Post details: Additional Video from Uvalde, Texas Checkpoint Incident Released

2010-05-13

Permalink 21:09:33, Categories: Privacy, Right to Travel, Homeland Security?, Checkpoints, Immigration, 535 words   English (EU)

Additional Video from Uvalde, Texas Checkpoint Incident Released


[Newspaper article highlighting the opening of the new Uvalde, TX Border Patrol checkpoint]

As a followup to my earlier post titled, Border Patrol Harass Military Field Grade Officer At Internal Checkpoint, additional video footage regarding the Uvalde Border Patrol checkpoint incident has been released. This footage appears below in four sections and shows the entirety of the checkpoint encounter.

[More:]

What should be noted here and I can't stress enough is that the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that internal checkpoint seizures such as this one must be very limited in scope and very brief in the absence of consent or probable cause.

It should be clear from the video that the agents had neither consent nor probable cause to believe the driver was in violation of any immigration law enforced by U.S. Border Patrol agents. As such, the extended detention was most likely illegal. Additionally, the actions of the Border Patrol agents clearly rose to the level of harassment and intimidation. Especially after the agents contacted the driver's military command regarding the encounter.

What you see happening in this video is one of the reasons I opt not to go to secondary during checkpoint encounters. Once an agent gets you in secondary, they have all day to mess with you. By staying in the lane of traffic, you force them to make a probable cause determination within a reasonable time frame. If they take action against you for not going to secondary when they don't have probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion in most cases), you have a clear cut civil rights violation ripe for the courts to hear.

I've included several pertinent U.S. Supreme Court quotes below along with links back to the cases in question. The video segments from the checkpoint incident follow these quotes:

"It is agreed that checkpoint stops are 'seizures' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte

"The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest." - U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce

"Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation" - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte

The Fourth Amendment held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from the border and its functional equivalents, and for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint and a roving patrol.” - U.S. v Ortiz

"...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -'[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause.'" - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte

Uvalde Checkpoint Incident Part 1:

Uvalde Checkpoint Incident Part 2:

Uvalde Checkpoint Incident Part 3:

Uvalde Checkpoint Incident Part 4:

Comments:

Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Wow, they did this to a US military personnel who actually provided ID (all real and official US documents available only to citizens) and he was still threatened, detained and harassed without reasonable suspicion.

In Texas.

Imagine if he were a hispanic citizen in Arizona...wow.
Permalink 2010-05-14 @ 15:27
Comment from: Larry [Visitor]
That should tell you something, Mike. The people crying "racism" over the AZ law are completely missing the point: The 4th Amendment is being destroyed for EVERYONE.
Permalink 2010-05-15 @ 13:38
Comment from: John [Visitor]
Thank you so much for posting the entire entire video. VAPA indicates the names of the Border Patrol thugs are J. Lands and Raul Perez. Unsavory individuals like these scum Border Patrol Agents Lands and Perez gravitate to positions like this where they can terrorize people. It is ashame to see the Border Patrol have sunk to this level. There are unsavory people in all walks of life, but when they have Federal authority, and operate with impunity outside the law - the nation is in jeopardy. These thug, terrorist agents need to be brought to justice. Lands and Perez are slime. I wish them bad fortune. I hope nothing but the worst for them. Hopefully they will burn in Hell for undermining our society and for being evil people. I truly hope nothing good for them in life.
Permalink 2010-05-15 @ 19:22
Comment from: Brad [Visitor] · http://www.freekeene.com
People should not utter a single word to these border patrol people.

Don't give them ID either.

Remain completely silent.
Permalink 2010-05-16 @ 10:50
Comment from: Chris Mallory [Visitor]
Has it ever come out what the chain of command at his unit did to him?
Permalink 2010-05-18 @ 13:55
Comment from: checkpoint charlie [Visitor] · http://warisaracket.org
Brad's correct.

from Miranda:
The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations.

from Raffel:
In Raffel v U.S., and in law enforcement practice, the court finds that at the very moment a suspect cooperates and answers questions and/or consents to search, the suspect gives up those rights and must continue that cooperation and consent through to that person's possible/eventual arrest, trial and judgment.
Permalink 2010-05-29 @ 17:14
Comment from: checkpoint charlie [Visitor] · http://warisaracket.org
This just in.

