Originally Posted by
chollie
Of course. I advocate groveling and obsequious behavior in any CBP/LE encounter to minimize the very real possibility of unprofessional retaliatory behavior. I think that's exactly what happened with that pastor - it was all about his attitude and their desire to hide behind the uniform to 'show' him.
That's unprofessional, inexcusable, wrong. I also don't want to be the next guy in line who is going to be confronted with CBP agents still steaming from their last encounter and just itching for trouble.
The only time it is (reasonably) safe to disagree with anyone with real or quasi-real LE status is if you are safely ensconced in a public courtroom with an attorney by your side. Since most people lack the resources to take this approach, the next best course of action is to suffer in silence, bow and grovel and sir/ma'am everyone in sight. Because, of course, a friendly and open attitude can also be suspicious.
Is every CBP agent walking around with a chip on his/her shoulder? Of course not, nor is every LE officer or TSA checker. But without super-duper-BDO powers, who in their right mind wants to risk mis-reading the agent's state of mind in any encounter? For example, the WA CBP agent with the hair-trigger temper and bad attitude towards non-citizens. Given the possible consequences of guessing wrong (extended retaliatory secondary), why not play it safe and grovel?
Thanks for addressing the specific case of the WA agent. As I pointed out, he was off-duty, although he did flash his badge, ie, (IMHO), brought his CBP status into the picture.
My point in bringing him up: he doesn't come across as a normally professional person who just snapped. His statements certainly give the impression of someone who has had a chip on his shoulder (in the work place and his personal life) for some time. I find it hard to believe that his superiors and co-workers never observed this or found it cause for concern. I would certainly think that if he's been harassed and threatened in the past by people he encountered in his job, CBP should be aware of it. The only thing that could have been worse about this episode (IMHO, from a CBP perspective) is if the guy had actually been on the clock when he acted as he did.
You are correct. The public does not get to decide if an officer has overstepped his/her bounds. There is no outside independent oversight. There is no assurance that if the officer has behaved incorrectly the matter will be fairly addressed. This is not unique to CBP. A similar set-up is what led to Seattle PD nearly getting taken over by the DoJ - a secretive internal evaluation and disciplinary process with no independent oversight that clearly wasn't protecting the rights of police and citizens equally.
I don't believe you have any direct control over the accountability (or lack of) for employee actions - or the secrecy surrounding the process, the lack of independent oversight. I take issue with a suggestion that in any case that isn't so egregious it goes to court and favors the plaintiff, CBP clearly isn't at fault.
I find the bolded part somewhat interesting. I believe that this is not the first time you have mentioned the DOJ stepping in to monitor or correct a law enforcement agency. The practices we are discussing concerning Border Patrol checkpoints have been in practice for decades back when there was a Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol fell under INS. Nothing really significant has changed at all in that time. You are aware that INS an in turn Border Patrol was an agency that fell under and were controlled policy wise by the DOJ. The very same policies being used today were in force and approved by the DOJ.
I am not saying that CBP as an agency is never at fault. I never even implied that. However, this discussion has not really been about specific instances or cases. It has been about the general practices that happen at checkpoints. There appears to have been disagreement concerning the whole practice and what is allowed and not. I have discussed what happens; to the extent I can why it happens, and some of the court decisions that have formulated the policies in use. I am well aware that there are cases that officers do not act appropriately. However, there are cases where the officer did act appropriately but the traveler or the public do not believe the officer did. This can happen because the traveler or the public does not truly understand the legal concepts at work. This can also happen because the traveler or the individual member of the public does not agree with the legal concept or the courts interpretation. In either case, that does not make what the officer did wrong. Again, I am not saying nor implying that the officer is always correct because they are not.
The issue that appears to concern you the most, and by all means correct me if I am wrong, what happens if a US Citizen does not have documentation at a checkpoint and is asked to produce that documentation. I have indicated to you that 9 time out of 10 the verbal assertion of US Citizenship absent any other indicators will be enough. If you don't have any documentation, you have no other choice but to tell the officer you don't have any. The officer will at that point have to determine based on what information he already has that he is satisfied that you are a US Citizen. If he is satisfied, you go on your way. If he is not satisfied, he can detain you to investigate your citizenship or immigration status. The officer will have to have reasonable suspicion to justify that detention. The lack of documentation will not be enough to meet that detention standard. I believe that you seem to be looking for an assurance that if a US citizen cannot show documentation that they are a US citizen that the encounter will end. No one can give you that assurance because there can be circumstances that warrant a continued investigation.
FB