON’T disrespect a police officer. Although you have a Constitutional First Amendment right to do so, it could lead to your arrest. DON’T refuse to give your name, you could be arrested. DON’T lie. Don’t talk if you don’t have anything to say. Tell the police you don’t want to talk to them; you do not have to give additional information besides your name and basic identifying information. DON’T disrespect the officer. Although you have a Constitutional First Amendment right to do so, it could lead to your arrest. In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should: . . . give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal. I wonder if he'll come bail me out of jail if I try this? I think not! No thanks I think I will just answer the question and be on my way instead of spending time in jail I will never get back.
+Roland Galindo _"I would have said, DAMN RIGHT I AM A U.S. CITIZEN AND DAMN PROUD OF IT TOO!"_ They don't believe you! And now they want you to bend over and spread your cheeks.
+tubebility That's when you say No and site the 5th and fourth amendments. However, if they have probable cause, they can then bend you over and spread your cheeks. So if you don't want your cheeks spread, don't let anything in there smell or show.
Roland Galindo I understand ur happy that u escaped that shithole country u or ur family come from. So now you will lick boots lol.. But people here have rights.
I would not go to secondary. Unless they can prove a reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring, they have no basis to order you into a secondary inspection area. I would refuse to go and repeatedly tell them I want to be free to travel unmolested, which is my right. This is not 1930s Germany. Papers please.
>freakyflow you just haven't run into random roadblocks then sometimes they have them on the TCH, between Quebec and Nova Scotia. I think I always saw them in NB
Aside from the fact that these checkpoints are an unnecessary inhibition on travel within the borders of the country, the question that they ask is ridiculous. That is, anyone can say that he/she is "an American" without any proof, and the agents usually don't ask for any. What good is a system that can be so easily circumvented with a simple lie that is rarely challenged? English-speaking foreigners, especially Canadians, can avoid be hassled simply by lying about their citizenship, and the border patrol probably won't catch them. So, it then boils down to racial profiling. They will only challenge people who don't look or sound "American". That's not how things should work.
Yep, your disagreement with SCOTUS's rulings is moot: U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte: "...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....& our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 882. None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations”
Roll the tape again and pay close attention... They don't ask if you are an American citizen... the question is: Are you a U.S. Citizen. Learn how to pay attention or you gonna end up in a U. S. Federal penitentiary for 10 years for lying to a U. S. Federal Agent. The ACLU and their people are full of shit... Them mother fuckers will get you in trouble but will not get you out of it.
The funny thing about your ignorant statement USBP420 is that CBP was invited to the show to participate but declined. In fact, as far as I can tell everytime CBP has been invited to make a statement or appear to rebut the other side regarding this issue, it has declined. Not only that, everytime I've submitted FOIA requests to get CBP's official legal position regarding this issue, the agency has declined. Why is that USBP420? Could it be CBP has something to hide?
If u don't like it stay your candy coated ass in Canada. It floors me how you ass wipes think you have any right to an opinion here. Guess what... YOU DON'T.
Hopefully the poster of this vid will correct the description... these are not refusals to answer questions at the the borders... these are people refusing to answer questions at internal border patrol check points. They are pointless anyway... if you are illegal, just say you are a US citizen and go on your way.
It's law, you can really only have an opinion. Congress makes laws, the police try to enforce them as they see fit, then judges interpret the law and make decisions. Once a landmark case has been decided law enforcement will be required to change there behaviour. It's not until a judge makes a ruling that you find out how that law will really be applied.
Laws are not as cut and dry as you might think. Laws passed are constantly ruled unconstitutional, meaning they are no longer law. For something as relatively new as inland border checks, all ANY lawyer can do is give their opinion until the Supreme Court rules on a case. Even then you still need to convince five of nine judges that you're right.
Suppose I would be travelling in the United States and I would be stopped by such a checkpoint. Do I, a foreign national, have to cooperate with law enforcement or border control ? Or does the Constitution protect me as well ?
if your not crossing the boarder, no... you do not have to answer there questions or tell them weather or not you are a US citizen, once you are in this country you have the same rights as any American citizen when it comes to the police.
Tristan, there is a Supreme Court ruling saying The Constitution protects "persons". That's why someone illegally in the USA is entitled to due process before deportation. As a visiting traveler, you are protected by the USA Constitution while you are present in the USA.
We are not getting close whatsoever. If you think we're ANYWHERE near a Nazi-Germany lifestyle, then you don't know history very well at all. I hear in every single video about checkpoints and other police misconduct about "Nazi-Germany". We get it, you think it's some great injustice, which it is. However, it is not to be compared to Nazi-Germany. It doesn't have any correlation whatsoever.
It is completely similar. In a democracy you do not have to prove that you are a citizen when travelling inside the country and not crossing any border. It is a vital part of any functioning democracy. Go along with giving up that right and you are complicit in enabling a police state. And I have lived in a fascist state by the way and the US is the closest country I have ever lived in to that since then. Don't talk about history when you obviously don't know yours very well.
***** While that may be true, I find it a little strange how it seems nearly everyone uses the term "Nazi Germany" when in these situations. It's almost like they're all getting their information on laws and suggestions as to what to say from the exact same source.
..and I'll add to my earlier statement... If you feel uncomfortable just sitting in awkward silence, answer "I do not answer questions" and nothing else.
