Originally Posted by
chollie
I mentioned it in the context of independent oversight (as much as that is ever possible).
The sticking point between the DOJ and SPD (and it came right down to the wire) was, IIRC, independent civilian (not DOJ, not SPD, not city) oversight.
I am sure that on paper SPD policies met DOJ approval; DOJ was called in because of the practices.
It always seems strange to me when I am functionally 'guilty until proven conditionally innocent' in many interactions with CBP/TSA/LE - the burden is on me to do whatever it takes to satisfy the agent of my innocence. I'm constantly reminded that any reluctance on my part, fancied or real, is evidence that I am guilty of having something to hide. Only innocent people are comfortable being completely transparent. Black-and-white, cut-and-dried, no listening to my 'side', no possible explanations.
Why, then, are certain agencies so reluctant to live by the same standards? Transparency, openness - after all, if they have nothing to hide, why are they so against independent civilian oversight?
We both know that a paper policy means nothing if it is not followed. The paper policy is just what is supposed to happen, not what actually takes place. It is next to meaningless if it there is no oversight, accountability and enforcement. And, as we see all too often in government, in-house oversight is all too easily influenced and compromised.
Stop typing while I am it is hard to keep up. :P See the response that I posted above this. It answers some of this but I will respond anyway. It is not oversight that I am against or independent oversight. It is civilian oversight at I have a problem with if those civilians have no training in the matters that they are overseeing.
This conversation has spanned several days with many posts and you still do not have the correct understand of the legal concepts in play.
I've frequently read and heard that US citizens have nothing to fear at these roadblocks, because all one has to do is answer the citizenship question, there is no obligation to do more. In point of fact, it appears that one's legal situation at the checkpoint is much more complex. I've read that one has the option to decline to open the trunk or allow the car to be searched, but it appears that such searches are perfectly legal and one will comply. The question: if I declare US citizenship but I am asked for a passport that I don't have, what happens next (should or will or may) was never addressed in any way.
Nowhere in this thread did anyone say that you are required to open the trunk or allow the car to be searched absent probable cause unless you are at a land border POE. You have admitted the legal situation is complex. That is exactly my point the situations are complex and a civilian with no training at all is not qualified to judge if a law enforcement officers actions were correct or not.
I don't say that to disrespect your opinion at all. I say that because it appears to me (again correct me if I am wrong) that you believe that you would be qualified to evaluate videos and be civilian oversight. There already is oversight in place. It is the court system. That is where these disputes should be played out. There is a judge who is versed in the law and expert witnesses that understand the issues can be used by both sides.
FB