Post details: When All Else Fails, Silence The Messenger....


Permalink 00:07:14, Categories: Homeland Security?, Checkpoints, 1203 words   English (EU)

When All Else Fails, Silence The Messenger....

As many readers are aware, I've been documenting my recent experiences at a suspicionless internal Homeland Security checkpoint located near mile marker 146 on SR86 in Southern Arizona. I've also been reporting these experiences to readers of this blog amongst other places.

As a result of documenting these encounters and reporting on them, there are currently several efforts underway by various individuals and organizations to either shutdown my website or force me to remove content previously posted. This post provides information regarding one such recent attempt.


On or about February 14th, an individual identified as Chris Parker sent an email to my service provider attempting to force the shutdown of my website because of content related to a suspicionless Homeland Security checkpoint active along SR86 in Southern Arizona..

Mr. Parker makes several specious claims in his email regarding alleged illegal content but never fully identifies himself, his affiliation, or why he feels he has standing to challenge the content of my protected communications.

An attorney, acting on behalf of my service provider, responded to Mr. Parker's attempt to interfere with the free exchange of information and ideas on this blog by setting the legal record straight.

Below appears the legal counsel's response to Mr. Parker's frivolous allegations followed by Mr. Parker's original complaint.

My service provider has my thanks for its willingness to objectively analyze the frivolous complaint it received and take the appropriate action. If only more companies refused to be intimidated in such a way and conducted business in this manner.

(all links appearing below were added by me)

Dear Chris Parker,

Thank you for writing to and expressing your concerns.

I've been asked to review this matter, and to provide you a response.

You mention the fear that the information published at the site may violate state or federal law. You specifically cite 18 USC § 111.

I must point out that, though § 111 of Title 18 criminalizes certain conduct which "interferes" with some performances of official duties, a little bit of research would have made clear to you, that courts have held that FORCE is an essential element of such a crime. See for example, Long v. United States, 199 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1952). While a threat is sufficient, the threat must reasonably cause the protected subject to anticipate bodily harm while performing protected duties, and typically requires, at minimum, the apparent present ability to execute such threat, or with menacing gestures, or in hostile company or threatening surroundings. For more details, please see United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir. 1987), and Gornick v. United States, 320 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1963).

State law parallels the federal law closely. See for example, State v. Tages (App. 1969) 10 Ariz.App. 127, 457 P.2d 289.

Since I was unable to locate any evidence of the use of force against anyone who could be a public official (excepting the conduct of those public officials), nor was I able to locate anything that could be interpreted as a threat of force with the apparent present ability to execute such threat (or menacing gestures, or hostile company, or threatening surroundings, again excepting the conduct of those public officials), I was unable to conclude that the owner of has violated state or federal law.

Perhaps your meaning was that the publication of audio, video, or photographic recordings of public officials present on a public road, could itself be threatening. Fortunately, the rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Arizona Constitution, Art. 2 § 6, protect such publication. See for example, Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller (2005) 210 Ariz. 513, 115 P.3d 107, which explains the difference between protected speech and true threats.

While it would be cynical to think you intended to suppress the free speech rights of another by attempting to intimidate their web hosting provider, I'd rather believe that you were merely overzealous and mistaken.

Please write again should you have any further concerns.

-- Michael Kielsky
Counselor & Attorney at Law
Attorney for Polydata One (dba)
Legal Notice & Disclaimer:

/cc: owner; owner's attorney

From: chirs []
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:44 PM

Please review this website wich I believe to be one of your customers... This guy keeps publishing Agent's pictures, names, and personal info without permission. This is a crime in Arizona. He is also in violation of 18 USC 111, Which is basically "Impeding certain officers or employees. Whoever ... intimidates, or interferes with any person ... while engaged in ... the performance of his official duties shall be fined ... or imprisoned ..."

Acording to your Service Agreement Sec 6.d.i (higlighted below in red) He is in breach of his agreement and is subject to removal...


You may access or use Polydata’s systems, software, or services as provided herein, but You may not access or use Polydata’s systems, software, or services, for any other purpose, or in any other manner. You agree that You will not use Polydata’s systems, software, or services, or any part thereof, in connection with any illegal activity, or storing or transmitting pornographic materials (irrespective of the material’s legality), or storing or transmitting gambling products, services, or data (irrespective of the material’s legality), or generating or transmitting unsolicited, commercial e-mailing (i.e., SPAM), or any illegal or unauthorized access or attempt to access other computers or networks (i.e. hacking), or distribution of computer viri (viruses) or similar activities, be they destructive or otherwise. By agreeing to be bound this Agreement and Your use of Polydata’s systems, software, or services, You explicitly promise that You will never recklessly or knowingly store, submit, publish, display or transmit any illegal, copyright-infringing, pornographic, gambling, SPAM, hacking, cracking, virus, virus-infected, worm, trojan-horse, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, or threatening material on or by the use of Polydata’s systems, software, or services.

Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein (if at all), any of the following, without limitation, constitute a material breach of this Agreement:

1. Your failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement;
2. Using Polydata’s systems, software, or services, or any part thereof, in contravention of then then-current version of this Agreement;
3. Your failure to pay Your agreed-upon fees when due;
4. Your use of Polydata’s systems, software, or services, or any part thereof, in connection with:
1. Any illegal (violating any federal, state, or local law, rule or regulation) activity; or
2. Storing or transmitting pornographic materials (irrespective of the material’s legality); or
3. Storing or transmitting gambling products, services, or data (irrespective of the material’s legality); or
4. Generating or transmitting unsolicited, commercial e-mail (i.e., SPAM); or
5. Illegal or unauthorized access to other computers or networks (i.e., hacking); or
6. Distribution of computer viri (viruses), computer worms, computer trojan horses, or similar activities, be they destructive or otherwise; or
7. Abusive, defamatory, libelous, or illicit purposes; or
8. Other activities, whether lawful or unlawful, that Polydata determines, in its sole discretion, to be harmful to its other customers, operations, or reputation;

thank you for reviewing this matter and I hope you will remove his websight due to the illegal nature of its content...



Comment from: Ken [Visitor] ·
Keep up the good work exposing these criminal acts.
Permalink 2008-02-21 @ 01:21
Comment from: Rick Stone [Visitor]
The next time that you go thru the stop point do it with another vehicle. One that does not have blind spots for the agents to hide in. Also why not bring someone to do your photography with a longer lens and better equipment so that you can get better close ups of faces and possibly into the buildings. Invite the press to go with you.Photograph the vehicles with tag numbers. Maybe someone can do some reserach on ownership.Document every inch of the operation. I live in Georgia and wish I was cloer because I am a photographer and I would love to do it. Another suggestion is to mirror your site in as many places as possible so that you will always be able to get your message out. This country needs more patriots like you that are not afraid to stand up and ask questions.
Good luck
Permalink 2008-02-21 @ 10:41
Comment from: Flash [Visitor]
I am confused as to the whole point here? Or is it that you are trying to say that the border patrol is outside their realm of responsibility conducting these check points? Do you have a place I can read more about this?
Permalink 2008-02-22 @ 22:58
Comment from: CParker [Visitor]
Mr Terry Bressi,
First of all please remove my email from this sight. thanks....
That being said I would like to ask why you have not posted the other email I sent to
in responce to Mr Hancock's interview request... you should have recieved it on the 17th. if you do not have it i will be happy to send it to you... you have my email.

Furthermore I had provided all the relevent infomation concerning my identity... actually i gave more information concerning myself than you have of yours... I have no affiliations...
And as to why i feal i have standing to challenge you're actions is because, like you, i feal as if im whitnessing an injustice,
and it is my duty to bring it to a hault...
I feal your actions, namely those concerning the publication of personal information, to be moraly lacking.
I understand your concerns reguarding threats to privicy and travel.... and while your actions are "technicly" legal, lacks
a certain amount of respect. Your efforts to change the policies that you dissagree with, would be better suited targeting the policy makers, instead of those tasked with inforcing them...
Incase you were not aware, the people responcable for the checkpoint that bother you are desided by people at a desk. Not those you choose to vilinise...

If infact you are taping a person in the explicet act of overstepping their boundries,
then by all means you has not only the right but the duty to post up and make it publicly
known so that action can be taken to prevent future occurances, or so that the official can be punnished accordingly...
While I do not agree with, it is not your cause I take objection too, but your method...
In my opinion you're atempting to humiliate adverage working Joes, and its not right...
In addition to the aformentioned, I also find it cowardice for someone, such as yourself, to post such information without
providing their own.... That last point asside, I realy do feal that you need to reevaluate the productivity of your tactics. It is not your message i wish to silence, but to protect the privacy of those on your sight.

I leave you with this question Mr Bressi, were is your photo and information???

Permalink 2008-02-23 @ 23:49
Comment from: Tom [Visitor]
"In my opinion you're atempting to humiliate adverage working Joes, and its not right..."

Why do you consider a government agent to be an "average working Joe"? That's far from the case.

In the United States, government is "by and of the people," as you may recall from your sixth-grade civics class. In other words, these agents work for us. What you think the word "agent" means, anyway?

In that regard, there's nothing "average" about them.

This notion that the images of a government agent working in public should not be shown in public -- in this case via the Internet -- is just absurd. If an agent doesn't like working in public, on display for the citizenry that employs him, then he should probably find another job.
Permalink 2008-02-24 @ 07:22
Comment from: CParker [Visitor]
You are correct, those agents work for us, those men and women do a job that requires them to put their lives at risk on a regular basis. However I still feal that my metaphore still stands...
The actions on this sight are similar to posting names and photos of road crews and complaining about how they are screwing up trafic... They to work for us, but they dont deside what work gets done where...

If you will notice any reputable news orginization makes it their policy to avoid publication of the names and likeness of an individual save for the times that the story is directy concerning said individual, or unless they have the explecit permition of that individual... instead those news publications will use an "artsy" shot, that obscures the identy of the individual in frame. Its about respect of the individual.
Permalink 2008-02-24 @ 12:02
Comment from: Tom [Visitor]
Actually, I'm a newspaper journalist -- at a major metropolitan daily -- and I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There's no such "policy," or anything remotely like it, at any paper where I've worked.

But that's irrelevant anyway. The point is that if a given human being doesn't want to be seen by the public, he or she probably shouldn't get a job as, you know, a government agent who works with the public.

OK? It's really simple. There's not a whole lot of room here for complaint once one has accepted the gig: "Oh, you mean I'm actually an agent of the American people, and they have free-speech rights, and they might pay close attention to my work and even chronicle it? Well, I didn't really think of it like that when I took the job, so, um... like, NO FAIR and stuff!"

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

If a border-patrol agent doesn't like being seen in public while interacting with American citizens, then my advice to him or her would be to find a job that's more likely to offer personal satisfaction.
Permalink 2008-02-24 @ 13:36
Comment from: MWilson [Visitor]
Well let me say this quickly. I hope someone comes down to your work at the university, and tapes you doing your job. While they do it they keep interrupting you and just be a nuisiance. It would be there absolute right to do so wouldn't it. No one wants to imped your rights, but the thing is Border Patrol agents have families and in their line of work they make enemies that would like to hurt them. All you are doing is helping those enemies. If one of the agents you have featured is harmed or killed off duty God help ya.
Permalink 2008-02-24 @ 16:13
Comment from: Checkpoint USA [Member]
"First of all please remove my email from this sight. thanks...."

Mr. Parker. Your email will remain posted. You have attempted to interfere with my free speech & press rights by making false claims regarding the legality of the content appearing on this website. You are not the first to do so and others are currently engaged in similar activity on equally questionable grounds. As such, your email will remain posted here along with the attorney's response. If you don't want your emails made public, I would advise you to use better judgment in the future.

"That being said I would like to ask why you have not posted the other email I sent to in responce to Mr Hancock's interview request..."

First things first Mr. Parker.

"And as to why i feal i have standing to challenge you're actions is because, like you, i feal as if im whitnessing an injustice, and it is my duty to bring it to a hault..."

Well, I can at least respect your motivation if not the logic you use to come to your conclusion.

