The incident you are referring to happened to Pastor Steve Anderson at an inland border patrol checkpoint, here is the YouTube video of his encounter with the CBP

http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc.

Fortunately for him he had his cell phone on record and recorded the whole incident with audio. He pleaded not guilty and his whole trial is on YouTube in 5 parts and he was found not guilty on all the charges. I have seen the video of the incident on YouTube, but can’t seem to find in lately so it might have been removed because he has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety and specifically against the 2 APS officers involved, one who has since retired so this is probably the reason for the removal of this video.

Pastor Anderson has loaded numerous videos of his encounters at these CBP inland checkpoints, I believe he works for a fire detection company and in his travels has to pass through these checkpoints and always refuses to comply with the CBP requests for declaring himself a citizen and refusing to comply with orders to pull over for a secondary inspection. In one video he declares himself a child of Israel when asked if he is a US Citizen as he reads the verse from the Bible and in another he tells the CBP agent that he can help save the agent and quotes from the Bible. To me has has made a mockery of the CBP agents and it appears some of these agents are a little short in the intelligence level and I don’t know how they managed to get hired, but from what we have seen with the TSA, due to the CBP’s rapid expansion they must have lowered their intelligence requirements, what is scary is unlike the TSA screeners these CBP agents are armed.

There are also many more videos posted on YouTube of other people who refuse to cooperate, in one video the driver refuses to say anything, he just stares at the agent until the agent lets him go, in another the driver hands the agent a preprinted card declaring himself a US citizen and says nothing to the agent.

From what I have seen in the videos, the CBP agents do not like being recorded and it appears the best protection against abusive agents is to always have you cell phone on record and make it clear to the agents that you are recording them either by telling them or just have the cell phone or any other recording device in plain view.

In some videos as the drivers refused to cooperate the agents take pictures of the driver, remember that the CBP uses facial recognition software and they download these pictures into a database so while you might think they are just taking your picture to record the event, that are actually downloading it into their databases so the best way to counter this is not to look at the camera and if possible wear sunglasses

The CBP uses the term mere suspicion as their legal grounds to search your car at these inland checkpoints, at a port of entry the CBP can do anything they want for even the slightest reason because they have the right to, this includes even stripping your car down to nothing and if they do not find anything you get your car back in pieces and good luck in trying to get the US government to pay for the damages.

These CBP inland checkpoints were ruled legal by the US Supreme Court in the case of US vs. Martinez-Fuerte, here is the Courts opinion.


The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.
The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.
However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "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. 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 [as opposed to permanent checkpoints]." 428 U.S. 543, 567 (1976).



This ruling says the agents need consent or probable cause at a fixed checkpoint, but the CBP in the videos posted claim all they need is mere suspicion, the term mere suspicion is not a legal term recognized in any court of law, do a google search on it and nothing comes up, this term was invented by the CBP and it appears only in their field manuals, the court ruling says that the CBP can use a lower form of probable cause, but somehow they must have interpreted this to be mere suspicion as the legal basis to search.

I would like to hear form our resident CBP agent Firebug4 about the term mere suspicion as it is being used by the CBP as a basis for searches.

F4 is right about not stopping at these checkpoints, you will be arrested, these checkpoints are legal and you have to stop. But unlike a Point of Entry where you have no constitutional rights, they are all in effect at the checkpoint, Martinez-Furte clearly states so and the Federal Law that allowed these checkpoints only says they have the right to ask you if you are a US Citizen, not anything else like where you are coming from or going to and you have the right not to answer any of these questions if you do not want to. There is no law on the Federal level that a US citizen must have any form of ID with you at all times unless entering the country or flying on an airline, and the only ID you need to carry on you is your drivers license when you are operating a motor vehicle.

Pastor Anderson has proved on numerous videos where he tells them it is none of their business and even tells them that when they ask him if he is a citizen, in most cases the agent calls for a supervisor and the supervisor eventually lets him go on his way.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that it is legal for a LEO to use a drug dog to sniff the outside of a car without any reason for suspicion, you cannot be pulled over for the sole purpose of a drug dog search, but if stopped for any other reason they have the right to do so within a limited time frame, but once the traffic stop is over, the LEO cannot detain you any more if the K9 officer has not shown up. There is also other videos on YouTube where former drug officers say that if they suspect drugs in a car, all they have to do is follow the car for a few miles and they will find a reason to pull the car over, in one video the officer pulled the car over for going 3 miles per hour over the speed limit.

One thing on this point, I believe CBP agents do not have the right to pull motorists over for traffic violations, they are not trained or certified to do so, the only reason they can pull a motorist over is if they have reasonable suspicion the motorist is carrying illegal aliens or smuggling drugs

In these videos the officers also said that drug dogs can also be trained by their handlers to respond the same way when they find drugs by either a voice command or a hand gesture and Pastor Anderson feels this was done by the CBP agent because they refused to do the drug dog check the second time when the APS officer requested it.

I know this response has been quite lengthy, the CBP has a serious job to do, keeping out and apprehending illegal aliens and apprehending the drug smugglers and I applaud them for their work, but when they step over the boundary line and clearly violate the Supreme Court’s rulings and US citizens rights at these checkpoints they must be held accountable for these violations. And as Pastor Anderson has said, this country is fast becoming a police state.

Mr. Elliott