Post details: Full Video of Anderson's Checkpoint Hearing Released


Permalink 15:21:22, Categories: Homeland Security?, Checkpoints, Immigration, 307 words   English (EU)

Full Video of Anderson's Checkpoint Hearing Released

[Yuma County Assistant Prosecutor William Katz during Steven Anderson's December 16, 2009 Pre-trial hearing]

The full video from Steven Anderson's pre-trial hearing on December 16, 2009 has been released and appears below. For those who haven't been following this case, Steven Anderson is the individual tazered and beaten by Arizona DPS Officers and U.S. Border Patrol agents at an internal suspicionless checkpoint East of Yuma in April of last year.


Additional background information on this case, including shorter clips from the court hearing, can be found at:

The hearing video has been broken down into five segments. The first four are about one hour in length each while the last segment wraps things up with a run time of about eight minutes.

Even though the hearing is over four hours long, I recommend folks watch the videos in their entirety. If you haven't experienced a court room setting before, this is a good intro on what to expect. Additionally, some of the testimony from Border Patrol agents in this particular hearing is priceless.

If folks want to skip over some of the procedural jousting that goes on at the start of the hearing, they can skip to about minute 37 or so of part one when the witnesses for the State are sworn in. The first 37 minutes are mainly the attorneys arguing over whether the judge has a conflict of interest in the case, the proper scope of the motion to suppress and whether video from Anderson's camera should be played for the court.

I'll be dissecting and commenting on various parts of these videos in later posts but for this one I just wanted to make the videos available:


Comment from: Doug [Visitor]
Thank you so much for posting the whole video. The defense attorneys are fantastic. The Prosecutor just prattles on meaninglessly much of the time - but I bet he manages to intimidate some lesser attorneys and judges with his drivel. Steven Anderson is a true patriot. I thank him for his courage. It is distressing that the judge will not dismiss over unconstitutionality, but will dismiss over late discovery. I suspect she's afraid to rattle the powers that be, although she seems a decent sort. I suspect her heart is in the right place (but I'm not sure).
Permalink 2010-05-26 @ 23:11
Comment from: Doug [Visitor]
Here's a challenge to those who care about America. In jury selection, dare to answer voir dire questions blandly to get on the jury. Disregard the judge's illegal directives that you cannot consider the legitimacy of the law, or the punishment, or the fairness of the judicial process. The founding fathers of America meant for Americans to judge ALL OF THAT when they are sitting on a jury. Don't let on to fellow jurors that you are disregarding the judge's directives, or they may remove you from the jury. Stand up for justice in America. Judges have illegally taken over American juries.
Permalink 2010-05-26 @ 23:19
Comment from: Rob [Visitor]
That testimony about the dog telling the border patrol agent to send Mr. Anderson to secondary was just too hilarious. Who is this guy, Son of Sam? The dog told him to do it?

I'm a bit surprised by the dismisal with prejudice due to the lack of disclosure. I think there were other remedies that would have been more appropriate. I'm just an armchair attorney (no degree or legal training), but I read a lot of case law and legal motions. The only thing I can figure is this: based on the testimony, the judge thought that the checkpoint and stop of Mr. Anderson on the night in question was unconstitutional and anything that happened subsequently should be supressed. Maybe that's wishful thinking. It's also possible that the real reason was because she thought that the canine traing manual should have been provided.

If I were deciding this matter, I would be particularly concerned about the conflicting testimony from the prosecution's witnesses, the lack of any written policy for conducting the checkpoint and the refusal to provide any written policy/manuals to the defense, and the issue of whether or not a dog can determine the legal status of someone at the checkpoint (if it can't and the dog "made the decision" to send Mr. Anderson to secondary, the reason for the stop couldn't be to check for immigration status).

It seems to me that the judge may have ruled as she did in order to get the case dismissed and minimize the chances that the decision is overturned. I could be wrong, but I think it would be much harder for an appellate court to overturn the dismissal for lack of discovery than to overturn a dismissal on constitutional grounds or the refusal to provide "sensitive" information.

Good luck with the civil suit, Mr. Anderson. From my perspective, the testimony from this pre-trial motion looked pretty favorable to your case. I hope it is successful.
Permalink 2010-05-27 @ 17:04
Comment from: doug [Visitor]
I too wish you well in your civil suit Pastor Anderson, and I wish you well in general. It is with profound gratitude that I say thank you for standing up to this monstrous government. I wouldn't have the courage to do it. It is sad that America has turned into this. I am appalled by the attitudes of the majority of the American people who don't value the Constitution. It makes me sad and weary. There are few patriots in America. You are certainly one of them. Again, I thank you.
Permalink 2010-05-28 @ 20:39
Comment from: Dougles [Visitor] ·
¡Increíble! No está claro para mí, ¿cómo offen que la actualización de su nombre de

Permalink 2010-06-04 @ 08:29
Comment from: todd [Visitor]
happy for pastor anderson,but would like to have the judge rule on the checkpoint as oppposed to the governments inability to provide the requested info. in a timely manner.
Permalink 2010-06-12 @ 19:42
Comment from: Doug [Visitor]
Mark Victor is phenomenal. Incredible!
Permalink 2010-09-23 @ 21:14

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.

June 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  




Syndicate this blog XML

What is RSS?

powered by