"I feal your actions, namely those concerning the publication of personal information, to be moraly lacking."

To what personal information are you alluding?

Arizona Revised Statutes at 13-2401(D)5 defines 'Personal Information' as follows:

"'Personal Information' means a peace officer's, justice's, commissioner's, public defender's or prosecutor's home address, home telephone number, personal photograph, directions to the person's home or photographs of the person's home or vehicle."

You'll note the information I've posted regarding federal agents include several first initials and last names that appear on their uniforms (paid for with public funds & manufactured in Mexico). I've also included video and photographs of agents standing in the middle of a public highway while in the process of seizing individuals absent reasonable suspicion under color of law.

You'll note from the legal definition of 'Personal Information' that names of public officials are not included within the definition. Additionally, video is not included at all and only personal photos taken of the protected class are covered by statute, not those taken within their public capacity.

Additionally, these agents are not Arizona Peace Officers and therefore do not fall within the protected class covered by ARS 13-2401. Arizona law makes it clear that in order to be a peace officer, individuals must be certified by AZ POST (Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board) - see ARS 41-1823(B).

The only mechanism available to federal agents for AZ POST certification is to be cross-certified by the County Sheriff in which they are operating. Currently, the Pima County Sheriff has not cross-certified any Border Patrol agents operating in Pima County which means none of these agents are considered peace officers for purposes of ARS 13-2401. As such, not only are these agents not peace officers, no personal information about them has been posted.

You may not like it Mr. Parker but the law was written in such a way to honor the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution. This is one of the checks and balances that exist within society to protect the people against overbearing, questionable and possibly illegal government activity such as that depicted in my videos. It's called accountability.

"I understand your concerns reguarding threats to privicy and travel.... and while your actions are "technicly" legal, lacks a certain amount of respect."

Respect is something earned on a daily basis based upon one's actions. It's not something that's granted to someone because of their name, title, or position. As such, the only disrespect I'm aware of in these videos is from federal agents who have failed to acknowledge or respect the rights of the individuals they force themselves upon.

"Your efforts to change the policies that you dissagree with, would be better suited targeting the policy makers, instead of those tasked with inforcing them..."

Been there, done that. If you had actually explored my website in any detail instead of just spouting off, this would have been obvious to you.

"Incase you were not aware, the people responcable for the checkpoint that bother you are desided by people at a desk. Not those you choose to vilinise..."

The people who decide the location of these checkpoints are only one part of the equation. The other part is those who conduct the checkpoints. After all, it's not the desk jockey's who are seizing me, it's the field agents.

"If infact you are taping a person in the explicet act of overstepping their boundries, then by all means you has not only the right but the duty to post up and make it publicly
known so that action can be taken to prevent future occurances, or so that the official can be punnished accordingly..."

This is exactly what I'm doing. These federal agents have overstepped their boundaries in how they have chosen to conduct these checkpoints. Both case law and their own field manual provide evidence of this. As such, I am recording these encounters as both protection against illegal enforcement behavior directed against me and as evidence regarding what's actually taking place at these checkpoints.

"In my opinion you're atempting to humiliate adverage working Joes, and its not right... "

I have no control over how these agents choose to conduct themselves while seizing individuals who assert their rights. My sole purpose is to document the encounter, not to humiliate anyone.

BTW, these agents are much more than average working joe's. Unlike a road crew for instance, these agents have the power to ruin lives. As such, seizing individuals absent reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigation is far more serious than holding up traffic to fill a pot hole. Apples and oranges.

"In addition to the aformentioned, I also find it cowardice for someone, such as yourself, to post such information without providing their own...."

Mr Parker, if you had spent any time on my website reading about my documented activities over the past FIVE years, you would not be making the claim that I haven't posted information about myself. I can assure you these agents know exactly who I am as do my Congressmen.

You see, I've interacted with all three branches of government over the past five years trying to bring attention to this problem. In case your wondering, those three branches I refer to are the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. If you don't believe me, you're more than welcome to visit the URL I've featured prominently in all those videos you complain so bitterly about:

I included the url in the video so that people with questions could explore the depth to which I've addressed this issue over the years. I may not spoon feed you my name but you'll find it easily enough if you're looking for more than a sound bite.

For instance, if you go to the 'TOPD Roadblock' navigation link, you'll find several hundred megabytes of documentation related to a five year legal battle I've been involved with regarding illegal suspicionless roadblocks. The case is currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If you visit the 'Homeland Security' link, you'll find information about an April 2005 roadblock I was stopped at where I wrote to Chief Patrol Officer Michael Nicley, Senator Jon Kyl, and Congressman Grijalva regarding these abuses. You will find my name on all these documents. BTW, Agent Nicley was responsible for ordering Border Patrol agents to stand down along the border several years ago while minuteman operations were taking place down here. That's right, the man in command was promoting suspicionless interior checkpoints adversely affecting hundreds of thousands of Arizonans while ordering his men to stand down along the border so as not to encourage the minuteman project.

As such Mr. Parker, you've stepped into a really big pile of doo-doo that you obviously know little about and failed to educate yourself on before continuing along your trek. I'm sorry that you appear incapable of doing even the most remedial level of research but I can assure you my history on this subject is quite extensive and anyone who wants to find out who I am needs only access the copious information I've made available within these pages.

"It is not your message i wish to silence, but to protect the privacy of those on your sight."

