Or we could get our collective heads out of our asses and start going after the companies and people who create the illegal alien problem by giving them jobs here?
What does having a border and checkpoints even matter if we aren’t deporting them? What does having them do if we don’t go after the companies that illegally employ them to do cheap labor?
As long as it is safe and easy to employ illegals they will keep coming here as the employers create the demand for them to do so.
If we also got realistic about the stupidity of the war on drugs we could stop the influx of illegal Mexican drugs as well.
All of that is just crazy though right?
Keep the checkpoints going, keep letting the illegals go, don’t do anything to the people/companies that employ these people illegally, keep the demand for Mexican drugs as high as possible and let’s all keep our heads in the sand and believe that the problem will magically go away with the federal governments stellar job thus far…
This is what should happen. The dog’s alert is most likely for drugs (unless they are running a cadaver dog around your car, which means you already have problems). Once they find something that is contraband, such as dead hookers, they should stop and get a warrant based on evidence of homicide. When I was a suit, we had it happen the other way around a few times. We would have a warrant on a house out of a shooting, and find a grow or large stash. We would call our narcs, who would then do a separate warrant for the dope based on our observations.
My comment on these type of checkpoint stops, be it for DWI or BP or ICE, they are currently legal. Same with dog hits being PC. While I do not advocate surrendering rights, I would recommend complying with the officers at scene. Case law is made in the courtroom, not the roadside. Attempts to legislate on the roadside almost always end badly, particularly if things get heated. You will probably not win a fight with eight deputies. Your attorney has much better odds in evidentiary hearings, motions, and any civil proceedings down the road.
I understand this logic, but that could be extended even further.
There are cities that are known hot beds for illegals that are FAR from the border, should border patrol agents set up shop in say Greeley, CO? TONS of illegals up there.
Pretty much anywhere with a meat packaging plant or farm is going to have lots of illegals.
No, it is your opinion that checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment.
While The fourth is clear, so is Article III of the U.S. Constitution that establishes judicial review. So much so that Article III recognizes only one court specifically, that being the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read U.S. vs Martinez-Fuente. The SCOTUS clearly recognizes USBP checkpoints and that those checkpoints are NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment.
So now that we have established the checkpoint is legal and constitutional, lets take a look at the agent.
As previously mentioned, U.S. vs Martinez-Fuente established the checkpoints are constitutional but went further and upheld the warrantless searches of vehicles at established checkpoints. This instance went further than Martinez-Fuente as the agent had additional articulable facts to support a search the vehicle with a K-9 alert. Numerous court cases have established that the warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible with the positive alert from a K-9. U.S. vs Stone and U.S. vs Donvali-Aviala are good places to start your research.
In this case, according to a USBP press release, our friendly traveler happened to have a small amount of marijuana under his front seat. The K-9 can’t tell its handler how much narcotics are in the vehicle, a K-9 can only alert to an odor it has been trained to detect.
Lessons learned:
Screaming “I don’t consent to this warrantless search” when there is a clear exception to the warrant rule won’t help you.
If you are going through a checkpoint that uses K-9s and you know very well the checkpoint is there so you plan to film it and talk shit, it is probably best to leave your weed at home.
The police don’t have to ask you “please, please, pretty please with sugar and spice and all those things nice” to comply with a lawful order.
So, in summary, while we may agree/disagree about the court’s decisions, or about the effectiveness of the checkpoints themselves, or even the agent’s demeanor and behavior the facts are under current law this “Federale” certainly did not violate this traveler’s 4th Amendment.
Justice William Brennan hit the nail on the head when he wrote in his dissent that the decision marks a radical new intrusion on citizens’ rights, and that it “empties the reasonableness requirement of the Amendment”. He also says:
“The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard . . . . Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction”
Watering down the constitution and our collective rights through judicial review is abhorrent and needs to stop.
Again, it is your opinion that Martinez-Fuente was a bad decision and we can disagree on that. The fact remains, the decision held and the agent’s actions were lawful.
I’m sure plenty of gun grabbers think the DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago decisions were horrible decisions too, but that is why we have a SCOTUS.
Ha! Laws prohibiting them create the demand, people have used drugs all throughout history and will continue to do so forever into the future.
See alcohol prohibition for all the proof you need to show that prohibiting use of substances only creates more crime and violence.
I don’t do drugs other than alcohol and the occasional ibuprofen, but I don’t believe our government should be telling us what drugs, food, etc we should or should not be able to Imbibe in the privacy of our homes.
By all means if peoe are out in public on drugs or driving there are and should be laws to deal with this.
Prohibiting drug use doesn’t stop people from using them; some would argue it does the opposite.
Colorado legalized MJ and it’s not as if a ton of people just up and started toking and committing crimes all of the sudden.
In fact, we have seen a decrease in criminal activity since it passed.
You think the cartels are trying to bring a bunch of MJ to CO? The black market still exists yes, but it is not nearly as robust as it was when Mj was illegal.
Who would risk buying weed from some stranger/criminal whe. They can just go to a legal shop with controls in place?
If it were only that easy… I for one am not ready to pay $10 for a head of lettuce at the grocery store because it was picked by legal workers who the farmer is now having to pay more per hour with benefit"s and such. I don’t know much about the meat packing industry but I’m guessing it’s very similar. I’ve never heard an outcry from citizens because they can’t get jobs they really want picking lettuce or cutting meat at packing plants.
The war on drugs however futile it is will not end until there is no longer a demand for it, which I don’t see happening anytime soon.
Possible solution might be having those on welfare go pick lettuce and pack meat instead of illegals. Thereby keeping people off the free lunch program, keeping illegals out of employment, and keeping consumer cost down. But we know that will never happen.
The fact is, it is a complicated problem with no easy solution.
The difference in the cases you cited is vast and important. In Hellar the court sided WITH the constitution and its intent- not so much in Martinez-Fuente.
That is an important distinction. Judicial review should always error on the side of Liberty and the Constitution. For obvious reasons I’m sure I don’t have to explain here.
SCOTUS has made quite a few bad decisions when viewed through the lens of “intent/nature of the constitution”.
Everyone has an opinion and everyone interprets things differently, but When it comes to the supreme law of our country- we should not take things lightly.
I think we can agree we have good laws and bad laws, but our system while imperfect is still the best in all man kind.
Sure there are plenty of laws and SCOTUS decisions I disagree with. Take the NFA for example. I may disagree with it, but I’m not strapping on a video camera and walking down to my local BATFE office with an unregistered SBR and scream “I don’t consent to registering this firearm!” What I will do is continue to lobby our elected officials to change the laws.
Your looking at the issue a bit one dimensionally though.
Let’s think about this: $6.00 heads of lettuce-
Well the lettuce and meat and manual labor will be more expensive, but just imagine what we would save not having to support the illegals with our tax dollars.
And that’s not even getting into the political cost and long term/future damage of illegals; amnesty anyone?
Think of how much of that money earned from illegal labor isn’t taxed and gets sent to Mexico’s economy instead of ours?
The price tag of so many illegals here and the demand created by employers is incredibly high!
$6.00 lettuce sounds better and better when you and I are not footing bill for the $100’s of millions wasted on illegal aliens in so many ways.
And I agree with you also and am enjoying the discussion.
I’m not advocating acting like the dude in the video, just trying to point out the problems and issues with checkpoints in general- IE how they run counter to our Constitution and its intent.
SCOTUS has a lot of power and they abuse it often, with bad consequences for all of us. One day I fear they will make some decisions that will completely divide this country and cause great unrest.
No system is perfect and ours is truly the best- that should never stop us from striving to make it better and holding ourselves and our government to a higher standard.
We can’t just have the attitude that- it’s the current law just follow it; we need to constantly push each other to protect and uphold what is just and right and not just follow and enforce “bad laws” because we are told to do so.
Not only that, americans bitch about how illegals steal “their” jobs, yet i dont see any mexicans standing on a corner holding a sign, theyre all cutting grass, washing dishes and cleaning bathrooms or houses…
As a law abiding citizen, most especially well inland, I don’t think it reasonable to answer any intrusive questions about citizenship (or anything else for that matter) or be forced to stop by a BPO agent as long as I’ve not given them probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Let me go about my business. I don’t have to answer to you just because you’re a BPO agent for gawds sake. Talk about jack booted thugs…
This isn’t WW11 Nazi Germany where innocent citizens going about their everyday business had to tolerate being treated liked a criminal and better be ready to answer by the uniformed/armed with questions like: Your papers Schweinhund! Schnell Schnell! If you didn’t promptly produce papers to their liking and appropriately grovel, all kinds of bad things would be coming your way.
Some of you think, go along to get along, be nice…my aching posterior. You that quickly knuckle under are willing to be be mistreated, when the BPO has no reasonable suspicion, other than you are legally driving in America and forced to stop and be interrogated. You’ve got to be shitting me.
The BPO get to treat you like a criminal and you should be pleasant and hope like hell you’re cowering/groveling self will be let go, when you’ve not done anything illegal when should’ve never been stopped to begin with.
You’re O.K. with this in America?
My Dad, who fought in WW11 (Okinawa for one of the islands he fought on and saw much, much combat and death) would roll over in his grave if he knew this is what America is like today…
Seems to me they should be arresting illegals and not scaring kids in the back seat. I saw no probable cause for the BP agent to reach into his vehicle, much less drag him out of the car.
Finding drugs via an illegal search will get tossed in court.
This guys going to sue and be a millionaire with our tax dollars.