Yes, but he also understands the limits on CBP's authority, something you don't seem to grasp.

For the past 15 years, I've been hired off and on to aid in internal investigations in two different (large) law enforcement agencies - one local, one federal. In other words, I've been a forensic consultant called in to detect "bad cops."

I will say that FB's viewpoints are shared by about half of the law enforcement officers from whom I've collected data (that most officers are good, they just want to do their jos), and the other half (approximate - it's about 54/46 in the data I have) believe that they have routinely seen behavior (from other LEOs or within themselves) that is not motivated by wanting to do a good job, but is motivated by self-interest.

I have quite a stack of materials from LEOs that show their mistrust of each other, document their own biases, and the ways in which they have chosen to express those biases. Indeed, at both agencies where I've worked, videotaping more and more of what LEOs actually do is becoming normative. Why? Because cops don't even trust other cops and excesses cost the agencies enormous amounts in lawsuits.

Spending more time interacting with pretty ladies (or handsome men) is at the top of the list - and detaining someone because they're attractive to a LEO is not ethical. There are a host of other unethical (and often illegal) reasons that LEOs slip up and end up not being fair - there has to be strong oversight.

Seroiusly, just go look at the Zimbardo experiments (or dozens of others like them) and see what happens when the public gets complacent about LEO behavior. While no one is hiring me right now (LEO agency budget cuts), the reason they hired me in the first place was to figure out which behaviors were the most common (and install systems to look for and prevent those behaviors before the lawsuits came).

Why?

Well - because the lawsuits resulted in enormous judgments against the LE agencies. I'm currently assisting a woman in her case against a para-LE cases (airport security; not TSO, private company hired by airport). She doesn't need much help - her case is a classic open/shut, she's gonna get a judgment kind of case (much of it captured by security cameras - and not to the security company's advantage).

I've interviewed dozens of bad cops (ones who have already been caught) about their behaviors, how they started, why they started, and what they had used as inspiration for their behavior (it's part of the cop subculture; both good cops and bad cops tell the same story).

But do cops trust other cops when they are stopped and asked for ID, etc? Nope. Many react cooperatively to interrogation, but many LEOs, themselves, will clam up immediately. One cop, walking in his own neighborhood, was approached by another cop (of a different ethnicity) and asked for ID. He immediately used his cell phone to call in a supervisor, refusing to utter a word. He was handcuffed before the supervisor could arrive. To make a long story short, the arresting cop was ultimately disciplined and disgraced. All the cops in this story told their versions of it, to me - and we tried to write a training handbook that would keep cops from getting themselves into trouble by acting without cause.

It's a hard thing to teach a cop (what counts as a justifiable reason for detaining someone). What seems justifiable to one LEO is not, to another - and in the end, various factors decide the issue - most important of all is the position of the person at the top of the hierarchy - whoever that is perceived to be.

But recently, when every black person in a particular community (male, female, old, young) was pulled over after a robbery was committed by two young black males, some cops got disciplined. It never ends - there are special classes at the police academy for these retrograde cops (that's part of the disciplinary action) but they've all been through the exact same class before and somehow "forgotten" what they've been taught.

BTW, I was brought up never to use the word "cop" - my parents, and the policeman across the street definitely considered it impolite. But - that's the word my clients use for themselves, in their own meetings, and in that context, no one objects to it - ever. But if you use it, as an outsider, some of them go a little mental on you - so just be aware of that.

Thank you for joining us and I hope we can look forward to your continued thoughtful contributions. ^

It is important to remember that CBP is a special kind of LEA and detention there is a vastly different thing than on the street; nonetheless, I think you will be an excellent contributor to this forum and welcome you. ^

I'm impressed. You repeatedly post completely unsupportable "legal" conclusions which have been consistently demonstrated to be patently incorrect by multiple posters, yet you're still here, as if you have any credibility on this issue whatsoever.

Amazing.

Reminds me of some pro se defendants. :p

Seattle police lied about videorecording to hide malfeasance
 

Here in Seattle, every police cruiser is equipped with a dashboard camera. We recently learned that a man who was wrongly arrested was lied to about the recording of his arrest having been erased in accordance with SPD data retention policy. Fortunately, this man had the gumption and know-how to obtain and study documentation of the technical aspects of the video and audio recording system along with the manufacturer's contracts, specifications and procedures. He discovered a well-controlled system of logging every dash cam video which is flagged for retention, deleted, or reviewed. He requested and received that log and found that not only had the police not deleted the video, they had reviewed it.

"Local computer security expert investigates police practices", by EDric Nalder, Seattle P-I, April 21, 2010.

In Law and Mathematics the majority rule doesn't work: 100 people can be wrong and 1 can be right.

You guys do whatever you want, what do I care. Just don't slow down my immigration line.

I don't understand what "conspiracy" has to do with this, but it sounds like you don't understand what a "subpoena" is. It is a directive to show up in court. However, without a grant of immunity, as was stated here already, it can't compel anybody to answer any question put to them.

LOL, but you have been consistently wrong on the law.

Chutzpah, you have. Knowledge of the law, not so much.

Your knowledge of math, especially probability theory, is as unsound as your knowledge of the law. If 100 random people disagree with you, the chances are minuscule that they are wrong and you are right. Unless, of course, you are a subject matter expert and they are lay people. In this case the reverse seems to be true, making the probability of your being right vanishingly small.

I will, in fact, do whatever I want and I don't care if I do slow the immigration line down.

If that troubles you so much, don't leave the country.

Standing up for my rights is of greater importance than you having to stand around for an extra 15 minutes.

Sure! When the "experts" are continuously detained when doing such a simple thing as re-entering their own country and some have to stand trial, I'd say it is safe to assume that the other side is right.
If it is eventually determined that CBP overstepped their authority and you are entitled to compensation, please let me know. I won't be waiting anxiously, though.

An excerpt from the relevant source: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

You will notice that it says nothing about being a witness against somebody else.
That's why they invented the attorney-client privilege, btw.

I seem to remind reading something similar in the entry for "selfish" on the Webster's. Or was it "jerk" ?

If standing up for my rights is considered selfish or being a jerk, then so be it.

I would rather be those than a Vichy citizen.

Uh ?! I'm not French. :confused: