Intimidation.

Bruce

We have discussed this very question in other threads. The reality is that if your skin is not white and/or you have a strong foreign accent, woe betide you unless you have your passport or something else that proves your citizenship: You will be detained for "secondary inspection" and it is anybody's guess how long it will take.

I know because I live in Southern California where these checkpoints are very common. I carry my passport with me whenever I travel cross country.

Google "Hiibel;" it will be some interesting reading for you. I suspect that's the case bdschobel is referring to.

Essentially, Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada for refusing to identify himself to a LEO. Nevada has some such law requiring you to identify yourself. Hiibel claimed a 5th Amendment self-incrimination violation, and it went to the Supreme Court.

IANAL, but my understanding of the ruling was that the Supremes upheld the Nevada law requiring people to identify themselves to the police, saying that giving your name was not self-incrimination. However, the Nevada law (and the ruling), do not say anything about presenting ID documents/papers to the cops, just providing your name on request. And not every state has a law like NV's, so the ruling does not mean that you have to provide your name on request everywhere in the US, it just upholds the law in states that do require it.

That's my problem :) the more I read the more I'm confused and more questions I have.
Also, I'd assume that police officer or anyone else cannot ask you to empty your pockets or bag , is that correct? But I believe I'd be in trouble if I refuse to show the contents of my backpack, before entering the subway, to the police officer if I'm asked.

They can ask all they want. However, at least in principle, they cannot force you to do any of the above unless they have probably cause.

In reality, nothing will stop them from testilying about some probable cause or arresting you on some trumpted up charge.

If you immediately turn around and exit, then it is my understanding that you will not be in "trouble", at least in theory.

Reality, given that this is NYPD we are talking about, may be quite different.

Well, we are awaiting your opinion!!

Depends on the checkpoint. The ones on I-15 and I-5 are not manned nearly as much as they used to be, in large part because of the terrible traffic jams they cause on rather heavily used commuter routes. Also, when they are manned, they often do waive throughs. Indeed, there is a YouTube video on one that I think is on I-8 that they apparently did a waive through and another BP agent in a car pulled a guy over and pretended they had directed him to secondary. Several significant constitutional violations were involved, and the primary didn't even ask the citizenship question so there was no reasonable suspicion to send him to secondary in the first place.

Hiibel doesn't go nearly as far as some police would like it to. Its actually very narrow and still maintains a reasonable suspicion standard. The police officer needs reasonable suspicion that you match the description of someone who was witness to or committed a crime which they are actively investigating. And it also depends on the state law. They actually say in dicta that the fact that this only required giving a name, and not giving ID, was a major part in declaring the statute constitutional.

The problem, IMO, is that many people think constitutional rights are some sort of God's gift to mankind and are a reflection of some higher truth.
Well, guess what, they are not! Some guys like you and me wrote a set of rules following which society manages to work a little better. We are not even sure of what those guys wrote and in fact we pay another nine elder people to explain us what those words mean from time to time.

Your, and mine, final objective is to live a better life, not to uphold whatever "sacred principle" may have been written 250 years ago.
If a uniformed officer asks you the time of the day, it is your right to be rude to him, but that's not the smart thing to do: you'll likely live a worse life for a few minutes, maybe longer, and you are holding up the damned line, so we in the back will hate you too.

Please, save your energies and outrage for when authorities are doing something really nasty (for example read the thread on the detained Canadian family and Haitian refugees). In that case the rest of us will help you too. Rolling down one's window doesn't qualify.

Ultimately, "sacred principles", "inalienable rights" and "absolute truths" are for stupid people. Those people who can't use their brain and good sense to examine on a case by case basis and have to rely on unbendable rules. To those I say speed limit is 65 mph: I really hope they'll stop you next time you are doing 66 on a sunny day, in light traffic.

This is my opinion of the military member checkpoint video. I will start out by saying there is much more information that I don’t know about the incident that I wish I had. I do not know anything about the location of this checkpoint and the type of traffic it sees. I would like to know day of the week, time of day and how busy it was at the time.

The military member, if he is going to keep up this activity of flexing his rights as I have seen it referred to for the first time in this forum, needs to get his information correct. He continues to repeat you need reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle. After saying of course, that he called the FBI and they said you need reasonable suspicion to search. I am reasonably sure he didn’t call the FBI as they wouldn’t tell him that. This is incorrect the officers need probable cause to search a vehicle without consent. You only need reasonable suspicion to detain. He keeps asking what the reasonable suspicion is. Stop asking the officer doesn’t have to tell you.

It would appear to me that the military member received much of his information from the many internet sites that give such advice as don’t roll the window down, ask if I am being detained etc. The biggest piece of information that I wish those sites would give is that the Officer is NOT required to inform you what his reasonable suspicion or probable cause is.

Back to the video, I don’t understand the military member reasoning for not rolling down the window to talk to the officer. If the only reason is to prove the point that he doesn’t have too OK I can live with that. The flaw with that is you have now given to the officer another piece of the puzzle called reasonable suspicion. The reason that those websites give that advice because they think by only opening the window a crack you make it easier to mask the odor of either you drinking and driving or marijuana in the car, which would be immediate reasonable suspicion in the drinking and probable cause in the case of marijuana. That alone can not be reasonable suspicion but it can be used to support reasonable suspicion if other factors are present. If you are drinking and driving or transporting drugs by all means only open your window a crack if may help if you aren’t doing those things I fail to see how it helps you. However, as an officer if I am inclined to share with you an explanation of things that are happening that I am NOT required to give an explanation for, that inclination is probably going to go away if you make me shout through a crack in the window. Yet, the member keeps asking “Can I talking to someone?” Absolutely, you can talk to someone but that conversation is not going to happen through a crack in the window. While we could hear and the driver could hear, because the camera is in the car, it is not easy with the wind and traffic going by to hear what is going on inside the car and the newer the car the harder it is.

The military member had two passports with him. Why didn’t he provide either one of them first? He was driving a car. Why didn’t he provide his driver’s license? Why did he provide his military ID? I am well aware he is not required to provide any of the above but if you are going to provide something why give the least useful of the three types you have? The military ID does not prove citizenship. There is no indication that the member is an officer. It doesn’t really matter as CBP officers have no way of knowing that military officers have to be US Citizens it is not part of their training. I believe he used that ID because he thought it was going to carry more weight. I have seen comments that as to why the officers wanted to call the members commanding officer. I can verify a passport or a driver’s license with equipment available at the checkpoint or border crossing. The only way I can verify a military ID is by calling. The military member was not comfortable giving up the name of his CO because I think he realized that his military ID is not supposed to be used in this manner. I also believe that he probably did not think that his CO or employer would see his actions in the favorable light that the posters here do. However, the military member chose to involve his employer by showing his military ID. I obviously have Federal LEO credentials. If I use them as ID on a traffic stop and the police officer calls my agency to verify them the agency will verify them and then I will be reprimanded for using the credentials improperly.

We will never be able to without a doubt conclude if this was appropriate and legal action. You can not make that determination based only on the video. There is too much information we don’t have. If you were the IA investigator or judge in the case you would have access to information about the checkpoint, videos from the checkpoint to go along with the military members, interviews of the member and the officers involved, and most importantly the officers report where he would have to support what his suspicion was.

I would like to point out there are other things that effect the officers judgment concerning suspicion. The examine starts before you arrive at that officer. You are observed while waiting in line as well. The thing that strikes me as odd in this particular encounter is the officer’s immediate interest in the vehicle and who owns it. The first thing that came to my mind is that there may have been an active BOLO on a vehicle that matched the military member’s vehicle. That is one of the things that would trigger the immediate secondary that I saw in the video. The purpose of the checkpoint is to catch illegal aliens. It is not to hold up traffic longer than is necessary. The officer has to be satisfied that you have legal status (US Citizenship, LPR, or valid admission). If you make it difficult to make that determination on primary in the traffic lane by making the examination impossible the officer will send you to secondary to keep traffic moving. I don’t think that was the case in this example though because the secondary came very fast.

That is my take so far.

FB

There, this isn't the only thing I have to do you know.:p:)

FB

You do realize there are instants that reasonable suspicion can exist with the magic question never being asked.

FB

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but isn't BUF within 100 miles of the Canadian border, and thus this could actually be seen as the sort of inane stops held more frequently along the southern border?

I recall being stopped near the Salton Sea in CA at a constructed checkpoint along ... was it CA 79? ... anyway, they diverted all traffic to the checkpoint, causing massive traffic pileups, just to do the stupid, "Are you a citizen? Where have you been traveling today?" etc. questions.


I know some others have already responded, but you cannot compare credit hours to classroom hours. A 3 credit hour course requires a hell of a lot more time in the classroom than 3 hours. @:-)

You've gone beyond comparing apples to oranges; you're comparing puppy dogs to oranges.

Even with the disclaimer that you're not saying someone should get a BA for the academy, it's clear you don't grasp exactly how much time goes into that 3 credit college course. Let's say it's a summer term course, which runs 6 weeks. You're in class every single weekday for 1.5-2 hours for that entire time, which means you're putting in 45-60 hours for that "3 hour course." (A regular semester course has similar classroom time.) That's outside the time spent outside the classroom, oh, doing the assignments, studying, etc.

In classroom time alone, an "easy" BA program (~128 credit hours) will set you back over 2000 hours, and I've yet to meet a prof who didn't assign enough work to more than double that. (One of mine famously said it would take literally 2-3 weeks per project of "full time, 40 hours a week work," and assigned such projects about every 4 weeks. And she was right; and if you didn't spend that long on the work, you didn't finish it, and didn't pass...) FWIW, many undergrad degree programs require more than 128 credit hours, too.