As I have pointed out previously, the federal agents depicted on this site have no legitimate expectation of privacy within their names or their public conduct. If it was not your wish to silence my message, you should not have contacted my service provider with a demand that my site be taken down based upon false claims of illegality.
Permalink 2008-02-24 @ 16:41
Comment from: PAUL P [Visitor]
God have mercy on you if lives are lost due to this childish crap you are doing. Karma would have you as Jose's prison b***h.Dont believe they allow your camaras in Texarkana Federal prison.
Permalink 2008-02-24 @ 16:50
Comment from: Michael [Visitor]
Why would prison even enter the equation? The Webmaster here has done NOTHING wrong and is minding his own business driving down a highway paid for by his own tax dollars. If they want to have a stop to look for equipment infractions, great. If they want to know who owns the truck, run the plates. They have no business asking for identification unless there is a criminal investigation underway and they have reason to believe the driver is a suspect (specific description, not stopping EVERYONE). Do some research, people (Terry v. Ohio, Hiibel v. Nevada). Suspicionless stops are UNCONSTITIONAL - if you don't like that fact, YOU move somewhere else! America should be about freedom, not being interrogated and harassed based on a bureaucrat's whim.
These stops aren't making anyone any safer, the border is 40 miles to the South, where hundreds of people are hiking into America every day. I'd be interested in seeing what the EFFECTIVENESS of this nuisance stop is actually accomplishing. Any terrorists yet? Haven't heard of any. Apprehended any dangerous felons? Nope. If they came across a guy with a carload of drugs, it would be thrown out if he had your precious ID because it's out of their scope. Instead we get jokers standing around with a badge and cameraphone to entertain themselves on your dime.
It escapes me why people would be in favor of a "police state" where your comings and goings are monitored by an agency that has proven itself to be corrupt and incompetent time and time again.
Permalink 2008-02-25 @ 10:20
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
It always amazes me when someone takes the side of the government when they know the power and money backing the institution. Why do they feel someone speaking out (or taping) somehow damages or impedes the actions of these agents. Just like the 3 branches or g'ment, we, the people, act as a 4th branch or a deterent to the overstepping reach of said agents.

One man with a camera has little chance of changing things, but then again, there was Ghandi. I applaud your efforts and thank you for standing up for MY freedom.

When one man stands up to the government we call him a patriot, when we all stand up they call that a revolution.
Permalink 2008-02-25 @ 11:13
I just want to give a shout out to Terry for documenting all of this in such meticulous detail. Thanks!

For those who have complained about Terry exercising his rights, it is a shame that you value basic human rights and freedom so little that you have to lash out at even this most peaceful support for it.

To Chris Parker, your writing skills are so poor that I had trouble even reading what you wrote. Perhaps your time would be better spent studying with a remedial English tutor than in harassing Terry. And if you must harass someone, it would be nice if you would instead direct it to the Border Patrol agents who have harassed me and endangered my personal safety time and again on my way to and from my house 45+ miles north of the border.
Permalink 2008-02-26 @ 17:58
Comment from: John Plot. [Visitor]
Good job Terry! We love our free USA for all what she stands for. Don't let this 4th grade d**b ass, who claims to be just an "adverage joe," intimidate your good work. If anyone needs to go to prison it is those who threaten our rights using fear and hate tactics; they can actually take this fellow with them to the prison cell he signifies, we don't mind paying for his GED there. That is what lacking here, the common sense to utilize our tax money to educate the "adverage Joe" to rid them of the thought and logic of invading our rights in the effort of nourishing the craving for hate and fear mongering.

Mr. Parker with all due respect, please get lost, go back to school, do something productive…do yourself a favor and pray for your soul. Terry should be your hero; he’s trying to help you protect your rights and privacy, there by our precious citizenship to this great country, though you may fail to understand this very important fact. We understand these people are trying to do their jobs and just taking orders, but then invading their fellow citizens’ privacy and rights is not a job, it smells harassment. I suggest they should stand up for what is right as well; they surely will not like it if this type of hassle occurs to them in their daily lives. I would not sell my country’s core standing for a paycheck.

Thanks Terry, this is very informative. We need to alert others who care about our freedom. Many congress men/women need to see this; you should send them links to your great site. Also please do set up a paypal donation account or mailing P. O. box; we would like to contribute funds to help you legally fend off idiots who resort to threats to undermine your freedom of speech.

It sucks to live in Az, Russia/Iran, I much rather live in Arizona, USA. These security checks are illegal, and have no legal standings, I believe.

John P.
Permalink 2008-02-29 @ 22:53
Comment from: CParker [Visitor]
"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." --Winston Churchill
Permalink 2008-03-03 @ 21:08
Comment from: Kevin P [Visitor]
Hey Look!!!

CParker completed a sentence without any grammatical or spelling errors - oh wait he's quoting someone.

Did anyone else think those errors were intentional looking? What did Lechter say... 'the elaborations of a bad liar'. Yeah thats it.

Terry - Thanks for taking the time and effort to speak truth to power and good luck!

Permalink 2008-03-04 @ 13:45
Comment from: Norman, Visitor [Visitor] · http://None
This is what everyone needs to be doing all around the country, and remember, it is the enforcers of tyranny that must bear the brunt of the peoples resistance to it...
Permalink 2008-03-05 @ 18:25
Comment from: Glen [Visitor] ·
Great job keep up the good work. All the best to your project. I'll keep reading to learn more.
Permalink 2008-03-13 @ 09:46
Comment from: TacoJay [Visitor]
This is in response to a conversation with checkpointusa on the dhs checkpoint blog that's closed. Sorry but the thread is closed.

"The checkpoints that you're depicting are NOT roving. An Immigration Checkpoint is any interior location at which vehicular immigration inspection occurs even though no permanant fixtures are present at the location and even though the checkpoint is not continuously operational.

Source please. Any checkpoint that is not a permanent checkpoint as described by SCOTUS in U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte is either a temporary, tactical, or roving checkpoint. Since the checkpoint in question is NOT a permanent checkpoint, it falls under one of these three categories. Since I use these terms interchangeably, you are welcome to provide more refined definitions that delineate them accordingly. I would ask that you provide the source for any definitions you put forward however."

Sorry about that, here they are:
United States v. Soto-Camacho, 58 F.3d 408
United States v. Venegas-Sapien, 762 F.2d 417, 419
United States v. Hernandez, 739 F.2d 484, 488
United States v. Gordo-Marin, 497 F. Supp. 432

"I realize these K-9 units sniff out people but as you indicate, they're also trained to indiscriminantly sniff out drugs as well. This means they're being used in a dual capacity mode - drugs and people.

The use of a K9 sniff is not considered a search.