According to a new Supreme Court finding*, suspects must say they want to be silent to avoid waiving their Miranda rights. You now need to tell them that you don’t want to tell them anything.

*Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
Permalink 2010-06-01 @ 17:26
Comment from: checkpoint charlie [Visitor] · http://warisaracket.org
Another interesting aspect of checkpoint interrogation is the current US effort against the new AZ law which would allow citizenship inquiries in connection with alleged law violations starting 7/29 -- when the US is regularly conducting such inquiries at checkpoints w/o alleged violations.

How hypocritical! Anyhow, it might help us.
Permalink 2010-06-05 @ 13:00
Comment from: Todd [Visitor]
The border patrol could be a very respected organization with the right guidance and core values.These and other videos demonstrate that things are rotten to the core.
Permalink 2010-07-22 @ 21:18
Comment from: edgar [Visitor]
He was disciplined by his command, which cleary displays that even they knew he was wrong. He conducted himself in a VERY unprofessional manner, and being prior military myself, I was quite frankly embarassed.

The BP has the authority to move your car for you should you refuse to go to secondary. You have the right to remain silent, just like they have the authority to detain you until you satisfy the officer that you are in the US legally. If that means you are detained for an immigration hearing in front of a judge, then they have every right to do so.

What most people don't realize is that a lot of our arrest for alien smuggling, drug smuggling and other crimes are due to the criminal acts of US Citizens. They are white, black, hispanic, asian, etc...The cartels will use anyone willing to work for them. I get frustrated when going through these checkpoints at times as well, and its mainly because of the fact I have to stop my travel and deal with this stuff.

This man did not hand over the documents(he placed them on the inside of his window until later), would not roll down his window, and outright refused cooperation with law enforcement. As military members, we are held to a higher standard and he did not meet muster for that standard and was disciplined for that.

People THINK they know the law and they THINK they know what law enforcement can and cannot do. Think about this for a second. Checkpointusa claims to know the law and writes about civil rights lawsuits etc...ask him how many cases he has won. The answer is 0. As him how many courts have outright refused to hear his case. The answer is many. He is one of those who THINKS he knows the law and really hasn't a clue.
Permalink 2010-07-29 @ 00:00
Comment from: Pafoofnik1 [Visitor]
@edgar: What did the driver do that was illegal again?
Oh that's right, absolutely nothing.

A person should not be penalized for following the law.
Permalink 2010-07-29 @ 03:07
Comment from: Checkpoint USA [Member]
"He was disciplined by his command, which cleary displays that even they knew he was wrong."

Do tell edgar. What part of the UCMJ was the driver charged with violating? When & where was the court martial held? What was the final disposition of the case? Please send a copy of the determination of wrongdoing & the basis for that determination to back up your claim.

"He conducted himself in a VERY unprofessional manner, and being prior military myself, I was quite frankly embarassed."

Embarrassed why? Because you don't have the guts to stand up for the very same constitution you took an oath to defend and protect while this man does?

From my stand point, the man did himself proud & acted very professionally in the face of overzealous Border Patrol agents exceeding their authority.

"The BP has the authority to move your car for you should you refuse to go to secondary"

That depends on the circumstances edgar. If they have consent or probable cause, they certainly can move your car. If they have neither & they've already made their immigration queries at primary, a referral to secondary represents an extended detention that legally requires consent or probable cause.

"You have the right to remain silent, just like they have the authority to detain you until you satisfy the officer that you are in the US legally."

That's a bold statement edgar. A bold statement that should be pretty easy to prove if true. Why then did you fail to reference any law or judicial case to back up your (specious) claim?

Let me help you out. In U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte, the Supreme Court stated:

"...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -'[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause.'(U.S. vs. Brignoni-Ponce)"


In U.S. v Brignoni-Ponce which the court explicitly referenced in Martinez-Fuerte, the court clarified by stating:

"an officer, whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, may stop the car briefly, question the driver & passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, & ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause.