You mean driving while Mexican?

Brignoni-Ponce was stopped within 100 miles of the border.

No not at all. What is up? You usually have intelligent comments. Again, I have tried to be nothing but fair in this forum. I will try again. There are instants that reasonable suspicion or probable cause exist before even speaking to the driver. Contraband in plain view, aliens seen even though attempting to stay concealed in a seat perhaps, Odor for drugs emanating from the car, evidence of a non factory compartment observed before talking to the driver, the vehicle, driver or passengers match a BOLO. There are many.

FB

You did a nice job of determining what the subject did wrong, and I will have to agree on much of it. However you did not touch on the CBP agents actions. I would like to hear your comments on how they handled the situatiion, please. I'll be patient too, thanks.

I am not sure what more I can say. The agents didn't do much. They secondaried him, tried to talk with him, and waited for the supervisor to arrive. The biggest question to answer is did the agent have reasonable suspicion to detain the military member for secondary inspection or a criminal investigation. I don't know the answer to that because it can't be determined from the video. I don't think it was anything the member said because the secondary happen too fast. I don't think it was anything the agent saw in plain-view in the vehicle because they would have made him get out. If I had to guess and it is just speculation on my part, I would say it had to do with something about the vehicle itself. The agent's immediate interest in the car and who owns the car leads me to believe it may have matched a BOLO or one they were looking for.

As for the agents, after he pulled to secondary the agents tried to talk with him to resolve whatever the reasonable suspicions was assuming they had reasonable suspicion. The member refused to co-operate even with making it so a conversation could take place. The agents asked for identification. I don't think this is unreasonable. The member gave him his ID from his employer (the military). The agents asked for his CO's name so they could verify the ID and status. Their is other way for the agents to do that at the checkpoint without making the call so I don't think that is unreasonable either. The subject keeps telling me that he wants to talk to someone but won't roll the window down tells me as an officer that he doesn't want to talk to me so he must want my supervisor. A supervisor was requested and by the way he got there pretty quick.

What would I have done? If I had reasonable suspicion and the subject was acting that way I may not have engaged the subject to the extent the agents in the video did. If I had the reasonable suspicion and the subject asks me if he is being detained, I may reply "yes but I am not going to further discuss it with you through a crack in the window, my supervisor has been requested and will speak with you. I would only do this if I was certain the subject was not going to attempt to flee and precautions would already have been taken. (such as another agent with a stopstick ready). Again, it all depends on the circumstances and what the agents suspicion was. We don't know that and don't have access to what information the agents did or didn't have. I don't think the agents actions were over the top. The vehicle wasn't damaged, the member was not forced out of the vehicle. Had the window been rolled down and the member had conversation with the agent I think he would have been on his way very quickly and would never have had to ask if he was being detained. I can't fault the agents for trying to talk with him. I also won't fault them for not forgoing safety and trying to deal with him through that crack in the window.

I don't know what you are looking for. I don't think the agents were out of line. I think they were doing the best that they could. I don't think it was a perfect encounter but none of them ever are. I don't think it is fair to watch 10 minutes of video and try to determine if what the officers did was correct without the benefit of the officers training and experience. Heck, It isn't really fair if you do have the training and experience because all of the information is not available to you, all you can do is speculate. Video is a tool it is not the end all answer.

FB

Why shouldn't he have to tell you? It should be a requirement.

The fact of the matter is, as I pointed out earlier, "reasonable suspicion" is a joke. "Reasonable suspicion" means whatever the officer wants it to mean. If an officer says he has reasonable suspicion, 99 times out of 100, a court will believe him, regardless of the truth of such statements.

And a citizen is never required to talk to an officer (nor should he be). Your statement is completely irrelevant... that's not what the Flex Your Rights video talks about.

No it can't. An exercise of the right to remain silent in the presence of an officer can never be a part of reasonable suspicion. If you think it is, you probably need some more training.


Or maybe he was afraid that an officer on a power trip would endanger his military career through lies and other obfuscations of the truth.

Yeah right. If you used it on a traffic stop, the officer would laugh, slap you on the back, and let you on your way without a ticket. Your agency would never be contacted. After all, officers generally see themselves (and other officers) as being above the law. A while back there was a website called "Cops Writing Cops", wherein officers would call out other officers who dared to give them tickets like any of us peons would be given in the same situation. Such is the police mentality.


If you pull me over because you think I meet a BOLO, why the hell shouldn't you have to tell me? Look it at the person's perspective. They're doing nothing wrong, minding their own business. All of a sudden they're descended upon by officers demanding information. They know nothing about going on. What in the hell is wrong with just saying "Sir, we pulled you over because you meet the description of a person who _____. Can you please show me ID so we can clear this up and you can go on your way?". But instead you seem to be shocked that a mere non-officer would have the audacity to question what you're doing. THE NERVE OF THEM!