I see NO problem whatsoever to answer questions of officials / authorities to help them raise the security level. Being 48 now I've NEVER experienced anything I'd call harassement from any policeman or other authority in the US. One thing for sure: forcing MY rights with NO respect to the rights of OTHERS (including their right to perform best their job / mission) is NOT an assertiveness, but a mindless agression sign of very primitive, uncivilised and mean attitude.
I never suggested you to do so, my Friend.... OR (following other's attitude): "Please do not limit my RIGHT to expect what I WANT and LIKE to expect"... :):) Boooooo.....
:):) But you did order me NOT TO EXPECT... (see how absurd and destructive such attitude is? It can go on and on in this manner to waste time, energy, breath and - perhaps - start a conflict.)...
I think it is a very fine line for these "inner border" Patrol Agents to ask, "Are you a US citizen." If you refuse to answer, which is a right to US citizens, his only recourse is to continue to get you to speak or he must cross that line by claiming he finds your behavior appears suspicious because he cannot say he thinks you don't "look" like a US citizen. An over the line tactic is to claim he saw something suspicious or smelled marijuana giving him "probable cause" to detain you.
You always have the right to remain silent at border crossings but if you stay silent and do not answer questions, for example about your immigration or citizenship status, the law enforcement officers will likely refuse to allow you into the U.S.
actually they do have authority, but its minimal. They can technically, only have you stop at interior checkpoints, and possibly search you but only thru reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.
We dnt have answer that at airport they ask me i was u.s. citizens i said are you serious then i was detained and searched without my consent told them if your looking for drugs your wasting your time she said we not looking for drugs we looking for explosives i flipped out...
omg dude. It is a checkpoint. If you watch some of the videos you will hear the officers flat out tell the driver "all you have to do is SAY that you are a U.S. citizen and you can go" They don't care if you are or not...They are just looking for drugs or whatever illegally in most cases.
The Martinez case may apply, but the US Supreme Court case Indianapolis v. Edmond restricts checkpoints from conducting searches without suspicion; not just to the city of Indianapolis, but everywhere else. "General interest in crime control" or however the agents may word it is not good enough.
You are not signing guilt. You are signing that in fact you did receive it and will appear in court to face the charges or plead guilty by mail and pay fine if admitting guilt. Yes they can and will arrest for not signing.
Not necessarily. If you say that you aren't a U.S. citizen and you don't have a passport or any form of identification then they will suspect that you are illegal and can detain you. HOWEVER, If you are not a citizen and don't have identification than LEGALLY they can not MAKE you answer any questions so you should remain silent. So if they detain you for that then that would be considered an illegal detainment. They can usually get an "alert" from a dog and detain you for that anyway.
What country are you a citizen of is actually a trick question. You can’t be that citizen of a country. You can be the country man of a country. But you have to be the citizen of a city. What city are you a citizen of and in what country? Would be a more properly worded question. But simply asking what country are you a citizen of, is an incorrectly worded question. Tell them that it’s an improper question that can’t be answered and then tell them that their one question is up.
As such Krankster83, the dumbest part are folks who don't understand what's happening, don't understand where it's happening, don't understand why it's happening yet feel compelled to criticize others who have to endure it every day. Border Patrol should be on the border, patrolling it. Not harassing domestic traffic inside the country. Why you think armed federal agents should be able to seize & interrogate people absent suspicion along America's streets is beyond me.
Using the canines, I have seen them lie. The dog was barking at the vehicle in front of me, a van, and they said he was alerting at my car. I couldn’t believe it.
Is it consent if you have to sign it by threat of going to jail? If you ever are forced to, write "signed under threat duress, coercion" with your signature. That way it's on the record.
Since this is Cali, why does it matter? If they were illegal and that far in they would have been fingerprinted, picture taken and giving a meal and set free.
When stopped at any checkpoint I inform the officer that "I am an article 4 free inhabitant pursuant to the articles of confederation." it's in the U.S. book of codes. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to google and watch ASAP!!
A recent Supreme Court decision says prosecutors can use a person’s silence against them if it comes before he’s told of his right to remain silent. So, after being detained, a person should ask the officer or interrogator whether he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Also, answering questions can be taken as a waiver of that right. It's always better to be the one asking and not answering questions. Also, no one has a duty to either operate or co-operate with police investigations
The question not asked or answered here unfortunately, is what are the steps to ENFORCE our rights and demand compensation and justice against those involved once we have exercised our rights and been bullied, unlawfully detained, searched, etc?
Take people to police stations whenever they refuse to answers. Take three days to investigate, including tracing plates. If satisfied people are citizens, they can be let go. License should be necessary to show it is valid to drive.
"Take people to police stations whenever they refuse to answers." Your suggestion would require agents to violate the law. "License should be necessary to show it is valid to drive." Agents here are expressly barred from enforcing state motor vehicle law at this type of internal checkpoint.
"If you don't use your rights you'll lose them"
The checkpoints need to be fully audited to validate their usefulness. they are a HUGE waste of tax dollars
I have to go through a checkpoint in Southern Arizona that's been setup along an East-West highway over 40 miles North of the border & never intersects it at any point. The checkpoint has been setup along the outskirts of a nearby town with stores that can be found on either side. That means people who live & commute in the area are indeed stopped, seized & interrogated by Border Patrol agents on a routine basis merely for engaging in daily activities like going to work, school, the store, etc.
Tyranny.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) at 384 U.S. 473-74. "if the individual indicates, in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease."
Jason C. Section 287(a) of the INA gives immigration officers broad authority to “interrogate” aliens, or persons believed to be aliens, about their “right to be or to remain in the United States.” It also authorizes immigration officers to arrest any alien in the United States whom there is “reason to believe” is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration law. A judicial or administrative warrant is not required for these and other actions authorized under INA § 287(a).
