Fail...try again. Read the case law. All that is required is reasonable suspicion (see below, emphasis mine). You can try to spin this one all you want, but I was a Border Patrol agent and I'm quite familiar with the authorities granted to BPAs.

"The Fourth Amendment held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. Except at the border and its functional equivalents, patrolling officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country..."

TB

It's not a fail - and I read both of the cases quoted upthread. The Border Patrol may not randomly stop and search people or cars without probable cause. No different than any other stop and search. If I am alone in my car, complete with it's FL and CA license plates, and given that appearing 'foreign' is not sufficient for the stop, I'd say good luck to the Border Patrol if they want to show probable cause.

The only relevant probable cause I can come up with is an immediate incident of illegal aliens washing up on shore in Florida (and yes, this happens), in the area I'm driving, and someone else in my car fits the description or likely description or appearance (clothing, sunburn, gaunt, etc.) of someone who might have washed up from the boat.

Other than that - I'd say good luck.

Question: Does color of skin alone qualify as a reasonable suspicion?

If so, how is it different from the proverbial "driving while black"?

If not, what else might give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the "vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country"?

Wrong again...it DOES NOT REQUIRE PROBABLE CAUSE...it ONLY REQUIRES REASONABLE SUSPICION OF ILLEGAL ALIENAGE to conduct a roving traffic stop. Any search of the vehicle does indeed require probable cause.

TB

Absolutely not.

Numerous indicators, ie load vehicle, driver's demeanor, observances and experience of the patrol agent,etc.

TB

How is the load of a car different when its passenger is an illegal alien as opposed to a citizen or an LPR?

How do you observe driver's demeanor in a vehicle moving at 70 mph?

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "observances and experience"?

By load vehicle, I mean exactly that...does it appear heavy on the rear axles, does it lean significantly from one side to another, etc.

Observations can include the obvious, such as fifteen people in a vehicle designed for six, etc.

Experience is exactly that...does the agent have six months on the line or six years.

Observing the driver's demeanor at 70 mph isn't difficult if the agent is traveling parallel to the vehicle also at 70 mph.

This is just rather simplified version of developing reasonable suspicion...in reality, more specific clues likely need to be observed by the agent to rise to the level that true reasonable suspicion does indeed exist in order for the stop to justified.

TB

Considering you don't appear to even understand what the term tigger control is I think you should troll somewhere else.

FB

You are somewhat correct. However, the level needed for the stop is only reasonable suspicion just like any other law enforcement agency. In order for the agent to search the vehicle, probable cause is needed. They are two very different and separate topics. Border Patrol roving patrols are still done very successfully. Not all stations do them but they are still a method that is used.

FB

Thank you. I do understand except for one.

I think anybody would become rather nervous if they saw an LE vehicle tailing them or traveling parallel at the same speed. Wouldn't you agree?

This would be especially true if the driver had one or more bad experiences with LE.

Let me be a little more specific. Sometimes I drive cross country with heavily loaded trunk. The only passengers in my car are my wife and daughter. Can you think of an example of a situation that would give an agent a valid reason to stop me?

You're asking a question expecting a black and white answer but there isn't one. The very act of driving your truck in this situation could give an agent a valid reason to stop you, and they would be completely within their rights to do so. What specifically could cause it? Any of the reasons already mentioned above - the only real criteria is that the agent needs to arrive at the decision based on a suspicion.

If you're stopped in this situation, does it imply guilt? No. Does the agent then need probable cause to search your vehicle? Yes - which is a much more stringent test.

There is no cast-iron guarantee that says certain behaviour (or the avoidance of certain behaviour) will prevent the agent from having a valid reason to stop you. It simply doesn't exist.

We're mincing concepts here - they can pull me over by flashing their lights with their reasonable suspicion, but it doesn't mean I need to answer their questions, identify myself or permit a search of my car without probable cause.

I'm not concerned about being pulled over - I'm concerned about my rights after I've been pulled over. For example, if I'm speeding on I95 in Boca Raton, a cop from Broward County or Miami cannot do anything. Sure, they can try and pull me over, but once I've determined they are out of their jurisdiction and they cannot show I've committed a felony or reckless endangerment, there is nothing they can do and I am on my way.

Likewise with the Border Patrol - they can pull me over and try and intimidate me, but I am under no obligation to cooperate, and under no obligation to give them access to my car without them stating there is probable cause for them to search. If they state they don't need to tell me and forcibly search my car, I can sue after the fact (and will) and give them an opportunity to talk about their probable cause from the witness stand.

