Truck drivers jailed for 19 days after exercising rights at highway checkpoint

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    LAREDO, TX -- A pair of long-haul truck drivers were arrested and detained for 19 days after invoking their rights at an internal federal checkpoint on a highway in Texas. Tired of routine harassment at internal federal checkpoints, the two men politely refused to answer questions and recorded the encounter.

    “You have a legal right to ask me a question. I have a legal right not to answer your question,” the driver said in a cell-phone recording.

    Agents ultimately ripped the two men from the truck, confiscated the cell phone, and deleted most of the video. The driver and passenger were booked on felony charges and thrown in a South Texas jail for weeks without access to legal counsel.

    “I didn’t get it, because I could never imagine [that] challenging government’s actions, talking about your rights, could get you arrested,” the passenger, Greg Rosenberg, said in an interview.

    Detained for 19 Days: Immigration Checkpoint Refusal Gone Wrong - Reason.com

    [video=youtube;hm-CUbZor4s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm-CUbZor4s[/video]
     
    Last edited:

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    Racial profiling? Bull. This crap happens to anyone and everyone - particularly, anyone who dares to assert their rights, thereby committing Contempt of Border Patrol Agent.

    There should be no "immigration checkpoints" anywhere except on actual border crossings, and the 100-mile zone is utterly asinine.
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    Not a lawyer here, but anyone on here know if that fed agent could get charged for deleting that video? Obstruction of justice, or maybe tampering with evidence comes to mind, since it could have been used in his defense in the event of a trial. Or how about at the least some form of vandalism? This sort of thing will continue to happen until there are repercussions for the criminals with badges.
     
    Last edited:

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    Not a lawyer here, but anyone on here know if that fed agent could get charged for deleting that video? Obstruction of justice, or maybe tampering with evidence comes to mind, since it could have been used in his defense in the event of a trial. Or how about at the least some form of vandalism? This sort of thing will continue to happen until there are repercussions for the criminals with badges.

    IANAL, but I would hope so. Unlawful seizure of property, unlawful destruction of property - and that's before even considering obstruction of justice/tampering with evidence of unlawful arrest and other civil rights violations.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Not a lawyer here, but anyone on here know if that fed agent could get charged for deleting that video? Obstruction of justice, or maybe tampering with evidence comes to mind, since it could have been used in his defense in the event of a trial.

    Do you mean could or would?:D

    Big difference.
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    Do you mean could or would?:D

    Big difference.

    Well, the question was really "could," as I don't know the legal requirements for those charges.
    Unfortunately, I think I know the answer if the question read "would."
    The answer would be yes, IMO, if the question read "should."
     

    ModernGunner

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2010
    4,749
    63
    NWI
    Jailed for weeks without so much as a phone call, no one trying (family, friends) trying to locate them, or a lawyer becoming involved?

    Something isn't passing the 'smell' test in this story, sorry.
     

    HD1911

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Feb 26, 2010
    134
    18
    Henderson, KY
    Anyone know of any Live-Streaming Video/Voice Recording Apps for iPhones? Basically something that cannot be Deleted on Scene and that requires no Input After-The-Fact to Upload/Save.
     

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,225
    149
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    These threads are always frustrating. When you Google the subject to find out if there are any new details, you get a variety of hits that lead back to the original article, often simply quoting it verbatim. So despite the vast ocean of possible sources on the internet, there is really only ONE story covering the subject. Not saying it didn't happen, but some independent corroboration would be helpful.
     

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    I think reason.tv has done some good things exposing gubmint intrusions in the past, but we can hardly say they are unbiased. Would be nice to have independent verification. Problem is that it doesn't fit the narrative of our broadcast and cable outlets, so you aren't likely to see this story in that space anytime soon.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I think reason.tv has done some good things exposing gubmint intrusions in the past, but we can hardly say they are unbiased.

    Biased, but you can hardly call them liars. The combination of the cell phone video, victim testimony, and journalist review make this more than just a rumor. The video names his lawyer, so anybody can give her a call. The lawsuit will be filed soon, too.
     

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,225
    149
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Biased, but you can hardly call them liars. The combination of the cell phone video, victim testimony, and journalist review make this more than just a rumor. The video names his lawyer, so anybody can give her a call. The lawsuit will be filed soon, too.

    Video and testimony (under penalty of perjury, or do you just mean 'statement') are not the best proof of anything. Has anyone called the attorney (wasn't clear to me from the printed text)?

    Not saying it didn't happen, but would be nice to have corroboration. Like a posted FOIA request, for instance, as I assume someone is trying to obtain BP docs?

    Some points watching the video:

    He wasn't arrested for 'talking about the Constitution'.
    Arguing about whether the checkpoint was "at the border" wasn't going to get him any points.
    The video cites to a criminal information. Is that posted anywhere? It would make for an interesting read I'm sure.
    His attorney is a Dream Act promoter, and e.g. under a #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, she states:
    But the amazing protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, and the solidarity protesters around the country refused to let it go, refused to stand down in the face of injustice.​
    Racism is insidious, institutional and pervasive. We must acknowledge it before we can eradicate it. Last night, McCullogh proved that to the people of the U.S. Last night, the first African-American President of the U.S. fumbled and hammed through a half-hearted and ineffective speech. Where is his outrage as a black man in America?​
    People are outraged, and rightly so.​
    Much love and healing to Michael Brown’s family.​
    The struggle continues.
    Her website.
    “Prerna Lal” literally translates to “Inspiration Red.”
    She was recently naturalized through marriage, but seems ambivalent about her presence in the US.

    From the syllabus in Martinez-Fuerte:
    With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it.

    They directed the driver to a secondary area, and he refused to comply. Seems that would fall under the rubric of impeding BP activity, since the BP is allowed to give that direction. Yes, the 4th Amendment is silent on border crossings.

    He also states in the video that he informed the BP he is a libertarian. Whatever. Somehow I think in the old USSR this would have turned out much, much worse for him. And I doubt his 'civil rights' attorney would have found much traction in a constitutional argument.


    So, under Martinez-Fuerte, drive to the secondary inspection point and participate in questioning. Or not.

    Frankly I am having a hard time picturing the BP as JBTs, given the degree to which they have been gutted by the current administration, and basically directed not to uphold the law. (And yes, I do have a friend formerly in the BP.) Aside from these border crossings, are they allowed to do much of anything?
     
    Last edited:

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    They directed the driver to a secondary area, and he refused to comply. Seems that would fall under the rubric of impeding BP activity, since the BP is allowed to give that direction. Yes, the 4th Amendment is silent on border crossings.

    No, actually.

    This wasn't a border crossing; it was an interior "immigration checkpoint".

    At interior "immigration checkpoints" (which are complete bovine excrement in the first place), border patrol agents have authority to detain briefly for one reason, and one reason only: to ask immigration status. In order to detain beyond asking "are you a US citizen?" the border patrol agent must have specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person being detained does not have lawful immigration status.

    Thus, without RAS that the driver/passenger did not have lawful immigration status, the continued detainment and order to pull over to the secondary inspection area were both unlawful. As such, refusal to comply did not represent impedance of lawful border patrol agent activities.
     
    Top Bottom