@Mark Gibson I'm not from your Country, so I may be wrong, perhaps you can educate me.
Is not merely being an illegal alien in the USA, that is to say, having entered the Country unlawfully, a criminal offence, albeit, a misdemeanour?
If I am correct, then the Miranda protection rights would apply, would they not?
I'm just asking, but that would seem to make sense.
Thanks for your time Mark.
Miranda is only if you've been arrested. And not being Mirandized just means anything you said prior cannot be used as evidence.
*YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE ONLY LEGAL OBLIGATION YOU HAVE IS TO STOP.*
If you don't answer any questions you have something to hide.
@@cindysmith7403 Then why does every defense attorney tell everyone to NEVER speak to police?
ILLEGALS are not only from South of Southern Border. The farther you go south of MEXICO to have blonde blue eyes MEXICAN. My ancestors had blue eyes. My son's have green eyes. We need to work together until our borders are secure!
@@shelbytydings3457 If they felt like it they could. Who the fuck cares.
@@iwineverygame1995 I have never known of an attorney that would advise you not to identify
Part of Amendment 5, Bill of Rights,
; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So you are very correct
How to create a police state:
1. Start with normal border control checkpoints.
2. Introduce similar checkpoints further inland, under the pretext of 'security', 'safety', etc. Always make compliance effortless and non-compliance inconvenient (it's easier just to answer the questions, etc). Rely on the obedience to authority reaction.
3. Slowly increase the number of such checkpoints.
4. Establish state line/regional checkpoints. Get the people used to being stopped and questioned by police. Make non-compliance even more inconvenient (detainment for hours etc).
5. Extend police powers to allow them to stop and account any member of the public at will. Give this practice a friendly, feel-good name eg. 'positive policing', 'public safety check', etc.
6. Introduce a legal requirement that if you are stopped and questioned by police, you must provide identification. Constantly remind the public that this is necessary for safety reasons. Pump up the fear factor (crime, terrorism, infectious diseases etc) to make the public more afraid and willing to go along with it as a necessary evil for the good of society.
7. Once the people are thoroughly accustomed to being detained and identified at will, gradually phase in the right for police to perform physical searches without consent.
8. Once this has become the accepted norm, give police the power to enter and search homes at will.
Can't say for sure this would work, but this is how I'd do it - remove the people's rights very, very gradually, so they don't realize what's happening until its too late.
UncleFeedle You made a great point. I wish I disagreed with you, but I don't.
Exactly. That is the exact outline for how things like this go. People lose their freedoms but stupidly smile about it because they want the false security. It's sad how many people defend these checkpoints on the basis of "it keeps drugs out" as if they don't have eyes or ears to see and hear about the abundance of drugs already here.
UncleFeedle I agree.. Why can't more see it? One only has to look at history
What people also have to keep in mind that the supreme court is heavily influenced by common opinion and social norms. When it was commonly accepted that black people are 2nd class citizens the supreme court refused to rule against racist laws or in favor of African Americans. So if circumstances as described by UncleFeedle were to become the norm and commonly accepted by the population its likely they would do nothing to stop it and even declare laws in favor of them as constitutional.
are you willing to give up your rights, privacy, freedom in the name of "safety"
The officer in the first video says "All you have to do is to say yes and you'll be on your way". doesn't that in itself show us that these checkpoints are not really anything to do with checking immigration status?
Driver was talking. Agent wanted driver to say the word YES. Couldn't agent tell that the driver was a citizen be the way he, "Respectfully refused to answer the question"?
Why can't they just look at the car's tags?
@@TurkistanSeneti No they can't. These checkpoints have nothing to do with immigration.
@@TurkistanSeneti that is against what the checkpoint is set up for I am a citizen of the us n i have an accent .. am I an illegal..we cant use those 3things u mention to weed out illegal immigrant
@@iwineverygame1995 I know the immigration checkpoint is for immigration purposes the issue is other crimes do arise from the checkpoint mostly smuggling
They can only hold you for 90 minutes if you refuse to answer and if they hold you for longer it is a felony. Always record, always be polite. Never give your id. If everyone does this, there won't be any checkpoints any more. One more thing. The US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that all border patrol MUST wear a name tag or they are not allowed to stop anyone. This comes out of the Portland protests where officers didn't wear name tags. Many of the charges have been dismissed as a result. No name tag, no lawful stop.
It's funny how border check points will demand you to answer questions but when news media ask them questions they decline!
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." One of our great forefathers said that. It is our freedom and right to travel unmolested unless there is reasonable suspicion that you were committing a crime. If you are willing to sacrifice your liberties or freedoms for a little "safety" than you don't deserve them! If you won't fight for your freedom then you WILL lose it! That is a fact proven over and over by history.
The attitude of "you would comply if you had nothing to hide" holds zero water. That is like saying, I will put a camera in your home to monitor activities....If you say "no"....you obviously have something to hide. That is not a radical comparison. If a cop stops you randomly and says "empty your pockets"...Are you saying you would ignore your Constitutional Rights and give them up? In that case I do have something to hide (my privacy). Give the Police/Gov and inch, they will absolutely take it
The border agent just pointed out you're living a police state!
"You have a right to remain silent"
They even remind you.
Take their advice.
wesmatron yeah, stfu and stop bitching about everything
I was told by a agent that the agents that work the checkpoints are considered junior agents and are power hungry and starved for action. I go through a checkpoint every day. A coworker of mine and had a very small amount of marijuana that an agent found and my coworker said that the agents got real excited for a small quantity and then called Az dps. My coworker said that when dps arrived the officer expected a large quantity and then chuckled and stated that Border Patrol was wasting his time for such a small find. Not even the dps officer had respect for these guys. Also, the checkpoint I cross, Ive only seens citizens stopped and have never seen a detained illegal.
IN other words, a total waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Absolutely not true. You can assert your rights at any time. You do not have to be under arrest to invoke your rights.
I don't think anyone illegally in the U.S would drive through one of those permanent checkpoints anyway. Its A waste of time and manpower.
manny6584 at least it keeps some folks in jobs
manny6584
You would think that a reasonable illegal person would avoid the permanent checkpoint. But, there are many, many illegals who are caught at the checkpoints every year. Likely because the illegals thought they could outsmart the agents.
No it's not a waste of time and manpower to have a checkpoint. There have been many illegals caught by border patrol at checkpoints and in the surrounding areas around checkpoints. This people usually are hidden in compartments in vehicles or tractor trailers. Also many drugs people
have been arrested over drugs at checkpoints. Of course this drug people want checkpoints to be taken down--- It will be a lot easier for them to get them through.
@@roelrequenez5970 Bullshit. Less than 3 percent of all illegal immigrants captured by BP agents are caught at inland checkpoints.
These checkpoints have nothing to do with immigration.
While I would cooperate and answer the questions, simply because it's easier, I fully support people's right to travel freely without being stopped by law enforcement for no reason. The Border Patrol agents asked if they were U.S. citizens. They said all you have to do is say you are a U.S. citizen and you can be on your way. So, it seems that an illegal immigrant could just say they are a U.S. citizen. Always remember and never forget, the police are not your friends. They are looking for a reason, any reason, to arrest you.
RB Brown isn't that a futile waste of time and tax payer monies then?
you bend over and submit easily, when things get really bad you would still cooperate as they led you onto the bus to the fema camps
Actually, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" was a slogan of the Nazi regime. Good luck.
That is so much bullshit. Where the hell did you get that.
The phrase - widely used in discussions of Internet security and uttered by Pius Thicknesse in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - is most commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in 1933.
However, there is an earlier precedent. Upton Sinclair used an inverted version in 1918 in The Profits of Religion: An Essay in Economic Interpretation:
Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends-people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.’
bjfdog I mean, they are right. Not the whole, you know, kill everybody thing but don’t bitch about it and you’ll be fine
Right why not just say ya and move on.The only reason for not answering is if ur hiding something or u wana cause drama
George Loughner yessir
If I’m illegal and the Officer asks me If I’m an American citizen, I would say yes and be on my way. The people who don’t answer are probably all Americans. Someone who would be deported wouldn’t make a scene.
The Border Patrol they know right away in a millisecond if the person is an American Citizen
Or not I just hope i n Heaven God dont have this Idiots asking are you An American citizen
Cop--Do you know why I stopped you? Me--You only got C's and D's your whole life in school so being a cop was all that was left??
The cues and suspicion of the Agents used to further detain people are purely subjective. They do not constitute probable cause. Some people are naturally nervous and impatient and it doesn't automatically mean that something is going on.
Why would any self-respecting US citizen allow their 'guys and gals' to seize them absent individualized suspicion along public roads inside the country, interrogate them regarding unknown crimes & seek to search them absent probable cause? Just another example of ignorant authoritarians mouthing off against folks exercising the rights these agents are supposed to defend & respect.
The right way to deal with checkpoints is to make a written statement about the checkpoints to the right people that stands for them and make sure it will be published. The statement must contain all the wrong things about the checkpoints, why it is wrong. Also details about the checkpoint vs the Amendment.
Illegal red light cameras and toll cameras don't know who the operator of the vehicle is but they issue an illegal summons to a license plate.
An unconstitutional statute, though it may walk like a law and quack like a law, is not a law, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
In short, the decision of constitutionality is solely the Individual's responsibility.
No it's not. If individuals decided the constitutionalty of a law, nobody would get arrested. States have the right to make laws/statutes/et al given to them by the 10th Amendment - you know, the one Sovereign idiots forget to read.
The thing most people don't know - and should be included in EVERY video about the border patrol checkpoints - is this: Of the (approx.) 329 million people in the US, about 200 million live within 100 miles of a US border. *ALMOST 2/3 of ALL citizens in the US* are potentially subject to these checkpoints (since a checkpoint can be set up either permanently or temporarily ANYWHERE within that 100 mile limit).
If you had told me this back in the day I wouldn't have believed it. I came across checkpoints in foreign countries where wars are going on. I would never have believed that people here would stop to be questioned. So much for the 4th amendment.
One thing not mentioned is the drug dog they use to sniff around your vehicle. The courts have ruled that a "drug" checkpoint is illegal. So when they start using "drug" dog(s) to sniff around a vehicle it goes from an immigration check point to a "drug" checkpoint for criminal activity.
There is no law or federal ordinance requiring US citizens to carry national ID or US citizenship papers, so there is no reason to admit one's status one way or the other.
pleading the 5th is something you can and should use......the USA is NOT a police state so you don't have to answer them.
If it's not a big deal, why are detaining and threatening, assaulting people?
Well How the hell is it legal for them to do random patdowns in NYC? From what is said there have never been more people arrested for small amounts of marijauna in any other city or state at any other point in time in history due to random pat downs.