It's well known that K-9 handlers are capable of signaling their dogs to alert erroneously. This can then be used as a pretext for much more intrusive searches. If nothing turns up during such a search, the agent can claim the dog mistakenly alerted. A previous SCOTUS case that ruled drug dog sniffs during traffic stops based upon reasonable suspicion weren't searches never considered the issue of K-9 handler corruption or the use of such dogs during brief suspicionless immigration stops at permanent checkpoints like those considered in Martinez-Fuerte."

In response to the dogs being dual trained; I'm sure that many of the agents have been police officers in the past, and have been trained to detect when laws have been broken. Each agents training/experience levels are going to be different, and some agents may notice things like stolen vehicles by nothing other than the appearance of the vehicle. These events are going to occur without the intent of the agent. However, I don't think that they should be ignored just because they aren't the main concern of the particular checkpoint.
The accusation that a canine handler would train their dog to falsely alert is a very serious one. I would hope that any such accusation would be backed by evidence on a specific incident. As far as I am aware, SCOTUS still takes a canine alert as probable cause despite the percentage of false alerts.

"Anything beyond this requires additional levels of suspicion depending upon several variables.

I'm glad you recognize this because several BP agents who have commented on my YouTube channel have indicated they have the authority to detain anyone indefinitely until that person proves they are in the country legally. Such an interpretation stands the Martinez-Fuerte ruling on its head..."

In order to send a traveler that is in primary inspection at an immigration checkpoint to secondary for further review of status, the only suspicion needed is Mere Suspicion" or a hunch. I would think that anyone who is not willing to answer the immigration question may be illegal. That might give a reasonable agent a hunch, and cause the person in primary to be detained for a reasonable period of time pending results of the inquiry.

"The agent/s may not be making the decision on where a roving/temporary checkpoint will be setup inside the country but they are making the decision to obey instructions to open such checkpoints and stand in the middle of a public highway to seize travelers absent reasonable suspicion. These actions prejudice the rights of the individuals being seized. As such, the line agents are playing a fundamental role in the process. Doing one's job is one thing but if that job involves compromising the rights of others, that's something else entirely."

According to SCOTUS, these agents are within the law and their duty to open and operate these checkpoints. If this were illegal, than I'm sure that the prosecutors in Arizona who enjoy putting Federal Agents on trial... Would. I encourage you to speak with local prosecutors about your concern and tell me what the results are.

"My last such meeting was in 2003. I have also voiced my concerns at all levels on several occasions over the years. Since no one seems to be listening, this has become my only recourse to draw attention to the problem. As such, concerned individuals may want to blame Homeland Security leadership for the current state of affairs instead of the messenger... "

In 5 years I'm sure that there have been changes in leadership and policy. When was the last time that you tried to obtain an interview with leadership? I would like to hear their response to your questioning.
Permalink 2008-03-16 @ 15:25
Comment from: anonymous [Visitor]
The point of having the camera is to keep the guards from taking advantage of a helpless citizen by letting them know you are recording. Would they react the same way if you hid the camera or had it concealed better and they didn't realize they were being recorded? You then get the benefit of surprise and its recorded just in case.
Permalink 2008-03-18 @ 23:47
Comment from: anonymous [Visitor]
perhaps you could roll through the checkpoint with your window already cracked too to avoid the problem of hearing and caving in to their request.
Permalink 2008-03-18 @ 23:49
Comment from: Justice Unlimited [Visitor] ·

I suggest that you and your "Friends" cease such pathetic attempts at intimidation. It might work against some... but sooner or later you'll run into a REAL master of the craft - and then you'll be in trouble. ;) Run along junior.

To the owner of this site - look me up, I have a little something you can use the next time you run into one of these "checkpoints" :))
Permalink 2008-03-27 @ 10:22
Comment from: docRossco [Visitor]
What a patriot. Having lived in Brazil for a time, I was always having to produce my documents for the military police. All the while I would tell the Brazilians I was with that this crap doesn't happen in the U.S. Well, it does. This site gives me hope that once we ALL stand up for those rights we all have we may gain a little of them back. Why we allow those who are less than us to rule over us is beyond me. Read the Declaration of Independence sometime. How strange that it is as applicable today as in 1776. By the way, what is the significance of not rolling your window down at each of the stops? Is this just for your own comfort (and the lack of comfort for the interrogators) or is it procedure to keep from the search and seizure aspect of the 4th ammendment? Just a question. Keep it up!
Permalink 2008-04-28 @ 14:46
Comment from: Dave [Visitor]
Thank you for bringing this topic up. I do believe America is becoming a Police State. An apathetic and afraid American public is allowing it to happen. I am a well traveled American citizen. I have been traveling for the past 25 years and have never seen the level of harrasement one receives coming back home in all of my travel history as I do today.

I recently came through the Texas/Mexico border and was stopped and quizzed by "America's finest" with "invasion of privacy" and probing questions such as "Where did you go?", "Whom did you visit?".....

After refusing to answer the questions, I was led to the back, frisked and asked the same questions again...

This type of behavior and questioning is statistically proven to "not" prevent acts of terrorism, nor limit the amount of narcotics entering our country's borders. If they truly wanted to improve border security, get rid of those $35,000 a year monkeys we have at the border, eliminate the standardized questions those monkeys ask, and bring in the scanning technology we so desperately need.

We definitely do not need more of those $35,000 a year monkeys hanging about (there are usually at any given time 6-12 hanging out playing grab ass and doing nothing).

Our current border security is both mismanaged and corrupt. Many border patrol agents have been convicted of human and narcotics smuggling. And they are the one's protecting us from terrorism and the flow of narcotics?

I have read some of the criticisms of past posts for stances like mine and the author's and before you answer in opposition to mine be forewarned: Once we lose our civil liberties, it will take years for us to get them back, if at all. If you do not see the value in retaining our civil liberties, then you have probably never traveled to experience other countries who are "less free". Living in ignorance, would therefore make it easier for one to tolerate the American version of the Gestapho. I guess it is easy to see America's ignorance on this topic as only 8% of our citizenry has passports. The other 92% are comfortable going to Disney and watching American Idol for their worldly impressions.

Thank you again for your site. Don't ever stop taking this type of behavior laying down.

