They may be only doing "admin" work, but they are occupying an FTE that could be filled by an effective officer or agent. Instead, the thin blue line protects its own.

You won't get an argument from me for the first part. The last sentence had more truth to it in the past. It is increasingly more of a myth now. LEO's can be absolutely brutal to each other out of self preservation and self interest at least in my organization.

FB

Thanks much for the explanation. It helps me understand a little better the LEO thought process.

I have to admit, the "good faith" exception is troubling to me. If I am a doctor and make a mistake during a surgery I'm still liable for the consequences even if it was an honest mistake made in "good faith". That is what negligence is all about, the concept that I should have the training, experience and attention to detail to not make the mistake. Likewise, if I am a civil engineer and a bridge collapses due to my design error, even if made in good faith, I am still liable and could have my privilege to practice my craft restricted. If, as a pilot, I bust a TFR I could well have my license yanked, no matter whether I did it deliberately or not.

In view of this it is hard to understand why a LEO who performs a no-knock raid on the wrong house and shoots a totally innocent homeowner should be exempt from prosecution or, at a minimum, a lawsuit just because it was a "good faith" honest mistake. Note: I'm not talking about a lawsuit against the governmental agency that employs the LEO; I'm talking about the LEO himself.

As things now stand there seems to be little personal impact to an LEO for reckless behavior, just so long as it is not a result of malice. If an LEO shoots me out of malice or just because he mis-read the street address, I'm equally dead. Why should my next-of-kin be barred from filing a wrongful death suit against the LEO if my death is due to his professional incompetence?

Several things in there. Sticking with the doctor analogy. When a Doctor makes a diagnoses he is making what boils down to an educated guess based on his education and experience. It is no different for a Law Enforcement Officer making a call on PC or RS based on his training and experience.

The Doctor is not going to be held criminally liable for his mistake. The LEO is not going to be held criminally liable for his mistake either. Civil matters are totally different and I am no where near as well versed but I will take a stab just don't quote the civil part.

In order to prove the civil case in the both the Doctor and LEO case I believe that you would have to prove Gross Negligence not just a simple human error. It would have to be a very obvious problem like the Doctor being drunk or taking out the wrong body part or the LEO being drunk and serving a warrant or serving it on the wrong address and shooting the home owner may qualify. No Knock warrants by the way are becoming increasingly rare not easy to get anymore. You are not barred at all from filing a wrongful death suit against LEO. I never meant to give you that impression. I personally, for my family and I's piece of mind) carry professional liability insurance for just those reasons.

FB

Hmm. Someone from a country with a much healthier economy hauling around drywall? Perhaps working on their own vacation home? Doing a favor for a friend?

Your agency is one of the most abusive, both to US and foreign nationals, and I am not specifically talking about at ports of entry.

You can suppose all you wish. One, it would meet the standard of reasonable suspicion. Two, you can also doubt all you want. However, I have personally done the casework on many Canadian individuals, including their sworn statements, doing exactly what you are implying they would not do. My casework would many times include their pay stubs from American contractors which very rarely come from working on ones vacation home that they don't even own here. Many times they are living in their RV during the winter months that they can't do construction in Canada. I will give you hint they are not very hard to find. I would suggest that you begin in the Hollywood Florida area.

As for your second statement, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Everybody is entitled to one. Just as I am entitled to my opinion that most lawyers are arrogant, self serving, egotistical and blur the truth more often than not. That does not make it true. It certainly does not make it true if I make that claim and can not back it up with facts. Of course, we are both are aware that what one person claims as fact another will say is fabrication and so continues the argument eternal. I however know better.

FB

Most (probably all) lawyers who come anywhere near a courtroom, including both Halls (who I have a great deal of respect for) and me, are arrogant and egotistical. It goes along with the job. As far as backing up my statement, the I have personally witnessed at least 5 incidents in approximately 15-20 non-port of entry encounters with agents of CBP and its predecessor agencies (specifically, the Border Patrol in its pre-DHS incarnation) where US citizens, permanent residents and on one occasion a Canadian national who was nicely trying to explain to a CBP agent that her mailing address was a post office because her community didn't have actual addresses and all mail was picked up at the post office were treated like absolute scum. I've personally been racially profiled by a CBP supervisor at IAD, who then attempted to intimidate me into not filing a complaint. I've also, despite an accent so clear that it could never be confused for anything but a native who grew up speaking English at home, had my citizenship questioned without any reasonable suspicion by your colleagues on more than one occasion in the middle of nowhere in Texas where I'd be even more screwed than that poor pastor your agency beat to a pulp.

Yours is an agency, a whole cabinet department really, completely out of control. The sooner that is pointed out to Congress and the Supreme Court, the better.

Do some international travel and you will understand much better why so many people have ill feelings for your organisation;)

You do realize that we will never agree right. I have been doing this every day for almost thirteen years. I have seen one instance that would without a doubt be labeled as abuse. The officer in question is no longer an officer. Granted it took 6 months+ to get him out of the position but he was not dealing with the public in a matter of days.

Often, the officer can't win no matter what the circumstances. Take your above quote for example. You state that the officer should have used your lack of accent as corroborating evidence (for lack of a better term at this early hour) of your US Citizenship. Yet, I have been told several times on this very forum that the presence of an accent should have no bearing on how an encounter with an individual proceeds. You really should not be able to have it both ways.