+piss offed Stop and frisk is a violation of the 4th amendment. No police officer in the united states is allowed to detain you, or ask you for ID without probable cause! Say no to stop and frisk! No real crimes have ever been stopped due to this practice in NYC. Most cases are violations for carrying weed, and get dismissed anyway due to a unconstitutional search. Welcome to police state america, if you don't flex your rights, you will lose your rights!
YEP your right I typed out all the marijauna stuff then saw you already had it there. NO ONE HERE CARES. NO ONE CARES man. People dont consider themselves americans they consider themselves democrats and republicans. So everyone worries about the other party. If a democrat politician does it and you consider your self a democrat here then its ok and vice versa. Our govt has divided us almost directly 50/50 and the govt can and will do whatever it wants and the poeple just dont seem to care.
+piss offed its all about generating $$$ bro.
The distinction needs to be made clear. Being arrested doesn't mean shit so we as a society need to wake up and realize that. It's being convicted of something that holds weight (and even then it's questionable). Looking solely at the arrest numbers tell you nothing of the effect because you have to also see the verdict in each case. Most people won't look that far because they think their lives are too busy or whatever, but the information is out there and you'd be surprised at what you'll find.
This ACLU guy is as sharp as a laser. Every word uttered is careful and to the point. He really knows his onions.
Not sure how I'd react, but respect whatever stance others want to take.
How could the supreme court allow the government to set up interior check points when they are clearly unconstitutional??????
They not only allowed it, they approved it. This in and of itself is unconstitutional as their ruling flies in the face of the 4th amendment. Article 4 gives them the power to make a ruling but not one that is contrary to the constitution, for them to properly do that, they must first repeal the 4th amendment.
It started with border agents at the border, very understandable, then they sat up shop 100 miles from the border, somewhat questionable, next it will be every 100 miles, in every state, everyone think that's ok, are you good witht, because as sure as I am sitting here typing this, its coming.
So what. Every time I have been through one it takes me less than 5 seconds to go through. Why? Cuz I answer yes. Get over yourself and answer the fucking question.
What happens when a person requests to have an attorney present during questioning? Anyone know?
I don’t think they will provide one unless the person being questioned is under arrest after they found out something illegal was going on
I thinks its great to bring legal experts on you tube to educate the public. I hope more Americans stand up and challenge Authority figures. I trust also these individuals educate themselves about there rights in every situation before challenging the police. Don't want to see anyone going to jail by mistake.
"Why would you not want to show that you are a legal citizen?"
Because I would rather help these agents understand that I don't have to, so they won't continue to violate the law
Thanks for asking
interesting but he is mistaken at one point..He says you need to give your licence and details if they show probably cause that you have committed a traffic violation.. this is simply not true.. a traffic violation is NOT a crime..they have to show evidence that you have actually 'caused harm'.. so long as you don't cause harm you a free to move around this planet however you choose.. and he's a lawyer.. seemingly on the right side too and he still doesn't get it.. still assuming that invented regulations can be imposed by force.. and that victimless crimes are the same as actual crimes..
In that instant he was talking about DUI checkpoints by police officers
Julia Cunnington yes.. is there a point there..?
Your thinking of "common Law", which is pretty much dead in the U.S. Showing ID while in a vehicle is very tricky. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to pull you over and ID you. A police officer cannot pull you over for no reason at all, although they can always find or claim a reason.
Check points are no different then being pulled over for no admitted reason at all. Therefore a police officer has no right to ID you because the stop wasn't based on any suspicion at all. However, the only thing a cop has to say is " Your eyes look glazed over and I suspect you of drinking and driving." Now you have to show your ID or risk being charged with "Failure to provide ID".
This is why checkpoints should be found 100% unconstitutional, it makes it way to easy for police officer to fudge the fact and infringe on our rights.
"He says you need to give your licence and details if they show probably cause that you have committed a traffic violation.. this is simply not true.. a traffic violation is NOT a crime.."....... my response to THIS was my point, so yeah. So you need to show your ID to a cop in a suspected DUI is the point (That's why I said he was talking about the DUI, not the checkpoint)
Julia Cunnington Yes but my point apples equally to a DUI.. this is merely a government regulation which cannot be enforced without your consent. No Victim- No Crime.. You are a conscious living being. you are autonomous and self governing. You are free to consume alcohol and move around in a motor vehicle if the mood takes you.. i don't recommend it and i think it's a generally irresponsible thing to do and can be dangerous but my thoughts do not govern you actions.. If, in the process of operating your motorised vehicle, you hit somebody and cause them loss or harm then this IS a CRIME.. and they can say "you have caused me this loss/ harm" and you have a moral and social obligation to make retributions towards them.. and if you refuse then your community/ a group of your piers reserve the right to exert force against you to extract retribution and maybe limit your freedom in order to protect themselves from your irresponsible behaviour.. this is a very different thing from a fictitious corporate entity extracting profit from you for an action that causes no harm and is none of their concern..you of course (most likely) also HAVE a fictional legal personality that you are free to ACT though if you wish to engage with other fictional legal entities like states or corporations.. you may like to do this for the benefits that result and in so doing you are then responsible for any corresponding obligations that ensue.. so while ACTING though such a title you are indeed obliged to do everything that that body requires of you.. but you must be clear that you can never be forced to ACT though this channel. Commonwealth law is very clear.. God then Man (living human) then legal fictions (corporations etc) we have just been tricked/trained to believe that corporations have automatic authority over us all of the time and we are obliged to obey their edits when this is simply not the case and never was..
