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

[cobber]

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.

From the syllabus in Martinez-Fuerte:

1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/

1) Border Patrol
2) operating checkpoint NOT at the border
3) can stop and ask WITHOUT RS and
4) it is consistent with the 4th Amendment

So, they might have thought the driver was an illegal, or they might have had a hunch that he was transporting illegals. It doesn't really matter.

You may not like it, but that is what the SCOTUS gave the BP. The agent citing the case to the driver was correct. Under the case law the BP could direct him to a secondary area for questioning, w/o RS or PC.

If they then want to conduct a search, then they need PC or a warrant.

The case seems pretty clear to me, and it was a 7-2 decision.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, they can stop and ask. But beyond that, they need RAS to continue the detention past the initial stop-and-ask. Having a "hunch" is not enough, and would violate Terry v. Ohio.

You seem to be conflating the stop-and-ask with the continued detention without RAS.

 

[Destro]

Yes, they can stop and ask. But beyond that, they need RAS to continue the detention past the initial stop-and-ask. Having a "hunch" is not enough, and would violate Terry v. Ohio.

You seem to be conflating the stop-and-ask with the continued detention without RAS.

Terry generally does not apply in Border Patrol checkpoints, as Cobber succinctly broke down for you above.

 

[chipbennett]

Terry generally does not apply in Border Patrol checkpoints, as Cobber succinctly broke down for you above.

Again: SCOTUS ruled the initial stop, and questioning to ascertain immigration status, is constitutional. No disputes there.

The issue is the "pull over for more questioning" step, which goes beyond what SCOTUS has ruled as being constitutional, and does require RAS.

 

[Destro]

Again: SCOTUS ruled the initial stop, and questioning to ascertain immigration status, is constitutional. No disputes there.

The issue is the "pull over for more questioning" step, which goes beyond what SCOTUS has ruled as being constitutional, and does require RAS.

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.


we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html#563

 

[chipbennett]

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.


we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/case.html#563

Ah, thank you.

I take it back.

SCOTUS is just full of crap.

 

[churchmouse]

SCOTUS is just full of crap.

Nothing new here.

 

[HD1911]

So the SCOTUS trumps the Constitution?

 

[churchmouse]

So the SCOTUS trumps the Constitution?

Seems like they do now-a-days

 

[Destro]

So the SCOTUS trumps the Constitution?

Thats a bit of an oversimplification, but yes. Judicial review is an implied power.

Without the Constitution, we would have no Supreme Court.

 

[cobber]

So the SCOTUS trumps the Constitution?

Thats a bit of an oversimplification, but yes. Judicial review is an implied power.

Without the Constitution, we would have no Supreme Court.

I am curious how people think Terry came about? The Supreme Court, of course. Terry is an interpretation of the Constitution, which says nothing about reasonable suspicion.

Deprivation of liberty under the 5th, without due process of law, but did the founders mean the police can't detain you while they're investigating your leaf-burning ordinance violations? Sure, but who tells the legislative or executive when they've gone too far?

The S.Ct. created Terry, and it can narrow it if it so chooses. Or carve out exceptions.

So actually the S.Ct. created Terry out of thin air. Without Terry, conceivably the police could uniformly detain without RS.

Ah, thank you.

I take it back.

SCOTUS is just full of crap.

For all of the moaning about the S.Ct., what do people suppose would be happening but for opinions like Terry and Miranda? Do you suppose that in the absence of these court opinions that LE would be less intrusive???

The Soviet Union had a swell Constitution, but no court there would ever limit the police based on the nice words.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So the SCOTUS trumps the Constitution?

I'm curious, what do you think the Constitution says about searches?

 

[cobber]

I'm curious, what do you think the Constitution says about searches?

 

[deal me in]

I've watched a few YouTube videos where the driver successfully refuses to answer questions and successfully refuses to pull into the secondary. Based on this ruling would a person be subject to arrest and prosecution for refusing to pull into the secondary? Would they charged with obstruction or some similar charge? Just curious.

 

[cobber]

I've watched a few YouTube videos where the driver successfully refuses to answer questions and successfully refuses to pull into the secondary. Based on this ruling would a person be subject to arrest and prosecution for refusing to pull into the secondary? Would they charged with obstruction or some similar charge? Just curious.

I think you have your answer in the video posted here.

Would a USA follow through on the case? Probably if the vehicle had been loaded with illegal aliens or cocaine... (but first there would have to be a search)

I did not see any indication the truck was ever searched. (What was he hauling, by the way?)

This was all about his argument with the SCOTUS.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I did not see any indication the truck was ever searched. (What was he hauling, by the way?)

Copiers, right?

 

[deal me in]

I think you have your answer in the video posted here.

Would a USA follow through on the case? Probably if the vehicle had been loaded with illegal aliens or cocaine... (but first there would have to be a search)

I did not see any indication the truck was ever searched. (What was he hauling, by the way?)

This was all about his argument with the SCOTUS.

The scotus decision doesn't really change anything based on the video. It says bp can stop you and ask questions but doesn't say anything about havin to answer them. It doesn't say anything about refusing to pull into the secondary. I don't know what has changed and I don't know how the decision gives bp the power to detain anyone for refusing to answer or pull into the secondary.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The founders knew nothing of professional police forces. Certainly not as we know them today.

 

[HD1911]

I'm curious, what do you think the Constitution says about searches?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You want me to Write a Paper? Copy and Paste a Wiki Article about it? Maybe you yourself would like to read the Federalist Papers and such?

I don't see any Debate.... Looks pretty cut and dry to me. Kinda like the 2nd, and you know, some others.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You want me to Write a Paper? Copy and Paste a Wiki Article about it? Maybe you yourself would like to read the Federalist Papers and such?

I don't see any Debate.... Looks pretty cut and dry to me. Kinda like the 2nd, and you know, some others.

This is Germany in the 21st century, papers please, your license plate lightis out and we need to check them papers.