This video shows a fourth amendment violation, harassment, and intimidation by the Border Patrol in Uvalde, Texas. The driver is a military field grade officer, decorated for heroism, with more than two years of combat deployment time. He is driving from one American city to another and has crossed no borders.
In the video the BP detains him quickly and without cause later claiming he refused to answer questions concerning his citizenship. The video shows this is clearly not the case. This charge is repeated by the supervisor who then contacts his military superiors in an (unfortunately successful) attempt to leverage his military service against him.
He was detained for more than thirty minutes without cause. He was eventually told by the officers that they appreciated his cooperation and was released. The full footage was captured on five different cameras. The footage here is limited in length by upload requirements. Legal action is pending concerning this incident and several previous at the same checkpoint.
Fortunately the driver was not assaulted for his oath-required support and defense of the U.S. Constitution. That was not the case for Baptist pastor Steven Anderson who required eleven stitches and new windows for exercising his rights at a Border Patrol station. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3F6gS7dvI
As the driver in this video attests, despite having conducted hundreds of operational missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, his routine travels through this checkpoint in Uvalde Texas have given him the most concern for his personal safety.
If you are concerned about the erosion and ignoring of the very essence of freedom contained in the fourth amendment, please send this video to your Congressman with a request for an immediate investigation into this incident. To learn how you can protect yourself against such blatant abuses of law enforcement power through surveillance technology, please visit VeteransAgainstPoliceAbuse.Org.
Duration : 0:9:34
[youtube meGJ0Wiou3U]
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@bptryp Finally, …
@bptryp Finally, SCOTUS also ruled against indefinite detentions in U.S. v Place where agents seized luggage, held onto it for 90 minutes & eventually found drugs. The charges were dismissed because the detention was too long:
“The length of the detention of respondent’s luggage alone precludes the conclusion that the seizure was reasonable in the absence of probable cause.”
In other words bptryp, there most certainly is a permissible time limit on investigative detentions. Good try though.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@bptryp even in …
@bptryp even in Terry stops where reasonable suspicion exists from the beginning, the court has limited the scope & time frame of detentions:
“Terry encounters must be brief; the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter; &, most importantly, the suspect must be free to leave after a short time & to decline to answer the questions put to him”
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@bptryp The courts …
@bptryp The courts have interpreted the phrase “any further detention” & incorporated it by reference into Martinez-Fuerte:
“an officer, whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, may stop the car briefly, question the driver & passengers about their citizenship & immigration status, & ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
if you really …
if you really believe in what you are doing why not show you face and put up your name out there. You are a coward and I hope the Border Patrol causes you more inconvenience in the very near future. Find a new hobby your bad at this one.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@CheckpointUSA …
@CheckpointUSA Yes, but hen here comes the part where you need to comprehend… the phrase “any further detention” has to be interpreted by the courts, not you. It is accepted that it pertains to seizures that extend too long, therefore changing from a seizure to an arrest for which pc is required. Too long is determined by due diligence, which doesn’t have a time limit, it has to do with the “flow” of an investigation and how efficiently issues/circumstances are resolved/investigated.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Thank you so much …
Thank you so much for adding the names of U.S. Border Patrol Agents J. Lands and Raul Perez.,Hopefully this citizen can recover damages in civil suit against these Agents for Constitutional Violations, and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by trying to jeopardize this citizens’ military career. Hopefully these agents can be held individually liable for breach of Constitutional law.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch As …
@tanksandsuch As I’ve pointed out many times, SCOTUS disagrees with you. In Martinez-Fuerte, the court concluded that since the initial checkpoint stop is conducted absent suspicion & the scope is required to be limited to immigration queries, any further detention requires consent or probable cause.
The case you cite, US v Maltais, was not a checkpoint case, was not a SCOTUS case & involves a completely different set of circumstances then is present during checkpoint stops.
Apples & oranges.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@bptryp You really …
@bptryp You really should work on your reading comprehension skills. The prohibition against search absent consent or probable cause also applies to extended detentions:
U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte: “…And 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.’”