Permalink 2008-05-09 @ 03:38
Comment from: Rent Mitchum [Visitor]
Keep up the great work CheckpointUSA. This is inspiring, there are true patriots left in the country. The concept of patriotism has changed, and you fulfill it's original ideals. Never give up, never give in. Uphold our rights. You have inspired me to do the same whenever tested.

Thank you.

P.S. to Parker: For the love of god, it's 'feel' not "feal".
Permalink 2008-05-11 @ 01:36
Comment from: waste [Visitor]
This Chris Parker guy is obviously a very old senile man that you have probably filmed in your videos. He can't spell a damn thing, and he has know speeches containing any relevant substance or lawful tactics. If they were going to take legal action against you, they would have done it already. You know your rights, of course. heh.
Permalink 2008-05-18 @ 14:05
Comment from: Syd Stout [Visitor]
Well, I have my own story to tell!
After stopping for food near Picacho Park off I-10 I missed the highway entrance and drove a few miles on the frontage rd. I missed another intersection and made a u-turn to go back to it; upon seeing "wrong way" sign I turned my hazard blinkers as it was fairly close to that intersection and the road was empty of traffic; there was no shoulder to drive on. At the intersection, I noticed a police-like sedan off the road which didn't attempt to signal for me to stop. I entered I-10 and noticed the sedan following and gaining on me, without red & blue lights on; I was not aware of any Border Patrol presence in the area so far North of the border. I considered their behavior strange and decided to pull over to see what they were up to. Without identifying themselves, the 2 officers appeared on passenger side of my truck; as it doesn't have electric locks, I signaled for them to come to the driver's side. Then one of them came over and told me to lean over and open the passenger side door. I did as asked and gave them my IDs. In the dark I didn't see their uniforms well; after hearing my accent the leader asked "where are you from?" I grew tired of these kinds of questions from previous encounters with "big green men" and said that it wasn't relevant"- only then the officer said that it was relevant as he was "an immigration inspector"- I then answered. After some more questioning the officer noticed my holstered gun on the front seat (not concealed, as being alleged), grabbed it, and exclaimed "I've got a gun!" 2 times. Since they didn't ask me about weapons, I didn't volunteer to tell them. The officer than said: "it would have been a lot different", implying that they were ready to let me go before noticing it. I was then repeatedly asked for weapons permits- they didn't appear to know of the AZ "open carry state" status. That fact is also confirmed by their calling the DPS to the scene. My unloaded rifle was inside the case and behind the front seat, and I didn't have immediate access to it while in the driver's seat. After searching my truck and finding nothing illegal, they called K-9 unit, which only then found "the powdery substance" on the back seat- they asked me about it and I told them I had no idea; I later looked and found that it was just dust as I rarely do any cleaning there.
I asked to be cuffed with my hands in front, but was cuffed with hands in the back. After being handcuffed for about 2 hours I was very uncomfortable and one cuff slipped out- I didn't try to hide this and was re-cuffed, this time as tight as possible, which caused me considerable pain.
The agents wanted to seize my truck also; I protested and it was left on the shoulder with the spare truck key on the front seat, even after I asked them not to leave it there- they said "if someone breaks in, they'll have to find it first"- what if my truck was stolen while I was positively ID-ed (i.e. fingerprinted- only then the cuffs were painfully removed), and my guns were checked at the station 8 miles away? After being brought back from the station to my truck, they tossed the guns onto the truck bed, closed the camper shell and told me "don't get access to them until you arrive at your destination" and without any apology got into their car and promptly left.
The central issue is that they didn't know AZ gun laws, while calling themselves "the law enforcement"; they used my guns as pretext for detaining me and rejecting my VA ID card (with my picture on it) as not sufficient proof- and they should now that (especially the leader who is an Army veteran), aside from being issued by the Federal Gov., the military doesn't recruit illegal aliens. Had I carried the original U.S. passport they would have rejected it too.In the end, 6 rounds of ammunition and a piece of rope were illegally seized.
I feel that my rights to dignity, privacy, and safety were violated.
below is a draft of a lawsuit I planned to file which would heve cost me $350.+ travel expences. The statute of limitations run out by now, and in any case they'd have twisted it their way.


Name & address deleted
vs. US Border Patrol,

The incident occurred 8 (eight) miles Southeast of Casa Grande, AZ, in Pinal County, and involved Federal law enforcement.


On 3/7/06-3/8/06 at about 9.30 P.M. after getting lost on the Frontage road near I-10 I was followed and stopped by 2 Border Patrol officers who failed to identify themselves first, and did not know Arizona "open carry" gun law. As a result:
I and my truck were illegally searched; an attempt was made to seize it and my key-chain; I was detained for about 4 (four) hours; my state and federal IDs weren't accepted as proof of my legal status in the US; 6 rounds of ammunition and a piece of rope were illegally seized.
An adequate relief is asked for:
moral, psychological and material damages, mental distress, pain and suffering during and after:
being followed by unknown police-like vehicle, illegal searches, attempted and actual seizures, time spent in handcuffs; painful removal of handcuffs; degrading questioning, detention, and fingerprinting; negligent placement and leaving of spare truck key on its front seat; trashing the contents of my truck; careless placement (tossing) of guns on the truck's bed; leaving me without ammunition i.e.means of self-defense between 1-2 AM; twisting the course of the incident in subsequent communication; and not timely responding to my latest refutation of their version of it.


The return of seized items or their monetary value; tax-free payment of $30,000.00;
placing of the 2 officers involved by their supervisor(s) in the back seat of a service sedan for 3 (three) hours, at the Casa Grande Border Patrol station, while in tightly locked handcuffs, behind their backs,and conduction of pat down and personal vehicle (including K-9, or using my own dog) searches, with trashing the contents thereoff; -all in my presence.

Next time I'm stopped and asked their usual questions they'll have to
take my fingerprints first to find out who I am, or let me go!

