April 14, 2005 Homeland Security Checkpoint Stop

joher0129 Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - I doubt your liberal ideology would allow you to put yourself in the shoes of those charged with defending this country, those charged with protecting you, your family, & your freedoms, who you now choose to harass & criticize because you wont utter four words: Im an American citizen. Are you embarrassed to say those words?

CheckpointUSA Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - Then it's your position that the GAO did not conduct a study that found a higher interdiction rate at the border than at interior checkpoints? That there are not ~3,000 agents in the Tucson sector with only 265 miles of border? That profiling isn't necessary at the border to determine who is crossing illegally? And that interior suspicionless seizures don't represent a violation of individual rights as envisioned by the founders? It should be easy for you to refute these facts then joher0129...

CheckpointUSA Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - There are already Ports of Entry at every major road coming into the U.S. where these searches are conducted. The Border Patrol is tasked with patrolling the areas in between Ports of Entry. With regards to the BP being understaffed, there are 3,000 agents for 265 miles of border in the Tucson sector. That's over 10 agents per mile which doesn't include the force multiplying effects of fixed & rotary wing aircraft, remote sensors & cameras, horseback & atv's., virtual & real walls, etc.

CheckpointUSA Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - Using your elementary logic, you seem to be claiming it's easier to patrol an area than a line. If you concentrate the Tucson sector's 3,000 agents along the border in the Tucson sector, they only have 265 miles to cover. If you pull agents off the border to man interior checkpoints up to 100 miles away, you create artificial holes in real border enforcement & increase the patrol area from 265 miles to 26,500 square miles. If you're confused about the elementary math, refer to Geometry 101.

CheckpointUSA Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - The agency uses the term on a regular basis as if it has some sort of legal significance. It doesn't. What the agent is confused about is his authority at the actual border versus interior checkpoints. At the border, the courts have ruled the 4th amendment has a lesser effect & federal agents can seize & search individuals absent suspicion or based on mere suspicion as the case may be. Inside the country however, the Supreme Court has ruled agents need probable cause or consent to search.

CheckpointUSA Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - I'm only embarrassed that people like you claim to be American joher0129. By the way, that liberal ideology you refer to is the same one adopted by the founders when they brought revolution to an overbearing oppressive government in the 1700's. One element leading up to that conflict was known as the 'writ of assistance' or general warrant. The 4th amendment was adopted to specifically protect individuals against such intrusions in the future. Something you & DHS obviously care nothing about.

CheckpointUSA Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - Thanks for referring to George Orwell joher0129. You're undoubtedly familiar with his excellent book, 1984, & the concept of newspeak introduced in it since you've obviously mastered it (or at least been fooled by it). * "War is Peace" * "Freedom is Slavery" * Suspicionless internal checkpoints are designed to protect us...

seehound619 Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - yes...and sometimes those who "would do us harm" happen to be the very people that "stand ready in the night to visit violence upon them".......ever heard of the boston tea party??? do you see where I am going with this?

Theoryofknowledge01 Says:

Nov 28, 2008 - What do you prove by this? Sure, you know your Rights and you prove that the agents are incorrect in their actions, but all you do is waste the time of three officers merely trying to prevent illegal immigrants and drugs from entering your own country. It just seems petty to me. Ultimately, it is you and other Americans that feel the effect if the border is not maintained...and saying yes to a simple question at a checkpoint doesn't mean you forfeit your rights. You're just a bit petty.

tiffyme Says:

Nov 29, 2008 - You are clearly trying to instigate a situation by not answering about your citizenship. If you feel so offended and your rights so badly abused by those trying to minimally protect our borders then move to Iowa. You are clearly getting off on being a pain in the arse for no good reason. You are pathetic. You showed hostility and combativeness immediately towards very professional agents. You have no idea what suffering and being oppressed is and try to play victim. You are a sad pathetic man.