You do know that this could be stopped if the politicians in Washington DC. If the people of America got them off their lazy ass and make a law to stop it.
Answering to "are you us citizen?", "yes" is like "do you want police state?"
"If we do not exercise our rights, they will wither and die."
~BlueBeard
That's such a crap statement. There is no truth to that at all
So if it's a crap statement, if you don't assert your rights you really believe those intending to usurp them will respect them anyway? It doesn't matter, because your statement is a troll statement and I actually clicked on this comment to post my own troll statement before I allowed you to troll me...
"I was even quicker, before I went stone blind."
-Grey Beard
(As reported by Kenny Rogers in his awesome song)
@@ChuckFury not trying to troll.
I'm just sick of seeing that statement on these types of viddies.
I really thought you were. Probably because I really was here to troll in this case ( because of the Blue Beard credit). LOL I actually gave your last statement a thumbs up just now. While the sentiment is accurate, I am sick of seeing it myself. Which is probably the rest of the reason I felt compelled to troll it. I probably need to stop assuming everyone else is as big an @$$#0£€ as I am.
The fact that they know their constitutional rights would indicate that they are U.S. citizens, right? So, in a way, they are answering the question.
I appreciate what he is saying, but too often he says, "I think...." or "I believe...." That doesn't hold up in court.
He's saying that to protect himself legally. It does not dilute what he is saying at all...
@@brannancloward He's saying that because he would be guilty of practicing law (bad law) if he didn't cover his ass.
Border patrol: Are you a US citizen?
Driver: Are YOU a US citizen? Show me your green card.
Border patrol: Where were you born?
Driver: Earth. What planet are you from? Uranus?
Border patrol: Show me your ID.
Driver: ( I ) (D).
Border patrol: Where are you coming from?
Driver: Back there.
Border patrol: Where are you going?
Driver: Up there.
Border patrol: Are you trying to be smart with me?
Driver: If I was, you wouldn't understand. Do you need a translator, or do I just need to speak slower?
I would die for my rights! Like if you agree!!
I would, but I have no rights. I'm a German. We have no freedom of speech anymore. Can You guys come over again, please! Because something went wrong in Germany. Please help !!!
I think? Doesn't sound too sure of his answers. I guess he hasn't even visited the ACLU's own website which totally disagrees with what he said:
If you are stopped for questioning, DO...
DO give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.
DO remember you have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested or detained for refusing to answer questions. But it can look suspicious to the police.
DO make sure the officer knows you do not agree to be searched (they might search you anyway, but make your opposition known. You can say “I do not consent to a search.”).
DO ask if you are free to leave. If they say ‘yes,’ leave; if they say ‘no,’ DO ask to know why.
If you are stopped for questioning, DON'T...
DON’T disrespect a police officer. Although you have a Constitutional First Amendment right to do so, it could lead to your arrest.
DON’T refuse to give your name, you could be arrested.
DON’T lie. Don’t talk if you don’t have anything to say. Tell the police you don’t want to talk to them; you do not have to give additional information besides your name and basic identifying information.
DON’T disrespect the officer. Although you have a Constitutional First Amendment right to do so, it could lead to your arrest.
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should:
. . . give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.
I wonder if he'll come bail me out of jail if I try this? I think not!
No thanks I think I will just answer the question and be on my way instead of spending time in jail I will never get back.
I would have said, DAMN RIGHT I AM A U.S. CITIZEN AND DAMN PROUD OF IT TOO!
+Roland Galindo _"I would have said, DAMN RIGHT I AM A U.S. CITIZEN AND DAMN PROUD OF IT TOO!"_
They don't believe you! And now they want you to bend over and spread your cheeks.
+tubebility That's when you say No and site the 5th and fourth amendments. However, if they have probable cause, they can then bend you over and spread your cheeks. So if you don't want your cheeks spread, don't let anything in there smell or show.
And fuck you very much for asking right?
Roland Galindo I understand ur happy that u escaped that shithole country u or ur family come from. So now you will lick boots lol.. But people here have rights.
So you are ASSuming I am not from born and raised in the USA?
I am a 20 year United States Air Force Vet. What have you done for your country?
What if you’re a tourist visiting the U.S. Are you not allowed to drive on the roads?
I would love to see what they would do if everyone failed to answer
i wonder what happens if you are a tourist from germany.... do i have to show id or can i refuse to cooperate?
show your passport and done. you don't have to awnser any questions.
This is exactly how Germany started out in the 1930s. They were once a democracy also
Also lol..
Shelby Tydings what are you talking about nazis are the enemy of socialism
I would not go to secondary. Unless they can prove a reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring, they have no basis to order you into a secondary inspection area. I would refuse to go and repeatedly tell them I want to be free to travel unmolested, which is my right. This is not 1930s Germany. Papers please.
STAND UP for your right, David Loy you are the man. Thank you
>freakyflow you just haven't run into random roadblocks then
sometimes they have them on the TCH, between Quebec and Nova Scotia.
I think I always saw them in NB
ummm,anybody been to town lately??? from the population I can see, these checkpoints aint catching nobody.
Aside from the fact that these checkpoints are an unnecessary inhibition on travel within the borders of the country, the question that they ask is ridiculous. That is, anyone can say that he/she is "an American" without any proof, and the agents usually don't ask for any. What good is a system that can be so easily circumvented with a simple lie that is rarely challenged? English-speaking foreigners, especially Canadians, can avoid be hassled simply by lying about their citizenship, and the border patrol probably won't catch them. So, it then boils down to racial profiling. They will only challenge people who don't look or sound "American". That's not how things should work.