Permalink 2008-05-19 @ 12:05
Comment from: laosuwan pitsanolak [Visitor]
stop, answer the questions, go on your way. works for me.
Permalink 2008-06-06 @ 10:48
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
If we all get used to being questioned just because we look suspiciuos and/or happened to be in certain areas, then we don't exercise our constututional rights, and will surely loose them.
That was not the only incident I had with them. Back in 1993 I was riding a Greyhound bus in TX and they came on at one stop to check passengers. One of them came to me, invaded my space, and didn't move until after examing my green card. More recently, I once was going North on HWY-85 that runs from Lukeville, AZ entry point to Ajo, where I used to live for a time, and at the BP checkpoint I presented my US passport. After looking through it, the agent asked me where I was born- I had to name the city listed on the passport also. Next time I'll refuse to participate in their mini-interrogation and suggest to be taken to their station for fingerprinting- that way they'll get tired of verifying my identity, even if I have to do it 10 more times!
While it may be true that they are bringing federal $ to places they are stationed at, there is no excuse for them to harass people! Those $$$ could be better spent elsewhere- I've seen a road sighn some ranch owner put "NAFTA- drugs in, billions out!"
Permalink 2008-06-08 @ 20:27
Comment from: Captainah [Visitor]
Well it seems as though CParker needs to go back to school,I dont know if it was intentional or not but his spelling is pathetic.Its no wonder our government is so screwed up they are hiring uneducated or I should say slightly educated people to work for them.I suppose thats what they mean by an equal opportunity employer lol.In the mean time you keep up the good work ,because one person can make a difference.

Permalink 2008-06-08 @ 21:47
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
New NYT article with revealing stats!

So, it's all about politics, not our safety!
Permalink 2009-02-04 @ 14:04
Comment from: Checkpoint USA [Member]
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
New NYT article with revealing stats!

So, it's all about politics, not our safety!

The DHS Inspector General authored a report on this issue back in 2006. See:

The report centers around ICE's Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) and highlights the fact that the office releases approximately 36% of all illegal aliens apprehended and detained by CPB every year. These individuals are released into the United States either on bond while awaiting the results of their immigration cases or on their own recognizance.

In raw numbers, this represents approximately 110,000 individuals annually with 62-89% absconding while awaiting deportation orders. In December 2005, official records indicated the presence of over 544,000 such individuals. More than 45,000 were from countries on terrorist watch lists and another 30,000 had criminal records.

The NY Times article indicates the numbers spiked to 634,000 in 2007 and then dropped in 2008 to 554,000 - still higher than the numbers from 2005.

Yes - it's all about politics and internal suspicionless checkpoints are designed to create the illusion that DHS is doing something about it while conditioning individuals to accept arbitrary interference from armed federal agents in their daily lives.
Permalink 2009-02-04 @ 21:21
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
Have anyone here heard of the plan to create "Fortress North America"- to save $ and streamline ICE function,- then there won't be need to police the US border areas with canada & Mexico?
Permalink 2009-02-08 @ 16:56
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
Another relevant article-

The so-called "war on drugs" is nowhere close to ending! Short of legalizing most illicit drugs, they should use those BP galuts as DEA agents instead!
That said, all thing considered, refined sugar is more dangerous then cocaine, and an infant in trade embargoed Cuba has more chances of surviving into adulthood than in the US!
Permalink 2009-02-09 @ 19:37
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
More interesting quotes- Report Faults Homeland Security’s Efforts on Immigration By GINGER THOMPSON An immigration policy group said that the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration mission has been undermined by wasteful spending and a hostile bureaucracy. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past. National Guard is already missed at U.S. border States Push to Take Back National Guard
Permalink 2009-02-12 @ 12:02
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
Well, this sumes it up- they don't know how effective they are, and there isn't enough manpower to watch the border and stop illegal entrants without the checkpoints. And the border states don't have enough resources and guts to use their National Guards were they're needed the most. In the meantime, the "big green men" are in the situation were they can't do their job without violating our "inalianable rights", while looking for "aliens". Too bad that most people they stop don't realize that in "the land of the brave & free" it is them that are alien!
GAO report faults Border Patrol
Permalink 2009-08-29 @ 12:27
Comment from: Syd [Visitor]
New revealing article by NYT:
Border Sweeps in North Reach Miles Into U.S.
ROCHESTER — The Lake Shore Limited runs between Chicago and New York City without crossing the Canadian border. But when it stops at Amtrak stations in western New York State, armed Border Patrol agents routinely board the train, question passengers about their citizenship and take away noncitizens who cannot produce satisfactory immigration papers.

“Are you a U.S. citizen?” agents asked one recent morning, moving through a Rochester-bound train full of dozing passengers at a station outside Buffalo. “What country were you born in?”

When the answer came back, “the U.S.,” they moved on. But Ruth Fernandez, 60, a naturalized citizen born in Ecuador, was asked for identification. And though she was only traveling home to New York City from her sister’s in Ohio, she had made sure to carry her American passport. On earlier trips, she said, agents had photographed her, and taken away a nervous Hispanic man.

He was one of hundreds of passengers taken to detention each year from domestic trains and buses along the nation’s northern border. The little-publicized transportation checks are the result of the Border Patrol’s growth since 9/11, fueled by Congressional antiterrorism spending and an expanding definition of border jurisdiction. In the Rochester area, where the border is miles away in the middle of Lake Ontario, the patrol arrested 2,788 passengers from October 2005 through last September.

