- horribleslob
- Nov 23, 2004
-
|
I don't think he had much of a choice. They've been setting up border patrol checkpoints north of the RGV lately, which limits the options on how to leave here. Like Vargas said, undocumented people are pretty much trapped.
once you're in the united states, immigration checkpoints not on the border are constitutionally-questionable and people are under no obligation to answer their questions nor consent to a search. this is fact and you can find myriad DHS (department of homeland security) refusal videos on youtube showing motorists giving the finger to these law-breaking douchebags, who later give up and send them on their way. these criminals rely on people's ignorance and fear of authority to operate and if more people flex their rights we won't need to abide these fear-mongering weaponized freaks wasting everybody's time. gently caress those guys.
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 08:36
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2024 08:32
|
|
- horribleslob
- Nov 23, 2004
-
|
this is the one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 08:40
|
|
- horribleslob
- Nov 23, 2004
-
|
I absolutely agree with you, it's a shame that most people from here, undocumented or otherwise, tend to assume that they have less rights than they really do. There should be more awareness of what everyone's rights are regarding searches like this.
Edit: looked this up, seems it doesn't apply to undocumented people
http://www.ilrc.org/files/kyr_english.pdf
http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-takes-no-for-an-answer-at-internal-checkpoints/
quote:
Border Patrol Takes ‘No’ for an Answer at Internal Checkpoints
by Cindy Casares Published on Thursday, March 7, 2013, at 2:49 CST
A fascinating video is circulating on the Internet featuring motorists who decline to answer questions at Border Patrol checkpoints miles from the border. Questions like, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” or “Where are you headed?” are met with polite refusals. In the video, one pair of motorists stopped at a Laredo checkpoint refuse to answer an agent’s question about their citizenship. When the agent becomes agitated and orders the driver to pull over to secondary inspection, the driver politely says, “No thank you.” The agent calls over his supervisor. “Unless we’re living in a police state,” the driver says. “Unless this is Mexico or Nazi Germany … this is still America and I can travel down this road without having to answer questions from federal agents.” The kicker is the motorists get away with it; the supervisor ultimately waves them through.
This was a surprise to me because I grew up in the Rio Grande Valley where travelers must pass through an internal checkpoint in Sarita or Falfurrias to reach points north. The Border Patrol operates a total of 71 permanent and tactical checkpoints on the southwest border, according to a 2008 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. (Tactical checkpoints do not have permanent buildings. They support permanent checkpoints by monitoring and inspecting traffic on secondary roads that the Border Patrol determines are likely to be used by undocumented travelers or smugglers.) As the checkpoints have proliferated, so has concern over the rights of motorists. Critics of the internal checkpoints say they violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Still, it was unclear to me if you are legally obligated to answer Border Patrol agents’ questions. What, exactly, are your rights and responsibilities at these checkpoints? I put the question to a few legal experts.
Denise Gilman, co-director of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, says that Border Patrol agents at internal checkpoints are allowed to ask motorists basic questions about citizenship, identity and travel itinerary, but they cannot detain you or search your vehicle without probable cause. Your refusal to answer questions would not provide probable cause to allow for such a detention or search, she added.
“So, if you refuse to answer, they can pull you out of the line and over into ‘secondary inspection’ and they can probably hold you there for about 20 minutes or so,” she said. “But they cannot do anything more if you continue to refuse to respond unless something else develops during that time period that would lead to probable cause.”
More than one motorist in the video declined to pull over into secondary inspection, yet they were allowed to go on their way without incident.
“I don’t know of any case where the person has refused to go into secondary inspection as in the YouTube video,” says Barbara Hines, a clinical professor of law at UT who co-directs the immigration clinic with Gilman. “But it is a very interesting civil disobedience idea. Because in order to arrest the person, the Border Patrol, again, would need probable cause.”
I happened to have a trip planned to the Valley last weekend. On my way back to Austin, I stopped at the checkpoint in Sarita. Rather than refuse to answer the question, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” I asked the agent whether or not I was legally obligated to answer. She was taken aback at first, asking if I was going to pull a camera on her. I told her I was doing a story for the Texas Observer, which probably ensured that I would get out of there without a hassle.
Her supervisor referred me to the Border Patrol Public Affairs Office in Falfurrias and I went on my way never having revealed my citizenship.
By email later, a Border Patrol spokesman gave me the answer I was looking for: “Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions ‘are you a U.S. citizen and where are you headed,’ they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S.”
Border Patrol agents are granted authority to question the occupants of vehicles traveling through an established checkpoint based on U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte. That was a 1976 Supreme Court decision that said permanent or fixed checkpoints set up by the U.S. Border patrol on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Congress also gave the Department of Homeland Security authority, through the Immigration and Nationality Act, to conduct searches within a “reasonable distance” of the border, which DHS defines as 100 miles.
Hines points out, however, that federal laws and regulations are subordinate to the Constitution.
So it seems you are within your rights not to answer the Border Patrol agent at an internal checkpoint (this doesn’t go for actual borders!), but the agents are also within their rights to ask you about your citizenship. At least for a while. After that, they’d need probable cause to detain you.
Remember the "reasonable distance" authority is given by Congress and isn't an opinion of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte
quote:
The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.[1]
The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.[2]
However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "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. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols [as opposed to permanent checkpoints]." 428 U.S. 543, 567 (1976). horribleslob fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Jul 17, 2014
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 09:18
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 08:36