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
you just waisted …
you just waisted everyone’s time with this addition of case law since you unknowingly just supported the Border Patrol’s efforts, who we know you despise so much. They never searched his vehicle, and this is a checkpoint stop, not a roving stop.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@CheckpointUSA Yes, …
@CheckpointUSA Yes, probable cause is required to search but all that is required to extend an investigative detention is reasonable suspicion. The courts have upheld detentions several hour in length as long as the Agent is using “due diligence” to resolve any suspicion. Check out US v Maltais.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
U.S. vs …
U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte:
“(secondary) Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy.”
“…We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search….And 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.’”
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“Our prior cases …
“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. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation” – U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch …
@tanksandsuch besides, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the authority of immigration agents operating inside the country in reference to the INA. The ruling significantly curtailed the powers defined in the act by Congress.(quote to follow)
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch said …
@tanksandsuch said “How’s that for dancing”
I think you’re dancing to the wrong tune.
I’ve read the INA, at least the part that’s pertinent here – namely 8 USC 1357 which lays out immigration agent authority. There’s no reference to internal checkpoints, let alone secondary inspection.
Me thinks you’re confusing agent authority at the actual border or its functional equivalent with internal checkpoints. Why don’t you provide an exact cite to what you’re referring to so there’s no ambiguity.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@CheckpointUSA: …
@CheckpointUSA: Actually, if you read the INA it states that agents have the authority to “refer the vehicle and occupants to secondary inspection for additional investigation based on reasonable suspicion that there may be a non-immigration criminal violation within the agent’s enforcement jurisdiction “(controlled substance offense). How’s that for dancing?
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch You …
@tanksandsuch You keep dancing around the point. I’m not challenging whether or not CBP agents can make arrests for offenses committed in their presence. I’m stating the legal fact that CBP agents cannot lawfully extend a detention at an immigration checkpoint to look for other offenses in the absence of consent or probable cause.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@CheckpointUSA
…
@CheckpointUSA
Hey dummy he wasn’t holding up trffic, they sent him to secondary
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
USBP Agents also …
USBP Agents also have authority to seize drugs under Title 21
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@CheckpointUSA: The …
@CheckpointUSA: The dogs utilized by CBP at Border Patrol checkpoints are not simply “drug sniffing dogs.” They are highly trained detector dogs which alert to a variety of concealed contraband including people and narcotics. As to the other statement about extended seizures, I believe I already cited the section of Immigration and Nationality Act which grants them the authority to deal with other offenses committed in their presence.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@Sk8tanic: Exactly, …
@Sk8tanic: Exactly, he was tased by a DPS Trooper. Taser were not in wide-spread use by the Border Patrol at the time this occurred.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch you …
@tanksandsuch you stated:
“Border Patrol checkpoints are not a “pretext to look for drugs.” It is an immigration checkpoint. However, if Agents encounter narcotics then they have an authority to seize them via Title 19″
What’s in dispute here is the active use of drug sniffing dogs & extended seizures to actively look for illegal contraband. Such enforcement activity is outside the scope of brief immigration queries & turns immigration checkpoints into drug checkpoints as well.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch …
@tanksandsuch Comparing internal checkpoints to border ops:
The GAO reported that in 2008 there were ~3,000 Tucson sector agents with ~300 assigned to checkpoints. Non-checkpoint agents conducted ~320,000 illegal alien interdictions while checkpoint agents conducted 1,800.
Breaking this down to annual interdictions per agent, it’s easy to see checkpoint agents averaged 6 while non-checkpoint agents averaged 118. Checkpoints are clearly ineffective when compared to other enforcement activity.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch Just …
@tanksandsuch Just in terms of raw numbers:
In 1976, the fedgov testified in the U.S. Supreme Court that there were somewhere between 12 & 20 million illegal aliens inside the country. In 2009, the fedgov reported there were somewhere between 12 & 20 million illegal aliens inside the country.
What that means is that over 33 years, the Border Patrol has had a negligible effect on the number of illegal aliens inside the country.
Same goes with narcotics even though drug checkpoints are illegal.
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@MrBubblebelly: ” …
@MrBubblebelly: “this guy should have gone to jail for interfering with law enforcement.”
He can’t. There is no evidence of interfering in this video. 18 USC Section 111(a)(1)
April 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@tanksandsuch : …
@tanksandsuch : That’s funny, the video is titled “ACTUAL FOOTAGE Pastor Beaten Tased by Border Patrol DPS”…..they look like border patrol, too. Maybe YOU need to check your facts