The checks are “a vital component to our overall border security efforts” to prevent terrorism and illegal entry, said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for United States Customs and Border Protection. He said that the patrol had jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws within 100 miles of the border, and that one mission was preventing smugglers and human traffickers from exploiting inland transit hubs.
The patrol says that answering agents’ questions is voluntary, part of a “consensual and nonintrusive conversation” Some passengers agree, though they are not told that they can keep silent. But others, from immigration lawyers and university officials to American-born travelers startled by an agent’s flashlight in their eyes, say the practice is coercive, unconstitutional and tainted by racial profiling.
The Lake Shore Limited route is a journey across the spectrum of public attitudes toward illegal immigrants — from cities where they have been accepted and often treated as future citizens, to places where they are seen as lawbreakers the federal government is doing too little to expel.
The journey also highlights conflicting enforcement policies. Immigration authorities, vowing to concentrate resources on deporting immigrants with serious criminal convictions, have recently been halting the deportation of students who were brought to the country as children without papers — a group the Obama administration favors for legalization.
But some of the same kinds of students are being jailed by the patrol, like a Taiwan-born Ph.D. candidate who had excelled in New York City public schools since age 11. Two days after he gave a paper on Chaucer at a conference in Chicago last year, he was taken from his train seat and strip-searched at a detention center in Batavia, N.Y., facing deportation for an expired visa.
For some, the patrol’s practices evoke the same fears as a new immigration law in Arizona — that anyone, anytime, can be interrogated without cause.
The federal government is authorized to do just that at places where people enter and leave the country, and at a “reasonable distance” from the border. But as the patrol expands and tries to raise falling arrest numbers, critics say, the concept of the border is becoming more fluid, eroding Constitutional limits on search and seizure. And unlike Arizona’s law, the change is happening without public debate.
“It’s turned into a police state on the northern border,” said Cary M. Jensen, director of international services for the University of Rochester, whose foreign students, scholars and parents have been questioned and jailed, often because the patrol did not recognize their legal status. “It’s essentially become an internal document check.”
Domestic transportation checks are not mentioned in a report on the northern border strategy that Customs and Border Protection delivered last year to Congress, which has more than doubled the patrol since 2006, to 2,212 agents, with plans to double it again soon. The data available suggests that such stops account for as many as half the reported 6,000 arrests a year.

In Rochester, the Border Patrol station opened in 2004, with four agents to screen passengers of a new ferry from Toronto. The ferry went bankrupt, but the unit has since grown tenfold; its agents have one of the highest arrest rates on the northern border — 1,040 people in the 2008 fiscal year, 95 percent of them from buses and trains — though officials say numbers have fallen as word of the patrols reached immigrant communities.
“Our mission is to defend the homeland, primarily against terrorists and terrorist weapons,” said Thomas Pocorobba Jr., the agent in charge of the Rochester station, one of 55 between Washington State and Maine. “We still do our traditional mission, which is to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.”
Legal scholars say the government’s border authority, which extends to fixed checkpoints intercepting cross-border traffic, cannot be broadly applied to roving patrols in a swath of territory. But such authority is not needed to ask questions if people can refuse to answer. The patrol does not track how many people decline, Mr. Pocorobba said.
Asked if agents could question people in Times Square, which like most of the nation’s population centers is within 100 miles of international waters, Mr. Pocorobba replied, “Technically, we can, but we don’t.” He added, “Our job is strictly cross-border.”
Lawyers challenging the stops in several deportation cases questioned the rationale that they were aimed at border traffic. Government data obtained in litigation shows that at least three-quarters of those arrested since 2006 had been in the country more than a year.
Though many Americans may welcome such arrests, the patrol’s costly expansion was based on a bipartisan consensus about border security, not interior enforcement to sweep up farmworkers and students, said Nancy Morawetz, who directs the immigration rights clinic at New York University.
One case she is challenging involves a Nassau County high school graduate taken from the Lake Shore Limited in Rochester in 2007. The government says the graduate, then 21, voluntarily produced a Guatemalan passport and could not prove she was in the country legally. A database later showed she had an expired visitor’s visa.
Unlike a criminal arrest, such detentions come with few due process protections. The woman was held at a county jail, then transferred across the country while her mother, a house cleaner, and a high school teacher tried to reach her. The woman first saw an immigration judge more than three weeks after her arrest. He halved the $10,000 bail set by the patrol, and she was eventually released at night at a rural Texas gas station.

“I was shocked,” said the teacher, Susanne Marcus, who said her former student had been awarded a $2,000 college scholarship.
Another challenge is pending in the 2009 train arrest of the Taiwan-born doctoral student, who had to answer the agent after being singled out for intense questioning because of his “Asian appearance,” he said. His account was corroborated in an affidavit filed this month by another passenger.
Similar complaints have been made by others, including a Chicago couple who encountered the patrol on a train to Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for the woman’s graduation from Vassar College.
“At least in Arizona, you have to be doing something wrong to be stopped,” said the woman, a citizen of Chinese-American descent who said her Mexican boyfriend was sleeping when an agent started questioning him. “Here, you’re sitting on the train asleep and if you don’t look like a U.S. citizen, it’s ‘Wake up!’ ”

Mr. Pocorobba denied that agents used racial profiling; the proof, he said, was that those arrested had come from 96 countries. Agents say they often act on suspicion, prompted by a passenger’s demeanor. Of those detained, most were in the country illegally — including the Mexican, 24, who admitted that he had sneaked across the southern border at 16 to find his father. Others were supposed to be carrying their papers, like a Pakistani college student detained for two weeks before authorities confirmed that he was a legal resident.
Some American-born passengers welcome the patrol. “It makes me feel safe,” volunteered Katie Miller, 34, who was riding Amtrak to New York from Ohio. “I don’t mind being monitored.”
To others, it evokes travel through the old Communist bloc. “I was actually woken up with a flashlight in my face,” recalled Mike Santomauro, 27, a law student who encountered the patrol in April, at 2 a.m. on a train in Rochester.
Across the aisle, he said, six agents grilled a student with a computer who had only an electronic version of his immigration documents. Through the window, Mr. Santomauro said, he could see three black passengers, standing with arms raised beside a Border Patrol van.
“As a citizen I’m offended,” he said. But he added, “To say I didn’t want to answer didn’t seem a viable option.”
Permalink 2010-08-30 @ 14:50
Comment from: ron [Visitor] ·
la respuesta Competente, cognoscitivamente...

Permalink 2011-09-03 @ 06:48

Comments are closed for this post.

Roadblock Revelations

Welcome to Checkpoint USA's blog. Here you'll find general information and discussions regarding growing threats to our right to privacy & travel.

While I refer to court cases along with state and federal law frequently in this blog, nothing written here should be construed as legal advice. I am not an attorney. Rather, I'm someone concerned about the growing disregard for individual rights present at all levels of government.

My conclusions are my own based upon personal experience and research. The law is made purposely complex however and varies significantly from place to place and circumstance to circumstance.

May 2018
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<<  <   >  >>
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      




Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by