Tying up their time, meanwhile drugs, weapons and people are streaming in. Move the checkpoints to the border... Problem solved.
Build the wall
It's a 100% violation of our constitutional rights not to be impeded while traveling freely in our country
Hello are you American citizens ?
Nooo senior I am an illegal alien .
Ok then you are free to go !
LOL!!!!!
Um, no?
Why do they have aliens in area 51
No no as the fourth amendment of the constitution you legally do not even have to talk or lower the window.
Read the 10th Amendment and shut up
"if you dont use them you will lose them"???
thats not true.
Yes, it is.
Yep, your disagreement with SCOTUS's rulings is moot:
U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte: "...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....& our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 882. None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations”
I said hell yeah! I'm an American citizen...(I'm from Mexico but anyway its part of America) so I'm an American LOL
Roll the tape again and pay close attention... They don't ask if you are an American citizen... the question is: Are you a U.S. Citizen.
Learn how to pay attention or you gonna end up in a U. S. Federal penitentiary for 10 years for lying to a U. S. Federal Agent.
The ACLU and their people are full of shit... Them mother fuckers will get you in trouble but will not get you out of it.
SOUTH AMERICA
Lol...
The funny thing about your ignorant statement USBP420 is that CBP was invited to the show to participate but declined. In fact, as far as I can tell everytime CBP has been invited to make a statement or appear to rebut the other side regarding this issue, it has declined. Not only that, everytime I've submitted FOIA requests to get CBP's official legal position regarding this issue, the agency has declined.
Why is that USBP420? Could it be CBP has something to hide?
It's seems very transparent. The courts have ruled it's legal and they do it.
Annnd the landdd of the FREEE ..Oh wait I'm Canadian I don't have these problems
If u don't like it stay your candy coated ass in Canada. It floors me how you ass wipes think you have any right to an opinion here. Guess what... YOU DON'T.
Hopefully the poster of this vid will correct the description... these are not refusals to answer questions at the the borders... these are people refusing to answer questions at internal border patrol check points. They are pointless anyway... if you are illegal, just say you are a US citizen and go on your way.
Seems to me this guy is only able to tell us what he thinks, and not what is legal. Thanks for nothing dude!
Thats what i understood also
It's law, you can really only have an opinion. Congress makes laws, the police try to enforce them as they see fit, then judges interpret the law and make decisions. Once a landmark case has been decided law enforcement will be required to change there behaviour. It's not until a judge makes a ruling that you find out how that law will really be applied.
Laws are not as cut and dry as you might think. Laws passed are constantly ruled unconstitutional, meaning they are no longer law. For something as relatively new as inland border checks, all ANY lawyer can do is give their opinion until the Supreme Court rules on a case. Even then you still need to convince five of nine judges that you're right.
Brandon Francey yes
Exactly. They might as well have had me on to give my opinion-- it would be just as unhelpful.
In general, I think the ACLU has outlived much of its purpose. On the other hand, about the Constitution and Amendments, I agree with David Loy.
Land of the free. lol
Suppose I would be travelling in the United States and I would be stopped by such a checkpoint. Do I, a foreign national, have to cooperate with law enforcement or border control ? Or does the Constitution protect me as well ?
if your not crossing the boarder, no... you do not have to answer there questions or tell them weather or not you are a US citizen, once you are in this country you have the same rights as any American citizen when it comes to the police.
Tristan, there is a Supreme Court ruling saying The Constitution protects "persons". That's why someone illegally in the USA is entitled to due process before deportation. As a visiting traveler, you are protected by the USA Constitution while you are present in the USA.
I hate how people keep using the term "Nazi Germany". Although I greatly disagree with border checks, it is not in any way similar to Nazi Germany.
How is a NAZI checkpoint different than our checkpoints? They may not be the exact same thing but we are getting close.
We are not getting close whatsoever. If you think we're ANYWHERE near a Nazi-Germany lifestyle, then you don't know history very well at all.
I hear in every single video about checkpoints and other police misconduct about "Nazi-Germany". We get it, you think it's some great injustice, which it is. However, it is not to be compared to Nazi-Germany. It doesn't have any correlation whatsoever.
It is completely similar. In a democracy you do not have to prove that you are a citizen when travelling inside the country and not crossing any border. It is a vital part of any functioning democracy. Go along with giving up that right and you are complicit in enabling a police state. And I have lived in a fascist state by the way and the US is the closest country I have ever lived in to that since then. Don't talk about history when you obviously don't know yours very well.
And yet you haven't pointed out one example of how they are different.
***** While that may be true, I find it a little strange how it seems nearly everyone uses the term "Nazi Germany" when in these situations. It's almost like they're all getting their information on laws and suggestions as to what to say from the exact same source.
..and I'll add to my earlier statement... If you feel uncomfortable just sitting in awkward silence, answer "I do not answer questions" and nothing else.
I see NO problem whatsoever to answer questions of officials / authorities to help them raise the security level. Being 48 now I've NEVER experienced anything I'd call harassement from any policeman or other authority in the US. One thing for sure: forcing MY rights with NO respect to the rights of OTHERS (including their right to perform best their job / mission) is NOT an assertiveness, but a mindless agression sign of very primitive, uncivilised and mean attitude.
"I see NO problem whatsoever to answer questions of officials"
The please feel free to do so.