As for your belief that you were racially profiled, I have never met you. Don't know the circumstances so I really can't comment with any accuracy. However, a claim of racial profiling is not all ways a fact and it may not always what is appears to be. Especially, when what an Immigration Officer is looking for is concerned. For example, before the merge when the immigration and customs functions were still separate. I was working in an International airport as an Immigration officer. It was the last flight of the night. Only one plane in the hall. The flight happened to be Air Jamaica. Very typical flight and pax mix. Typical amount of people referred to secondary for the typical things. verify visas, process immigrant visas, LPR holders that forgot there green card, you get the idea nothing major. One of pax didn't like the fact that he was sent to secondary I guess makes the statement "The only reason you sent me to secondary me was because I am black. Look around this office(meaning the secondary waiting area) the only people in here are black" Well yeah, the reason for that was the citizenship of the pax on the plane, given where the plane came from, and the fact we were only dealing with immigration issues who else was going to be in that waiting room. Did he believe that he was there based solely on his race? Absolutely. Is that why they were sent to secondary nope it was just the nature of the mix or lack of mix really on that flight.

The pastor well the jury is still out on that one isn't it. That gentleman has been baiting officers for quite sometime. Even so he was given a lawful order to move his vehicle into the secondary area. The gentleman refused that order even after being given multiple chances to comply. Ultimately, he was arrested not by my agency but a state agency for failing to comply with their lawful orders to move his vehicle out of the lane of travel and into the secondary area. He resisted the state agencies arrest and the state agency used force to complete that arrest. I have said it before and I hope as a lawyer you would agree the place for the argument is in court not on the side of the road. He got what he wanted. The very thing that he has been trying to instigate for months to try and prove a point or disprove a point I guess you could say that the US Supreme Court has decided years ago.

In my opinion my agency is lenient to a fault. Ties go to the runner so to speak. I have seen many many cases, and they far out number the adverse action cases I have seen completed, let go and the alien admitted not because we couldn't prove the case, which we don't even have to do in the case of arriving aliens, but because we are afraid of being seen has not politically correct. Many stories I could tell you.

As for my comment about lawyers, I was mostly joking. The reality, or maybe in practice is a better term ,it is the lawyers job to blur the truth so his client or interest that he represents is seen in a better light. I just can't do that. I am also not allowed to let my personal opinion or outlook effect how I do my job. You would not believe how many times I have completed an adverse action, removed the alien but explained how the alien can overcome the removal, given the alien the proper paperwork to overcome the adverse action, and was the officer who would later admit them after they overcame the problem. Yet, I still had to complete the adverse action.

I have also asked before but no one seems to want to answer. I guess that is ok. Those that say they are lawyers it would be nice to know what type of law they practice. I don't have to tell you each type can be very specialized and just because you are a member of the bar doesn't mean that you are the best qualified to talk on a specific subject. I know I took a fair amount of flak when I started posting and didn't immediately identify who I worked for.

FB

Why would you assume I have not travel internationally? I understand the organization much better than you think. That is because I know what they are doing and more importantly why they are doing it. Knowledge is a very powerful thing when that knowledge is correct, based in fact and not in supposition and opinion, many times someone elses opinion taken and displayed as fact.

FB

FIFY. :D

For what it is worth, I was also referring to the ones that work my side as well and have been in conflict with them in the past because of it.

FB

I've got a few more questions.

1. Since all charges were dismissed with prejudice on what would the "jury still (be) out"?

2. How does one go about baiting the officers, or more specifically, how did the pastor bait the officers "for quite sometime"? If he had been baiting them for some time then why would they detain him? It would seem that if he was known to them there would be no need (or legal justification) to repeatedly ask him about his citizenship. He may have been a pain in the rear but he was undoubtedly a citizen pain in the rear. At a minimum the agents had no reason to believe otherwise. (In fact, I would think that being a royal PITA when dealing with BP would be one of those "totality of the circumstance" things that would indicate the person was a citizen.)

3. I would think that the "citizen" part would be enough to terminate any interaction he may have had with BP while on a public highway that was well removed from any border crossing point. Am I wrong?

[QUOTE=T-the-B;13691365]I've got a few more questions.

2. How does one go about baiting the officers, or more specifically, how did the pastor bait the officers "for quite sometime"? If he had been baiting them for some time then why would they detain him? It would seem that if he was known to them there would be no need (or legal justification) to repeatedly ask him about his citizenship. He may have been a pain in the rear but he was undoubtedly a citizen pain in the rear. At a minimum the agents had no reason to believe otherwise. (In fact, I would think that being a royal PITA when dealing with BP would be one of those "totality of the circumstance" things that would indicate the person was a citizen.)
QUOTE]

...and, I would expect law enforcement "professionals" not to fall for the bait. If they did, at least they should have made sure that the pastor never talked about it again, one way or the other....unless there were other witnesses.

Cameras make the best witnesses as in the case of this citizen being illegally detained ("further detention" = violation of the Fourth Amendment), harassed, and intimidated by the Border Patrol several days ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meGJ0Wiou3U

I would like to get a Firebug's input on this incident. How come they did not ask the driver about his citizenship before directing him to the secondary? :td: