Post details: Illegal Homeland Security Roving Patrol Traffic Stop

2008-05-17

Permalink 23:57:52, Categories: Privacy, Right to Travel, Homeland Security?, 1056 words   English (EU)

Illegal Homeland Security Roving Patrol Traffic Stop

While driving to a remote work site late in the evening on May 14, 2008, I was targeted by a Federal Homeland Security Agent on roving patrol and followed for several miles along SR86 in Southern Arizona. After following me for some distance, the agent initiated a traffic stop absent reasonable suspicion along a deserted stretch of this unlit two lane highway. There were no developed shoulders along the side of the road making it impossible to completely pull out of the lane of traffic.

[More:]

Additionally, the presence of several blind curves in the area make for dangerous conditions, especially at night. Testifying to this fact are multiple makeshift crosses from roadside memorials in the area.

SR86 is a public highway that runs East - West. It's also over 40 miles North of the international border with Mexico and never intersects the border at any point.

When I first noticed the vehicle, it was the second one behind me and closely trailing the car in front of it. Aggressive and dangerous driving by DHS Agents operating in the area is not uncommon. At the time, I couldn't make out any markings so I wasn't sure if it was a DHS vehicle. It was riding high off the ground however with headlights and a rough outline resembling the commonly seen CBP vans & trucks in the area that have been diverted from the border to target domestic traffic.

After following me for several miles, the agent turned on his flashing red & blue lights and passed the vehicle in front of him.

He stayed in the opposite lane until the distance between myself and the other car widened enough for his patrol vehicle to squeeze in behind me.

I pulled over a short distance later and turned on my video camera (YouTube video loading...):


The agent's radio was on as he approached and I could hear someone state a 10-29 check had come back negative (wanted person's check?) followed by my name, a description of my vehicle and my address.

Standing slightly back from the driver's side door, the agent said nothing as he shined his flashlight into my vehicle. With my camera up however, he began backing away a short time later.

As he backed away, I asked him why he stopped me and what his name was. He stood behind my vehicle and said nothing. The second time I asked, the agent indicated he wanted me to roll my window down but otherwise refused to identify himself or the reason why he stopped me. Since he initiated the stop, his refusal to inform me as to who he was, why he stopped me, or even make any inquiries was very strange indeed.

A few moments later, the agent went back to his vehicle and drove away without any explanation as to why he arrested my travels and invaded my privacy.

It should be noted that Federal Homeland Security agents operating in Pima County, Arizona are not certified by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board. As such, they are not authorized to exercise the powers of Arizona peace officers. This means federal agents on roving patrol can only (legally) stop an individual when they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a federal law they have jurisdiction over.

In this case, the agent needed reasonable suspicion to believe I was either an illegal alien or transporting illegal aliens. The agent's own field manual makes this clear.

Customs & Border Protection Inspector's Field Manual:

18. Warrantless Search and Seizures (e) ”...INS officers on roving patrol may stop a vehicle only if aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion (reasonable suspicion) that the vehicle contains illegal aliens.”

Since the agent had no compelling questions for me after initiating the stop (at least after seeing my camera and getting my name from dispatch), he obviously had no reasonable suspicion to legally initiate the traffic stop to begin with.

Prior to 1975, the U.S. Border Patrol, as a matter of policy, routinely violated the U.S. Constitution by utilizing roving patrols to randomly pull vehicles over to interrogate occupants and search vehicles absent reasonable suspicion. Eventually, a case challenging these actions percolated up to the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down such practices as unconstitutional – see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce.

Given my experience on the evening of May 14th however, it would appear that this illegal practice hasn't been abandoned by Homeland Security. Rather, agents pull over vehicles absent reasonable suspicion looking for an easy mark. If they find someone who knows their rights, they quickly back off. Otherwise, they see what they can get away.

This illegal practice shouldn't surprise anyone. According to a Border Patrol supervisor I met with several years ago regarding similar issues, I learned that as a matter of policy, the agency doesn't keep records of traffic stops that don't result in an arrest or a seizure - convenient (for them anyway).

This makes it impossible to use agency records to determine the overall effectiveness of the roving patrol program or whether the agency routinely violates individual rights during roving patrol traffic stops.

Those of us who live within one hundred miles of the border don't need agency records to know the answer to these questions.

To summarize:

I was pulled over without reasonable suspicion by an armed federal agent along a deserted stretch of an unlit two lane highway late at night with no developed shoulders to safely move out of the lane of traffic. The agent approached my driver's side door and shined a flashlight into my cab without a word of explanation before backing away after seeing my camera and hearing the dispatcher's report. The agent then refused to identify himself or the reason for the stop before getting back into his patrol vehicle and leaving the scene.

Given my previous documented experiences along this stretch of highway, it's unclear whether I was purposefully targeted or if I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Regardless, it should be clear that this traffic stop was illegal and the traveling public is being put at risk, both legally and physically, by DHS agents with little respect for individual rights and the rule of law.

Welcome to Checkpoint USA

Comments:

Comment from: Justice Unlimited [Visitor] · http://groups.yahoo.com/group/justiceunlimited
I suggest you ditch the camera you're using and get something not so easily noticed - like a small pinhole camera or the like connected to a recorder hidden in the trunk.

The objective should be to catch them in even more serious illegal activity.

In my opinnion, the only difference between modern law enforcement and criminals is that they wear a badge. :(
Permalink 2008-05-18 @ 12:39
I hope you say that when someone is trying to kill you or rape you.
Permalink 2008-05-18 @ 19:47
Comment from: Joj [Visitor]
you're a tinfoil hat fool. roll down the window, give him 10 seconds of your time and find a new hobby
Permalink 2008-05-18 @ 23:48
Comment from: anonymous [Visitor] · http://billstclair.com
Congratulations again on another successful exposure on the tyranny overcoming this country ! As you can see from the comments above the people are happy to be enslaved servants at any costs. LOL at the pathetic "enforcer" who drove away... What a loser..
Permalink 2008-05-19 @ 00:20
Comment from: non-anon-anon [Visitor]
The DHS is (yet another) giant government boondoggle. They apparently have the resources for all these patrols and checkpoints, but can't be bothered to train their agents properly or give them a clear idea what their jurisdictional boundaries are.
Permalink 2008-05-19 @ 19:53
Comment from: Tom Sawyer [Visitor] · http://NHFree.com
Thanks for your courage and bring these activities to public attention.

Folks we have crossed the line into police state. It is time to educate others.
Permalink 2008-05-20 @ 17:12
Comment from: Checkpoint USA [Member]
Justice Unlimited said:

"In my opinion, the only difference between modern law enforcement and criminals is that they wear a badge. :("

Wasn't it Al Capone that once said something to the effect of:

"why fight the government when you can become the government..."

I don't hide the video camera because I want the enforcers to know they're being recorded. Enforcement agents tend to behave better when they know a record of the encounter is being created.

It also shows others that it's possible to successfully stand against arbitrary enforcement actions and police state tactics like those utilized at suspicionless checkpoints around the country.
Permalink 2008-05-20 @ 23:47
Comment from: IBMMuseum [Visitor]
Keep up the fight!

My family and I have had Border Patrol vehicle stops twice within the last year, for no apparent reason other than having bedding and luggage in the back of an older minivan while travelling certain roadways. The first was professional and quick, on the second one the agent didn't identify himself or the agency at all. We were detained for over twenty minutes and had flashlights shown in our faces. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought the United States would have a "Department of Homeland Security" and I would be questioned about my citizenship!

I've served this great country for over 22 years, and also take the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States seriously...
Permalink 2008-05-21 @ 15:28
Comment from: Constitution above all [Visitor]
Thank you for standing up for the rights our forefathers fought and died to ensure all our freedoms.
To the pathetic people that say "just give them 10 seconds of your time and they will leave you alone.." Realize that even ONE seconded of unconstitutional behavior is one seconded to long! Never submit and know your rights. Cops have sworn to uphold our Constitution, not abuse the people it protects. Wake up Sheeple, people have died to give you these rights, use them.
Permalink 2008-05-22 @ 21:05
Comment from: antifacist [Visitor]
I'm glad to see other people are tired of the department of homeland insecurity! By the way this story might interest you too http://www.yumasun.com/news/sector_41890___article.html/border_patrol.html
Permalink 2008-05-23 @ 02:03
Comment from: jz [Visitor]
you are doing an awesome job, keep it up. Get them on tape!
Permalink 2008-05-23 @ 14:30
Comment from: Sheeba [Visitor]
Good site man! I am from Canada and I'm very glad I dont have to deal with this sort of thing...

Your doing a great thing man keep it up.. More people need to realize :D


Permalink 2008-05-28 @ 11:54
Comment from: Drew [Visitor]
I used to know a guy that would do exactly this, even before 9/11. These checkpoints have been in place for a long time, and I'm surprised how used to it the American people are.

I'm sure I have a few videos in the archives somewhere of him "putting it to the man" so to speak.

Keep up the good work..

and to those of you who feel giving away those 10 seconds of freedom is acceptable, then go live in Myanmar and leave the rest of us freedom loving individuals alone.

K thanks!
Permalink 2008-05-31 @ 09:52
Comment from: Rahn Lawson [Visitor]
The laws are for all to obey and follow. Men dressed as police or peace officers or border patrol or homeland security also have to obey the law. The first and most important of which is the Constitution of the United States of America. These nazi police state goons, who think they are above the law need to see that there are many of us willing to take them to task on their illegal tactics and atempted subversion of their authority. They are nothing more than goose stepping brainless morons. Keep up the good fighit !
Permalink 2008-06-03 @ 18:23
Comment from: Mik [Visitor]
Drew: "and to those of you who feel giving away those 10 seconds of freedom is acceptable, then go live in Myanmar and leave the rest of us freedom loving individuals alone."

Funny thing about America, we have the right to do what we want.

If we don't want to be jackasses looking for our fifteen minutes of internet fame by asking some border patrol drone "Am I being detained?" for five minutes and want to "give away our 10 seconds of freedom", that's our own choice.

I could argue that you should move to Myanmar as you apparently don't value freedom like a good ol' red white and blue blooded American, but that's your perogative and you're free to believe whatever you'd like.
Permalink 2008-06-05 @ 22:58
Comment from: Matt [Visitor]
Mik: "Funny thing about America, we have the right to do what we want. "

The funny thing is that you apparently haven't read the United States Constitution, which prohibits border patrol agents like this from "doing what they want." A violation of the constitution should be taken very seriously, for it is an infringement of YOUR freedoms that has more consequences that just a few moments of annoyances. Once it becomes routine, good luck at ever getting your freedom back.
Permalink 2008-06-14 @ 19:00
Comment from: Donald Joseph-Martinez [Visitor]
As a citizen I resent that you place the image and names of BP Agents on the webb. If you have a complaint contact the DHS IG they are in the phone book. I live in a community that is overrun with illegal aliens. I wish we had more of the check points. You are another pain in the ass do gooder!
Permalink 2008-06-16 @ 17:03
Comment from: IBMMuseum [Visitor]
@ Donald Joseph-Martinez

I live in a community filled with U.S. citizens that don't want a checkpoint or vehicle stop to invalidate their Constitutional rights. If you don't live within 100 miles of the border then the Border Patrol can't operate in your area anyway. Maybe with an experience such as our 2nd Border Patrol vehicle stop would change your mind:

My 8-year old daughter needed to go to the bathroom, so we took an exit off of I-10 to find the services closed for the night. However, two Border Patrol agents thought that strange enough behavior to pull us over without identifying themselves. We were delayed for over 25 minutes because they were unfamiliar with the visas we presented to them. Luckily my daughter didn't crap her pants, or I would have come unhinged.
Permalink 2008-06-30 @ 15:06
Comment from: David [Visitor]
I recently declined making a purchase offer on a house in a rural area because of what a neighbor told me. She said that the sheriff and state police routinely set-up a checkpoint in the neighborhood to snare "the uneducated residents who live in the double-wides."

I always assumed that motorists could avoid checkpoints by simply turning around. I see this is not the case, according to submittals at www.roadblock.org.

My question is why is this not the case. I remember it was Sandra Day O'Connor who agreed with checkpoints, but she also said they should be well-posted. She contended that motorists should have the option of not being subjected to the intrusions. It seems however, that turning around will get you chased down and possibly arrested.

I would also like to know if anyone has decided to use a FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE approach. Has anyone ever stood at the side of the road before a checkpoint to warn oncoming motorists? If you held up a sign warning oncoming motorists, would police try to charge you with obstruction of police business?
Permalink 2008-07-06 @ 14:31
Comment from: sam [Visitor]
Man, please keep up the good work. I just happened to stumble upon one of the youtube vids and fell in love with it.
Permalink 2008-08-05 @ 18:59
Comment from: David Henry [Visitor]
Mr. Bressi is an example that shows even ordinary citizens can be great American heros.

Patriotism is taking action to defend freedom and rights. Mr Bressi truly understands that freedom is not to be taken for granted. It takes work to maintain freedom. The great general George Patton once said, "If everyone is thinking a like, then no one is thinking" This is an example of someone who not only is thinking, but is taking action. This is what being a true American is all about.

David Henry
Permalink 2008-08-20 @ 20:28
Comment from: david [Visitor]
have you filed any lawsuit(s) to curtail these illegal practices or know of anyone who has?
Permalink 2008-09-04 @ 10:30
Comment from: Blade [Visitor] · http://www.myspace.com/repealfederalreserveact
keep up the good work!
Permalink 2008-09-13 @ 22:43
Comment from: American Sailor [Visitor]
You brainless idiots have no idea what freedom means...I don't even know why I'm waisting time making this post.

You'd rather have your precious little, self-centered personal time completely unobstructed, than worry about the bigger picture. These BP agents are probably mostly brand new guys, barely out of college, barely able to grow facial hair, trying to do what is right to protect us, trying to learn how to do their jobs right.

Of course they're going to make procedural mistakes - that's how people learn...by making mistakes. They're not putting you in danger. Then, to make matters worse, they get backed into a corner and challenged by a snot-nosed punk like you (Terry), which makes them nervous and causes more mistakes - mainly because they're blind-sided by your defiance, naively believing that true Americans would never do that because they support what they do; putting their lives on the line for their country while panzies like you, unwilling to put yourself in harms way because you're too worried about your personal freedoms, hide behind a camara and waiste all of your precious time (that you're so worried about) trying to hinder those who have stepped forward for the greater cause. But again, you wouldn't understand that.

I can't believe I'm over here in the Middle East right now sucking dust and fighting for you idiots while you sit in your nice cozy houses and center all your focus on yourselves and your "rights". I have to keep telling myself that there are worthy Americans worth fighting for - you guys are obviousely not them.

I pitty all of you and pray that you are less focused on yourselves in whatever afterlife you believe in, but I'm sure God is also out of the question for a bunch like this...because God wouldn't focus all of his attention on you and your rights.
Permalink 2008-09-26 @ 05:18
Comment from: American Sailor [Visitor]
P.S.

I apologize for the name-calling and all the harshness in my previous post - that was extremely unprofessional of me...19 years of military service have made me a bit rough around the edges, I guess.

I understand personal rights and protecting our constitution, but I also understand (very well) young men and women who are patriots, willing to take on huge responsibilities and face extreme danger because they believe that what they are doing is important to protect our way of life. These are our sons and daughters; they are scared, unsure of themselves, struggling to remember all of their rules and regulations - what to say and not to say, worrying about making a mistake...all while worrying about staying alive.

This treatment that you're giving these guys is inhumane. File your complaints with the organization and keep your camara and your attitude away from those who are just trying to do their job. Understand and believe that 98% of them are just trying to do what they belive is right and in the best interest of protecting Americans as a whole.
Permalink 2008-09-26 @ 05:42
Comment from: What's my name? What's yours and your badge #? [Visitor] · http://none.com
I think the common thread in this border patrol stuff is just like CheckPoint says: It's obedience training.

AMERICA! Wake up! In most places, you cannot even take a pocket knife to school, today. The teen son of a good friend of mine was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon on school property. What was his weapon? A swiss-army knife given to him by his father for Christmas.

(I was in Cub/Boy Scouts in the 60's and 70s. I carried my knives everywhere!)

We have an entire generation of Americans that don't even know what the 1st Amendment is about; let alone the rest of the Bill of Rights -- AT THE STATE LEVEL, TOO!

Here, they are taking "dumbass" Americans (who are MOSTLY clueless), untrained in law enforcement, and for the most part, are just socio/psychopaths with badges -- having a power trip that they can't get any other way.

They get off on harrassing people.

I **** BELIEVE ***** the "secret" plan of the DHS is to PROVOKE an angry reaction from someone who is a true patriot and true American in every way.

Then, they will call him a terrorist (instead of a patriot; much like CheckPointUSA), and justify their actions.

That's the "master plan", people. "They" are going to push and push until it becomes time to shove.

In a word, PROVOCATION.

Permalink 2008-10-01 @ 01:54
Comment from: What\'s my name? What\'s yours and your badge #? [Visitor] · http://none.com
P.S. The Brits did the exact same "push to shove" crap during the days of our colonial existence.

The Brits goal was enslavement of far-removed and independent colonies.

So is the DHS's. Fascism.

The difference between then and now? The Brits were not "educating" their colonies to be obedient for 12 years of grade and highschool.

Like I said, they are going to cause a push to shove reaction. It's only a matter of time.

It happened once already. It was called the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The provocation? Church-burning and murder.
Permalink 2008-10-01 @ 02:19
Comment from: American Sailor [Visitor]
It's funny seeing all these comments from people who know what's best for protecting our liberties/freedom. I'd be willing to bet that not a one of you have ever done a lick of civil service.
Permalink 2008-10-01 @ 08:16
Comment from: What\\\'s my name? What\\\'s yours and your badge #? [Visitor] · http://none.com
American sailor-- I liked your shoot-the-messenger non-response. Typical.

I was asked to run for state senate for a third party. I declined when they refused to use my campaign slogan -- good fences make good neighbors (aka mind-your-own-business; not mine).

Relatives of mine have been career military officers -- AF, Army, and Navy. I enlisted in the USAF -- but they wanted me to go deferred (6+ months) because they didn't have my position available at the time of enlistment. I stayed in college instead. (For those of you who don't know what deferred is... you sign a contract that says they can load you on a truck at a fixed point in thime whether you have changed your mind or not.)

Now, Sailor, or anyone else -- my question to you is: What is different today than existed when the Brits were trying to put John Hancock in prison during the time that he signed the Declaration of Independence?



Permalink 2008-10-01 @ 10:45
Comment from: American Sailor [Visitor]
1.) Referring to your "name" - if you were asked to run for senate, then I'd have to believe that you understand the commission of authority that is given to state and federal law enforcement personnel. That means, when asked your name from law enforcement personnel, you comply and vent your grievances later to higher authorities...you don't make matters worse by being "snotty" and asking for their badge number. That kind of attitude is what hinders our ability to effectively fight criminals and terrorists. 2.) The USAF is not really considered military, just civilians in uniform. That was a joke; my father was in the USAF. 3.) John Hancock was more of a scribe, than a freedom fighter. 4.) There is a huge difference from now and the time of our declaration of independence. Back then, we were fighting for our independence. Everything you guys are preaching makes complete sence...if we were in the late 1700s. The problem is that we're no longer fighting for independence or individual rights; we're fighting for our security as a nation. And since you're comparing the two, you need to put your battle into context of what happened back then. You want to talk about individual rights and freedoms? Look back real hard at your history books. Just prior to the revoloutionary war, our founding fathers (specifically the Sons of Liberty, lead by Samual Adams) had a committee responsible for tarring and feathering anyone who spoke our against the revolution. In the beginning of the war, George Washington himself made it law that anyone who refused to pledge allegiance to the United States was labeled a Torie and inprisoned. Americans were threatened and forced to fight so as to give us every chance possible to win that war. And guess what, it worked...we won! That's what it took to gain our independence and give us all the freedoms and rights we have today. Now isn't that ironic? Today, we are fighting for security, which is very different, but in a way, you're right - it is the same in that, in order to win this war (to gain back our security), we are going to have to give up some of our personal freedoms, just like they had to back then. Like I said in my first post, if you keep your blinders on and don't look at the big picture, you can only see what you want to see, not what you need to see - and that, my friend, is the real danger.
Permalink 2008-10-04 @ 15:48
Comment from: What's my name? What's yours and your badge #? [Visitor]
Sailor ... you said, "That means, when asked your name from law enforcement personnel, you comply and vent your grievances later to higher authorities...you don't make matters worse by being "snotty" and asking for their badge number. That kind of attitude is what hinders our ability to effectively fight criminals and terrorists. "

ANSWER: EXACTLY... THAT'S WHY THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS WRITTEN -- AND THE FRAMERS CALLED IT "LIMITED POWERS" -- NOT DICTATORIAL.

DON'T GIVE A NAME -- GET ELECTROCUTED WITH A TASER. (Shooting a guy "in the back" with a gun will get you prison time. A taser is ONLY SAFE from the back.) SORRY, I don't buy your version of whatever... freedom is freedom -- whether it is 1700 or 2009.

You would make a great fascist/nazi. The Nazi's said they could relocate you (not just Jews) into ghettos for extermination under the auspices of national security.

(The current bailout bill is fascist, too. Article 1:9:7 of the US Const states "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law, and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all
public Money shall be published from time to time.)

Everything passed for the bailout gives no right to review and no oversight.... a "blank check" to pay off friends, relatives, and even enemies of the state.
Permalink 2008-10-08 @ 02:17
Comment from: What's my name? What's yours and your badge #? [Visitor]
P.S. 1) John Hancock was not a "scribe" -- he was President of the Continental Congress.

2) In 1770+, we were fighting for "independence"... Why? Were we slaves? Weren't "we" happy with the TYRANNY of the English Crown?

Please keep your OPINIONS -- FACTUAL.
Permalink 2008-10-08 @ 02:38
Comment from: What\'s my name? What\'s yours and your badge #? [Visitor]
P.S.S... Sailor said, "Look back real hard at your history books. Just prior to the revoloutionary war, our founding fathers... responsible for tarring and feathering ...refused to pledge allegiance to the United States was labeled a Torie and inprisoned (AKA TERRORIST). Americans were threatened and forced to fight ...

In the eyes of the Crown, Washington, Hancock, et al., were terrorists -- by FBI definition.

Today, in the eyes of the FBI, CheckPointUSA and others are borderline terrorists... Just like the founders who petitioned the Crown for redress of grievances.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED 200+ years ago and today -- except the Crown now has Nukes and Tasers to keep the herd in line. Hitler didn't even have that kind of "power" (pun intended.)
Permalink 2008-10-08 @ 03:51
Comment from: Robert [Visitor]
You're an American hero. The sheep don't see it yet. We need people like you more than ever. An army is gathering behind you.
Permalink 2008-10-18 @ 17:15
Comment from: Brian [Visitor]
As a former BP agent, I can understand your point of view. However, the border patrol is an extremely dangerous occupation. Next time you attempt to tarnish the image of your next victim. I'd like to see you take down smugglers fully armed carrying a dope load across the border. Or attempt to arrest felons that cross that will kill you without thinking.

OR, let the thousands of aliens come into your community, drive down wages, increase crime and put a strain on social services.

That's without even mentioning terrorists.


You enjoy your few minutes of freedom at the expense of above.
Permalink 2008-10-31 @ 22:38
Comment from: FTW [Visitor]
Want to talk about roving patrols...How about the new hybrid in Arizona, where deputies are being crossed designated immigration officers. They use the excuse of traffic enforcement to stop you and if you're brown you're screwed!

And for those who will undoubtably chime in with the national security mantra...Amazingly, none of the aliens Joe Arpaio's deputies have caught are middleeasterners or european or asian...they're all brown! Talk about racial profiling...
Permalink 2008-11-09 @ 23:23
Comment from: Michael Harwell Sr. [Visitor]
I was pulled over Nov. 20, 2008 without reasonable suspicion.My Wife and I were traveling from Eagle Pass Texas.We had passed the check point and was pulled over about 60 miles later on Hwy. leading into Uvalde.The Border Patrol agent out of know where pulled up behind us stayed on our tail for 7 Miles before hitting his lites. I asked him why he pulled us over and he said my Truck seemed lower than the model I was driving.He asked us where we have been and where we were going, also, asked for Driver License.This is a violation of our rights and unconstitution....
Permalink 2008-11-21 @ 15:22
Comment from: Sick n Tired [Visitor]
Invitation to All Border Patrol Agents: The American town of HERNDON, VIRGINIA is infested with illegal aliens. That's right. The town adjacent to Dulles Airport - the departure place for the Saudi Arabian air attacks (i.e. 911) against the Pentagon and New York Trade Center. So please, bring your equipment here and set up all the checkpoints you like. I will bring you coffee and gladly present to you my AMERICAN SSN card or passport without question or hesitation. You must promise, however, to actually ARREST and DEPORT illegals (except the ones working for the CIA - they set up shop in Herndon office buildings too.)
Permalink 2008-12-17 @ 18:39
Comment from: IBMMuseum [Visitor]
¨American Sailor¨, like yourself I have served 22 years in the military - Navy (which I am still in for a short time longer) and Army. I´ve done four tours where you are, and was scheduled for a 5th deployment while awaiting the legal immigration of my wife and stepchildren. For that, I told my command I would go if my family was in the U.S. by the time we would leave. 18 months later USCIS lost the race for them, and they left without me.

You say that your time in the service has made you ¨rough around the edges¨. I see what you equate as very junior agents (a few with less years than what I have served this country) making mistakes on the job at my family´s expense. We have had 3 vehicle stops within a 10 month period, by officers that don´t identify themselves or the agency they work for. Some are unfamiliar with the aspects of their jobs.

Actually the time to stand up for our freedoms is now, because they are in more danger than any other time. The reaction to terrorism is taking away our rights, and we are no more secure than before. If you equate that someone is not a terrorist simply because they can prove U.S. citizenship, then it is you that have the ¨blinders¨ on.

You are wrong to say we are less patriotic, less religious, and doing less for our country because of our stance. My service alone makes you lose your bet, and even trumps your time. For everything you say I´ll bet I can trump your arguments too.
Permalink 2008-12-24 @ 20:58
Comment from: Obbyone [Visitor]
I hate when they point their high beams on me when I am on the interstate from Sasabe to Tucson. This can cause a serious accident.
Permalink 2009-01-09 @ 23:28
Comment from: WTF? [Visitor]
Seriously? You have nothing better to do with your time?

And those of you who support this wacko need to open your eyes. We all have it so good here in the US. You're all just a bunch of spoiled little bitches. Someone takes 10 seconds of your time and you build a website to cry about it. Look at what the other countries in this world have to deal with.. You got it good, so pull your head out of your asses and find something more productive to do with your time.
Permalink 2009-04-22 @ 04:34
Comment from: John Spencer [Visitor]
As a Vietnam Veteran I fought for your right to say what ever you want, and I would fight for your right again. Brian you and the sailor just do not get it, the SS in Germany were only doing their jobs.

"let the thousands of aliens come into your community, drive down wages, increase crime and put a strain on social services." (There are millions in this country at this time, if any private company did the job the BP does they would be out of business, Brian will you admit the BP has allowed millioms of aliens to come in?) You failed

That's without even mentioning terrorists. (you failed on this one too, look at 9/11/2001


"You enjoy your few minutes of freedom at the expense of above",That is your problem you think you are military (The BP are LAW Enforcement) did not hear of them fighting against Germany or Japan, never heard of one being in Korea, I spent a year in Vietnam, was wounded saw hundreds of my friends die and never saw one BP there, did your BP unit serve in the Gulf War? in any war this nation has fought? If you did please let us know and I will give you credit for our freedom. You as BP take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of American against all enemies foreign and domestic, it is hard to protect and defend a document you either do not believe in or are ignorant of. You are or were civilian law enforcement and guess what you can't fix stupid.

The constitution of this country does not change and if it does there is a constitutional way to do that, I fought for all of our freedoms, not the ones the government wants to give us.
Permalink 2009-04-25 @ 18:56
Comment from: Andy [Visitor]
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring in the judgment.

I join in the affirmance of the judgment. The stopping of respondent's automobile solely because its occupants appeared to be of Mexican ancestry was a patent violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"The infringement on personal liberty of any `seizure' of a person can only be `reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment if we require the police to possess `probable cause' before they seize him. Only that line draws a meaningful distinction between an officer's mere inkling and the presence of facts within the officer's personal knowledge which would convince a reasonable man that the person seized has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a particular crime." Id., at 38.

Permalink 2009-04-25 @ 19:08
Comment from: Andy [Visitor]
John Hancock

Born in Braintree, Massachusetts in 1737, he was orphaned as a child, and adopted by a wealthy merchant uncle who was childless. Hancock attended Harvard College for a business education and graduated at the age of 17. He apprenticed to his uncle as a clerk and proved so honest and capable that, in 1760, he was sent on a business mission to England.

There he witnessed the coronation of George III and engaged some of the leading businessmen of London. In 1763, his uncle died and John Hancock inherited what was said to be the greatest body of wealth in New England.

This placed him in a society of men who consisted mainly of loyalists, suspected by the working population because of their great affluence and social power.

Hancock, however, soon became very involved in revolutionary politics and his sentiments were, early on and clearly, for independence from Great Britain.

He was in company with the Adamses and other prominent leaders in the republican movement in New England. He was elected to the Boston Assembly in 1766, and was a member of the Stamp Act Congress.

In 1768 his sloop Liberty was impounded by customs officials at Boston Harbor, on a charge of running contraband goods. A large group of private citizens stormed the customs post, burned the government boat, and beat the officers, causing them to seek refuge on a ship off shore. Soon afterward, Hancock abetted the Boston Tea Party.

The following year he delivered a public address to a large crowd in Boston, commemorating the Boston Massacre. In 1774, he was elected to the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts and simultaneously to the Continental Congress. When Peyton Randolph resigned in 1776, Hancock assumed the position of President. He retired in 1777 due to problems with gout, but continued public service in his native state by participating in the formation of its constitution. He was then elected to the Governorship of the state where he served for five years, declined reelection, and was again elected in 1787. He served in that office until his death in 1793. The dignity and character of John Hancock, celebrated by friend and enemy alike, did not suffer for his love of public attention. He was a populist in every sense, who held great confidence in the ability of the common man. He also displayed a pronounced contempt for unreasoned authority. A decree had been delivered from England in early 1776 offering a large reward for the capture of several leading figures. Hancock was one of them.
Permalink 2009-04-26 @ 05:35
Comment from: Andy [Visitor]
John Hancock

Born in Braintree, Massachusetts in 1737, he was orphaned as a child, and adopted by a wealthy merchant uncle who was childless. Hancock attended Harvard College for a business education and graduated at the age of 17. He apprenticed to his uncle as a clerk and proved so honest and capable that, in 1760, he was sent on a business mission to England.

There he witnessed the coronation of George III and engaged some of the leading businessmen of London. In 1763, his uncle died and John Hancock inherited what was said to be the greatest body of wealth in New England.

This placed him in a society of men who consisted mainly of loyalists, suspected by the working population because of their great affluence and social power.

Hancock, however, soon became very involved in revolutionary politics and his sentiments were, early on and clearly, for independence from Great Britain.

He was in company with the Adamses and other prominent leaders in the republican movement in New England. He was elected to the Boston Assembly in 1766, and was a member of the Stamp Act Congress.

In 1768 his sloop Liberty was impounded by customs officials at Boston Harbor, on a charge of running contraband goods. A large group of private citizens stormed the customs post, burned the government boat, and beat the officers, causing them to seek refuge on a ship off shore. Soon afterward, Hancock abetted the Boston Tea Party.

The following year he delivered a public address to a large crowd in Boston, commemorating the Boston Massacre. In 1774, he was elected to the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts and simultaneously to the Continental Congress. When Peyton Randolph resigned in 1776, Hancock assumed the position of President. He retired in 1777 due to problems with gout, but continued public service in his native state by participating in the formation of its constitution. He was then elected to the Governorship of the state where he served for five years, declined reelection, and was again elected in 1787. He served in that office until his death in 1793. The dignity and character of John Hancock, celebrated by friend and enemy alike, did not suffer for his love of public attention. He was a populist in every sense, who held great confidence in the ability of the common man. He also displayed a pronounced contempt for unreasoned authority. A decree had been delivered from England in early 1776 offering a large reward for the capture of several leading figures. Hancock was one of them.
Permalink 2009-04-26 @ 05:44
Comment from: Makes me laugh [Visitor]
Mr. Bressi, one thing I want to point out is that you keep saying this was an illegal stop, it has not gone to court (that I know of), and been proven legal or illegal. So the fact that you say it was an illegal stop is just your opinion. So since opinions, are welcomed here (they are right?), my opinion is that the stop was legal. So since it has not been proven legal or illegal, I'm not wrong, but then again, neither are you.

And on a different note, I have been told by Border Patrol Agents that I know that a 10-29 check is a stolen vehicle check. So I guess its good to know that your vehicle hasn't been reported stolen.
Permalink 2010-01-13 @ 23:42

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.

April 2014
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        

Search

Categories


Misc

Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by
b2evolution