[RubberMallet]

They're stopping plenty of other people that aren't this guy for no good reason. It's not right.

how do you know? you there?

my uncle worked border patrol for a good chunk of time...it was on the canadian/us border and probable cause was wide open...if you are acting suspicious or not cooperating that is seen as cause and they'll pull you and search the car. They've been doing this for YEARS at the border. ... the same uncle once was asked coming back from canada (this is before he worked for them) where he was born, he responded "in a hospital" and his car got searched, and he was detained for 8 hours...this was in the 70's.

its the law and this guy broke it. answer the questions and go about your business. if you don't like a law like this, i'm completely fine with you openly defying it to support a cause, just don't be ticked when you get the crap beat out of you and complain on youtube either... it unfortunate this dipspit has the past of being a complete retard or else i would too be up in arms about this...but i'm not, because i don't take anything he says at face value.

[LUconn]

It is constitutional though. That's why he needs to cooperate.

[El Scorcho]

They're stopping plenty of other people that aren't this guy for no good reason. It's not right.

how do you know? you there?

I know because I've been reading reports about the border checks nowhere near our borders for the last 6 or 7 years. It's the miracle of the Interwebs. I don't have to be there to get information.

my uncle worked border patrol for a good chunk of time...it was on the canadian/us border...

Nothing you said after this matters because you're comparing the US/Canadian border to the new Bush-era border checkpoints that are NOT on the borders.

I know I'll probably be called a flaming lib for this link, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is a conservative cause.

More info: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

Also see: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/arey ... ezone.html

[El Scorcho]

It is constitutional though. That's why he needs to cooperate.

"It is constitutional" is vague. A lot of stuff happens in his videos. Most of it is not constitutional.

[RubberMallet]

They're stopping plenty of other people that aren't this guy for no good reason. It's not right.

how do you know? you there?

I know because I've been reading reports about the border checks nowhere near our borders for the last 6 or 7 years. It's the miracle of the Interwebs. I don't have to be there to get information.

my uncle worked border patrol for a good chunk of time...it was on the canadian/us border...

Nothing you said after this matters because you're comparing the US/Canadian border to the new Bush-era border checkpoints that are NOT on the borders.

I know I'll probably be called a flaming lib for this link, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is a conservative cause.

More info: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

Also see: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/arey ... ezone.html

then i'm also assuming you've read about the fact that they stop more drug traffiking and illegals at these checkpoints than they ever have on the border patrol over the past 6-7 years.

they (notice i'm saying they, not I) think its worth having to deal with a few complaints here and there to take care of the job.

no lib calling here...if you've read my posts on this topic i think its hilarious hearing all the right wingers who thought this was a fabulous idea 8 years ago are up in arms about this...this is what they wanted.

the aclu will swing it anyway they want and thats fine, thats their agenda.

it doens't matter if they are on our borders or if they aren't. millions and millions and millions of people pass through these checkpoints each and every day....just going about their business...none of their rights are being violated...1 or 2 of them may get treated unfairly but how is that any different than any other situation. you'll have that anywhere.

the reason these off border check points are in place is because they work really really well. like i said, the few that get their "rights" stomped on allegedly is worth the good that they do.

we moved a pastro from El Centro, CA to IL, we drove along route 8 and were stopped with MOVING VANS along with every other car on the interstate. they didn't even ask to look in them....just where we were from, what we were doing....we told them and we went right on through...its not that hard...and after spending 3 days in sd my italian butt even looked hispanic...

[Realist]

100% behind scorcho on this one.

I don't know anything about this guy and obviously he's even radical for you guys (kidding). Even so, thank god there are those that will not just accept having their rights trampled on and will fight for them, and at least attempt to educate themselves on their rights. There are so many out there that will comply with everything and don't think for a second that the government won't use that to their advantage to extend their power. It is a slippery slope, and once you start budging even an inch just to answer a couple of questions or have your person and property searched as a minor inconvience turns into something more down the road.

If the border patrol wants to catch illegals, how about putting all this manpower on the actual border? Turning off the faucet is the first step in stopping the flow.

[Realist]

As for the dog sniffing, is there a response where you know a dog is picking up something? Everytime I've seen a video of a dog picking something up he's going nuts and jumping around.

If the law says the officer can just say the dog picked up something, then the law needs to be changed. That's B.S.

[AZjonz]

As for the dog sniffing, is there a response where you know a dog is picking up something? Everytime I've seen a video of a dog picking something up he's going nuts and jumping around.

If the law says the officer can just say the dog picked up something, then the law needs to be changed. That's B.S.

While I'm no expert on dogs, I did witness a dog training exercise at a Marine boot camp in San Diego. Basically, the dog would just sit quietly when it detected drugs. Some other cool stuff was a dog would keep attacking/charging even with gunfire. The only thing that would stop these dogs was the command by the owner/trainer. It was really impressive. These dogs are really well trained.

That's why I posed an earlier question of what exactly did the dogs detect. Nothing was found, but the BP said the dogs detected something. I find that curious as I remember the dog trainers at the MCRD bragging that the dogs were extremely accurate and efficient. Were the dogs wrong or did BP lie? Maybe there is an explanation for this paradox.

[ATrain]

As for the dog sniffing, is there a response where you know a dog is picking up something? Everytime I've seen a video of a dog picking something up he's going nuts and jumping around.