CheckpointUSA Says:

Nov 29, 2008 - You're easily confused by details aren't you tiffyme? Since this internal suspicionless checkpoint manned by armed federal agents was no where near the border, there was no actual border protecting taking place. If they wanted to 'protect' the border, they'd be patrolling it instead of seizing & harassing individuals inside the country absent suspicion. It's amazing how gullible some people are...

amitgangrade Says:

Nov 29, 2008 - Okay let's be honest. You sound completely unintelligent: You can't spell the word "waste". You can not possibly think that he would not have been let go sooner had he even cooperated. Your sarcasm was not humorous and did not make a point. Your response to grummin12's comment was obnoxious and inappropriate. Now, I am not supporting grummin12, I don't approve of his unnecessary insults either. I'm not here to insult you, but rather to point out that your comments are close minded.

Shyness2000 Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - Hey all he is doing is exercising his rights as indicated in the Bill of Rights including the fifth amendment. Under the fifth amendment, you are never obligated at all to talk to police which also includes border patrol. You have the right to refuse to answer any questions including questions about citizenship under the fifth amendment. In fact anytime you are questioned by police, it is also strongly advisable to refuse to answer any questions to avoid self-incrimination.

Shyness2000 Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - continued this guy is well within his rights and even if you haven't done anything illegal and even if you do not have anything illegal in your vehicle, it is strongly advisable to remain silent since that is your right and to always refuse a police search.

ajohnrmoore Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - A lot of people don't realize this, but American border guards don't need probable cause to conduct searches or seizures, being the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States. By going through one of their check points, you give consent to being searched. Don't want to be searched or detained, don't cross one of their check points.

Abyyss3344 Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - ajohnrmoore, you should actually try READING the law before making inaccurate comments. These videos are NOT at or about permanent US border crossings between mexico and Canada, which you may be referring to. CheckpointUSA's videos are about the temporary INTERNAL SUSPICIONLESS checkpoints that are set up 40+ miles from the border which are a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Shyness2000 Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - inanidiot911truther, have you heard of the Fifth Amendment - The right to remain silent? If a person is encountered by any police force or homeland security agency or any law enforcement officer, they never have any obligation to talk to them and they have the right to refuse to answer questions including the question "Are you a U.S. citizen?" These agencies are not at the borders in fact they are like 40 to 60 miles from the border and are out to harass people.

Shyness2000 Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - They should never have any internal border patrol checkpoints. Border Patrol Checkpoints only belong at the border. These border patrol agencies are only there to harass people and to create a police state. In fact, the American Border Patrol is listed as a hate group on the Southern Poverty Law Center. These internal checkpoints are there to cause nothing but trouble and harassment.

USCBPLAPD Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - Your point is not valid, USCBP has the authority of any regular federal officer no more than 100 miles from the border. Perfectly legal.

USCBPLAPD Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - USCBP has authority 100 miles from the border. Your point is mute and not valid.

Abyyss3344 Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - USCBPLAPD please elaborate on which of my points you feel is "mute and not valid"?. If you think Federal USBP has authority over US citizens for general law enforcement initiated by suspicionless stops outside permanent border crossings, than by all means please leave us links to the law you feel backs your claim. But forgive my assumption; you may be discussing something entirely different. You would be correct that they (USBP) have authority for certain limited scope operations.

Shyness2000 Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - They may be legal but however the Border Patrol cannot legally violate anybody's constitutional rights including the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights. If the border patrol officer questions a person who is stopped or pulled over in secondary at a checkpoint, that person has a right to refuse to answer any questions and has the right to refuse to state citizenship when told. Under the fourth amendment, the person has the right to refuse a search.

Shyness2000 Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - continued however, I saw a map that some states do prohibit and outlaw internal border patrol chekcpoints and I could see one of the reasons why the American Border Patrol is listed as a hate group because they do racially profile.

4zetroc Says:

Dec 2, 2008 - Im not sure about the statute of limitations to file a complaint in a federal court against Homeland Security for Terrorist Treats if you want to know why? just listen at the ene of the converstaion when the agent said that they will run his license plates and they will find you.

CheckpointUSA Says:

Dec 3, 2008 - There is a two year statute of limitations for federal tort claims.