Just don't expect me to.
I never suggested you to do so, my Friend.... OR (following other's attitude): "Please do not limit my RIGHT to expect what I WANT and LIKE to expect"... :):) Boooooo.....
zyrtec3
And I never said you did...
:):) But you did order me NOT TO EXPECT... (see how absurd and destructive such attitude is? It can go on and on in this manner to waste time, energy, breath and - perhaps - start a conflict.)...
zyrtec3 Just trying to let you down easy.
I think it is a very fine line for these "inner border" Patrol Agents to ask, "Are you a US citizen." If you refuse to answer, which is a right to US citizens, his only recourse is to continue to get you to speak or he must cross that line by claiming he finds your behavior appears suspicious because he cannot say he thinks you don't "look" like a US citizen. An over the line tactic is to claim he saw something suspicious or smelled marijuana giving him "probable cause" to detain you.
Is the right to remain silent and not answer any questions from federal agents also apply at border crossings or only at these "checkpoints"?
You always have the right to remain silent at border crossings but if you stay silent and do not answer questions, for example about your immigration or citizenship status, the law enforcement officers will likely refuse to allow you into the U.S.
actually they do have authority, but its minimal. They can technically, only have you stop at interior checkpoints, and possibly search you but only thru reasonable suspicion, or probable cause.
We dnt have answer that at airport they ask me i was u.s. citizens i said are you serious then i was detained and searched without my consent told them if your looking for drugs your wasting your time she said we not looking for drugs we looking for explosives i flipped out...
technically thats if you're being arrested, and maybe even if you're being detained.
omg dude. It is a checkpoint. If you watch some of the videos you will hear the officers flat out tell the driver "all you have to do is SAY that you are a U.S. citizen and you can go" They don't care if you are or not...They are just looking for drugs or whatever illegally in most cases.
The Martinez case may apply, but the US Supreme Court case Indianapolis v. Edmond restricts checkpoints from conducting searches without suspicion; not just to the city of Indianapolis, but everywhere else. "General interest in crime control" or however the agents may word it is not good enough.
You are not signing guilt. You are signing that in fact you did receive it and will appear in court to face the charges or plead guilty by mail and pay fine if admitting guilt. Yes they can and will arrest for not signing.
Translation whenever the agent feels like it.
Not necessarily. If you say that you aren't a U.S. citizen and you don't have a passport or any form of identification then they will suspect that you are illegal and can detain you. HOWEVER, If you are not a citizen and don't have identification than LEGALLY they can not MAKE you answer any questions so you should remain silent. So if they detain you for that then that would be considered an illegal detainment. They can usually get an "alert" from a dog and detain you for that anyway.
So you are saying that you would antagonize because you said cooperate THEN antagonize. Did you mean to say THAN?
What country are you a citizen of is actually a trick question. You can’t be that citizen of a country. You can be the country man of a country. But you have to be the citizen of a city. What city are you a citizen of and in what country? Would be a more properly worded question. But simply asking what country are you a citizen of, is an incorrectly worded question. Tell them that it’s an improper question that can’t be answered and then tell them that their one question is up.
As such Krankster83, the dumbest part are folks who don't understand what's happening, don't understand where it's happening, don't understand why it's happening yet feel compelled to criticize others who have to endure it every day.
Border Patrol should be on the border, patrolling it. Not harassing domestic traffic inside the country. Why you think armed federal agents should be able to seize & interrogate people absent suspicion along America's streets is beyond me.
if the wall goes up then these checks can go?
Using the canines, I have seen them lie. The dog was barking at the vehicle in front of me, a van, and they said he was alerting at my car. I couldn’t believe it.
Is it consent if you have to sign it by threat of going to jail? If you ever are forced to, write "signed under threat duress, coercion" with your signature. That way it's on the record.
Are checkpoints effective would be my first question right "off the bat".
Since this is Cali, why does it matter? If they were illegal and that far in they would have been fingerprinted, picture taken and giving a meal and set free.
Not just a principle but US citizen is a declaration in a political and personal status. One can be a citizen of one's state and not a US citizen.
When stopped at any checkpoint I inform the officer that "I am an article 4 free inhabitant pursuant to the articles of confederation." it's in the U.S. book of codes.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to google and watch ASAP!!
@richgs76 : dude, google what I said and watch a funny video. get informed and re-subscribe to your sense of humor.
what about threatening you to go to jail if you don't sign a traffic ticket?
A recent Supreme Court decision says prosecutors can use a person’s silence against them if it comes before he’s told of his right to remain silent.
So, after being detained, a person should ask the officer or interrogator whether he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Also, answering questions can be taken as a waiver of that right.
It's always better to be the one asking and not answering questions.
Also, no one has a duty to either operate or co-operate with police investigations
So, the supreme court upheld the checkpoints but go ahead and ignore them? Not good advice.
The question not asked or answered here unfortunately, is what are the steps to ENFORCE our rights and demand compensation and justice against those involved once we have exercised our rights and been bullied, unlawfully detained, searched, etc?
Take people to police stations whenever they refuse to answers. Take three days to investigate, including tracing plates. If satisfied people are citizens, they can be let go. License should be necessary to show it is valid to drive.
"Take people to police stations whenever they refuse to answers."
Your suggestion would require agents to violate the law.
"License should be necessary to show it is valid to drive."
Agents here are expressly barred from enforcing state motor vehicle law at this type of internal checkpoint.
Yeah, just give away your rights and suck the cop's anus like a good little doggy.