If the law says the officer can just say the dog picked up something, then the law needs to be changed. That's B.S.

While I'm no expert on dogs, I did witness a dog training exercise at a Marine boot camp in San Diego. Basically, the dog would just sit quietly when it detected drugs. Some other cool stuff was a dog would keep attacking/charging even with gunfire. The only thing that would stop these dogs was the command by the owner/trainer. It was really impressive. These dogs are really well trained.

That's why I posed an earlier question of what exactly did the dogs detect. Nothing was found, but the BP said the dogs detected something. I find that curious as I remember the dog trainers at the MCRD bragging that the dogs were extremely accurate and efficient. Were the dogs wrong or did BP lie? Maybe there is an explanation for this paradox.

If I had to guess, BP lied. Yes, we've established the guy is an idiot, but they were determined to search his car.

[PAmedic]

I'm replying exactly one time to this mess. My suggestion is that some of you know-it alls either enroll in the academy, or go to law school.

(emoticon soley for the purpose of making sure everyone knows that I'm not really pi$$ed off)

*** CAVEAT: THE FOLLWING IS BASE ON PA STATUTES, LAWS VARY FROM STATE TO STATE ***

1. I have the right to stop ANYONE I WANT, WHENEVER I WANT TO. Its called a "mere encounter" and no, you don't have to talk to me- but you DO have to show me valid ID. Sorry, that's the way it goes.

2. IF and WHEN I initiate a mere encounter- and I find something suspicious, I may now DETAIN YOU. The level required here is REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT PROBABLE CAUSE. In other words- if the AVERAGE PERSON finds it REASONABLE that something is SUSPICIOUS, I can hold you. I can cuff you. I can put you in the back of my car.

3. If you resist the above- now I DO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. Meaning, it's MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that you are up to something. That's all I need. The moron in the story protrayed above is a perfect example of this scenario unfolding.

4. The use of force continumm, as well as case law, generally places Tasers at a mid-level resistance. You don't actually have to be hitting me- merely actively NOT complying with my orders; such as pulling away, refusing to move, or running from me. In fact, if you are hitting me, much much worse will happen to you then being hit with a Taser.

5. Canine officers (the dogs) often SIT DOWN after hitting on something. And just because we don't find it right away doesn't mean it's not in the car. Cases have been documentated where you need magnets to release hidden catches that allow entire sections of the car's roof to slide back, revealing large quantities of narcotics. Those types of things take days to discover.

6. MORAL: If you're innocent, just do what you're asked to do, and obtain legal representation from a qualified lawyer (NOT someone on this board) after the fact if you feel your civil rights were violated. Any lawyer will tell you that you have a great case, "they can't do that", etc , but in most cases you will get your butts handed to you in court. Trust me, the vast majority of cops play by the rules. And if you're REALLY feeling offended, call COPWATCH.

Have a nice day.
***

***WARNING: CONTAINS SOME OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE***

(good example here; skip to the 2 min mark if you don't have much time)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Realist]

That post above is exactly what is wrong.

[rueful]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[4everfsu]

Do as an officer of the law says, period, end of story. If your rights are violated you can have your day in court. Thanks Medic for lesson on law 101, I was tired of hearing wannabe lawyers

[El Scorcho]

Do as an officer of the law says, period, end of story.

I can't believe people are okay with this.

[El Scorcho]

millions and millions and millions of people pass through these checkpoints each and every day...

And that is the problem. There should not be any checkpoints. Why should law abiding citizens have to be hassled as they go about their daily business? They shouldn't. The government should not be stopping people to show their papers or prove their innocence. This is ludicrous and I stand by my statements. I don't care if everyone wants to say I'm a loon. The government and it's agents have no business doing this.

For the record, I was just as furious about people wanting this 8 years ago as I am now.

the reason these off border check points are in place is because they work really really well. like i said, the few that get their "rights" stomped on allegedly is worth the good that they do.

Ah. The ends justify the means. Brilliant.

[AZjonz]

Interesting ruling that came out on April 21, 2009 which will have an impact on police searches of vehicles.

Medic may find this interesting.

SCOTUS: Arizona V Gant


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html

"For several reasons, we reject the State’s argument. First, the State seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake. Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, see New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, 112–113 (1986) , the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection, see Knowles, 525 U. S., at 117. It is particularly significant that Belton searches authorize police officers to search not just the passenger compartment but every purse, briefcase, or other container within that space. A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals. Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment —the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.5"

" These exceptions together ensure that officers may search a vehicle when genuine safety or evidentiary concerns encountered during the arrest of a vehicle’s recent occupant justify a search. Construing Belton broadly to allow vehicle searches incident to any arrest would serve no purpose except to provide a police entitlement, and it is anathema to the Fourth Amendment to permit a warrantless search on that basis. For these reasons, we are unpersuaded by the State’s arguments that a broad reading of Belton would meaningfully further law enforcement interests and justify a substantial intrusion on individuals’ privacy.8"


This ruling goes along way in protecting our 4th amendment rights. If a dog alerts police about my vehicle, I don’t think I have a choice and they can search. But this SCOTUS ruling is a rebuttal to people who say “Do as an officer of the law says, period, end of story.” It seems to say that our rights should be respected up front rather than after-the-fact when lawyers can figure it out. Now I still don’t know if it applies to BP.

I’m no lawyer and never have been in an academy, so maybe it’s really just instructions on making the best chicken soup.