In other words, agents can ask at checkpoints edgar but they can't compel or extend a detention in the absence of consent or probable cause.

Not true you say. Well the court also referenced Terry v Ohio in U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte which was further clarified in Kolender v Lawson. Pay close attention to the last sentence of this SCOTUS quote:

"Terry encounters must be brief; the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter; and, most importantly, the suspect must be free to leave after a short time and to decline to answer the questions put to him."

See edgar, it's not that hard for someone to back up their statements with supporting evidence. I know you can do it if you just give it a try.

Not only do I have Supreme Court case law to back up my claim that you don't know what you're talking about edgar but I also have personal experience. Watch my videos below to see what happens when I decline to go to secondary when so requested by various Border Patrol agents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDLlEh0x2XA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRk3awO1Jq0

"This man did not hand over the documents(he placed them on the inside of his window until later)"

And the Border Patrol agents never asked him his citizenship at primary & never asked for his documents until he proferred them for inspection so what's your point?

"would not roll down his window:

He had no legal obligation to roll down his window and doing so would have been ill advised anyway.

"and outright refused cooperation with law enforcement"

And that's just an outright falsehood edgar. You really should watch the video you're commenting on. The driver answered all questions regarding his immigration status and offered multiple forms of documentation to backup his claim of citizenship.

"As military members, we are held to a higher standard and he did not meet muster for that standard and was disciplined for that."

I'm not sure what "standard" you're referring to edgar. It certainly doesn't appear to be a constitutional one if you're claiming this man did something wrong. Perhaps you meant some "standard" created in some 3rd world tin pot dictatorship somewhere as opposed to a 1st world constitutional republic.

With regards to your claim he was disciplined again. please provide evidence of a court martial and the final disposition.

"Checkpointusa claims to know the law and writes about civil rights lawsuits etc...ask him how many cases he has won. The answer is 0. As him how many courts have outright refused to hear his case. The answer is many. He is one of those who THINKS he knows the law and really hasn't a clue."

It looks like you have a problem with basic math edgar. You claimed I haven't won any court cases on the very website where I've detailed several. Let me help you out:

1.) On January 8, 2003, Justice Court Judge John Casey dismissed, without prejudice, two criminal misdemeanors against me regarding a TOPD checkpoint incident on December 20, 2002

2.) On December 9, 2003, Judge John Casey dismissed the same two charges against me a second time after the TOPD refiled the charges after I served several TOPD officers with Notice's of Claim as required by state law before filing suit against government entities. This time, the judge dismissed the charges with prejudice precluding the officers from ever refiling in the future.

3.) On April 10, 2009, Justice Court Judge Anne Segal dismissed, with prejudice, charges brought against me by yet another TOPD officer at a Border Patrol checkpoint along SR86 in Southern Arizona.

4.) On August 4, 2009. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower federal court decision regarding my ongoing civil rights lawsuit against the TOPD and their illegal checkpoints. The 9th circuit reinstated several of my claims and permanently enjoined the TOPD from conducting checkpoints along state highways running through tribal land that aren't in compliance with state and federal constitutional requirements. This ruling affects every tribal nation located within the boundaries of Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana and Arizona. It also clarifies years of ambiguity associated with tribal law enforcement powers on state highways.

Now let me help you ought with the math edgar. You claimed I haven't won any court cases yet in every court action I've been involved in relating to checkpoints, I've won. This includes the 4 incidents outlined above and detailed on this website over the years.

That's 4 wins, 0 losses edgar. Further, the only checkpoint civil rights lawsuit I've been involved in is still ongoing after achieving an important victory in the 9th circuit court of appeals.

Looks like you're the one who really doesn't have a clue.
Permalink 2010-07-29 @ 22:50
Comment from: TJ [Visitor] · http://www.colloidalsilver101.com
OMG! I love it.
Thank you. I am so grateful to you for this effort.

If you haven't already, research and file a UCC-1 to reverse your consentual citizen/slave circumstances then begin extensive research into commercial law....

...but you're doing fine. I pray we all become so bold.
Permalink 2011-03-20 @ 20:36

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 2017
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        

Search

Categories


Misc

Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by
b2evolution