Anyway, I'd think the Border Patrol would be a little more intelligent and professional than the thugs of the Broward Sheriff Office, and not pull people over for the heck of it or drug fishing expeditions. I'm sure you would agree that the probable cause that the Border Patrol needs to demonstrate is a little different than local cops - violation of immigration laws vs. violation of any law.

Based ONLY on what you described, it is not likely that an agent could justify reasonable suspicion for a roving patrol stop.

TB

I wish someone had told me that I am immune from lawsuits. I would not have paid all that money for professional liability insurance that I have paid for the last thirteen years.

All of the occupations have the ability to injure, maim and kill just as easily as I do with the tools I carry.

We will have to disagree. I am told daily how to do my job by members of the general public. Hell, there are posters on this website who are sure I am doing the job wrong and have no problem telling me that. One even attempted to inform me that I didn't even know the color of the uniform that I have been wearing for the past thirteen years.

Personally, I do not have a problem with video. However, I would like to try to make this point. Law Enforcement is not the only profession that mistakes can have dire consequences. If a doctor or surgeon makes a mistake a person can die. If a pilot or train engineer makes a mistake a lot of people can die. If a lawyer makes a mistake someone can go to prison or lose a lot of money. The people that work in all of these professions are just that people, humans who will make mistakes. Unfortunately, when the law enforcement officer makes a mistake is more often than not it is not seen as a human error. Many times it is portrayed that the officer was a racist, a bigot, or worst a murderer, that has even be eluded to in this thread. Many in this forum have repeatedly stated that in dealing with TSA they don't like feeling guilty until proven innocent. I promise you a Law Enforcement Officer who has been accused of making a mistake, wrongly or rightly so, feels that way the whole time.

Finally I am listening, I always do but many who think they have an idea are far from correct yet pass this information on as "fact" does the audience a grave disservice. Some of the advice just on this forum alone if used will turn a simple none threaten encounter with law enforcement into something much worse.

FB

I would imagine that authority to use a weapon would also come with reporting and follow-up procedures if a weapon was discharged in the line of duty.

OK, now I'm tracking...and you're within your rights as you've described in your post. The BP can only search your vehicle if they've established PC in context with their statutory and delegated authorites, and generally can only detain you on a roving patrol stop to the extent to determine citizenship. Since this is the US and papers aren't required for citizens, this is a relatively quick and painless process ie yes, I'm a citizen, etc., absent further observations that would suggest that the individual detained is illegally in the country.

TB

I think a lot of what you're experiencing in the above quote is very much a cultural thing, and has to do with the perception of authority and perhaps a lack of understanding on the average citizen's part.

When someone goes to the doctor, they more likely than not are going voluntarily to receive help-- for an illness, disease, whatever. Likewise with the lawyer. Engineers, bus drivers, etc. are viewed as performing a service and simply doing their jobs.

This is a bit different when it comes to law enforcement, though, and that's because of the authority that law enforcement carries. None of the above groups can place you under arrest. None of the above groups routinely carry firearms. None of the above groups have been given the reputation-- rightly or wrongly-- of targeting certain people, denying people civil rights, or beating them up for no reason.

There's also a certain fear factor involved as well. Now, I'm not saying that people are never afraid when going to the doctor or a lawyer, or that people are always afraid when dealing with law enforcement. But it is certainly safe to assume that when it comes to dealing with law enforcement, many people don't know what their rights actually are and aren't. (You've said it yourself a number of times when dealing just with folks on this board.) Lack of knowledge can generate fear in many cases. And then there's that sinking feeling in the pit of one's stomach that sometimes comes up-- you know, the same one that you got when you were sent to the principal's office in grade school... ;)

All of this combines to make even the most routine stop very stressful for the average person. And if you add in some of the bad experiences that others have had (if you know someone who has, or if you've experienced it yourself), it probably becomes even more stressful.

All of the above factors significantly contribute to the way that people view "the authorities" in this country. And when combined with the fact that many law enforcement personnel are given authority over certain situations and over people in certain situations-- well, that's probably why y'all are looked at with such suspicion in so many cases, and why people are quick to jump to conclusions. That's probably also why so many have started to feel that a video camera or recording device of some sort is a good "security blanket" when dealing with LEOs...

As with every job, there are certain aspects that are good and others that are bad. I guess the increased suspicion and swift conclusions that people can make are one of the bad aspects of yours-- along with being shot at, working shifts, late nights, etc. (But at least y'all get free donuts, right? :D ;) Krispy Kremes hot off the line must make up for some of it. :) ;))