US Border Patrol checkpoint on I-10 in west Texas
Jan 31, 2012, 7:30 am
#181
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
$1500 shouldn't have. Hell, you're going through an internal checkpoint, so no amount should have been an issue. If you were at the border, anything north of $9,999 has to be declared, and if it's not, you have a problem. At internal checkpoints, you can carry $100k in unmarked singles in your trunk, and there's not much they can do about it because there's no law against carrying your life savings in small bills in the back of your car.
Jan 31, 2012, 7:45 am
#182
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,115
I think the use of Drug Detection dogs pretty well proves what CBP is really doing in the "Constitution Free Zones" on our nations highways that do not cross the border.
I also believe that a dog handler can cause a dog to alert at will or even lie about an alert just to create probable cause.
Some may find this article of interest.
Drug dogs false alert over 200 times in UC Davis study
http://blog.norml.org/2011/02/04/dru...c-davis-study/
I also believe that a dog handler can cause a dog to alert at will or even lie about an alert just to create probable cause.
Some may find this article of interest.
Drug dogs false alert over 200 times in UC Davis study
http://blog.norml.org/2011/02/04/dru...c-davis-study/
There shouldn’t have been any alerts, but, in fact, handlers indicated their dog had alerted in every room. There were more alerts in rooms with red paper (which piques the cop’s interest) and no corresponding increase in rooms with sausages and tennis balls (which would pique a dog’s interest).
Jan 31, 2012, 8:57 am
#183
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
$1500 shouldn't have. Hell, you're going through an internal checkpoint, so no amount should have been an issue. If you were at the border, anything north of $9,999 has to be declared, and if it's not, you have a problem. At internal checkpoints, you can carry $100k in unmarked singles in your trunk, and there's not much they can do about it because there's no law against carrying your life savings in small bills in the back of your car.
Jan 31, 2012, 8:59 am
#184
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,704
How can you tell the difference between an agent who is lying and an agent who is acting on good faith 'error'?
Seriously. You are suggesting that a highly paid, experienced officer never lies as an excuse to act on a strong suspicion or 'hunch'. If an agent lies and says a dog alerted or that he/she smelled or saw something suspicious and his/her suspicions prove to be wrong after a rigorous search, then it is called a 'good faith error'.
If an agent lies and a rigorous search turns something up, then it is called a 'good catch' and in most cases, the agent's initial lie is going to be difficult to disprove.
Seriously. You are suggesting that a highly paid, experienced officer never lies as an excuse to act on a strong suspicion or 'hunch'. If an agent lies and says a dog alerted or that he/she smelled or saw something suspicious and his/her suspicions prove to be wrong after a rigorous search, then it is called a 'good faith error'.
If an agent lies and a rigorous search turns something up, then it is called a 'good catch' and in most cases, the agent's initial lie is going to be difficult to disprove.
Jan 31, 2012, 4:26 pm
#185
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
That's a real good question, but a very similar thing happened to a friend of mine who was piloting his own plane (he is a doctor - and an FAA medical examiner - and happened to have an LEO riding as passenger/copilot on the trip) and crossed the border from Mexico. I don't recall all the details, but they were told to leave the plane and stand away (LEO sensed that something wasn't right, so he watched carefully & IIRC saw the plant take place). CPB claimed to have found a joint in plain sight in the cabin (absolutely impossible with these two folks). LEO/copilot made a quick call, and a few minutes later the CPB folks (very red faced) got a call and told the two of them to leave. LEO told my friend that they really shouldn't report it because "sometime I might need them to cover my back".
Feb 3, 2012, 9:22 am
#186
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
Sorry, but nobody smokes joints these days. Today's stuff is way too powerful. A joint is major overkill and a waste of good weed. Not to mention that the chances of throwing something out the window and having it land on the door handle are nigh on ZERO.
Feb 3, 2012, 4:01 pm
#187
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Back to the original post. I can tell you as an agency Border Patrol is not interested in a partially smoked joint. They are interested in trafficking not personal use quantities. When personal use quantities are found it is nothing but a headache and wasted time for the agent. What is gained by planting a partially smoked joint as the OP infers that the agent did? The agents didn't charge the OP with anything they let him go. The agents don't get any gain from it other that additional paperwork not the agents favorite thing to do I can promise you.
I am unaware of another situation where an LEO can detain and run a K-9 around your vehicle without any suspicion at all within the United States. That is the reason these detentions that occur miles from the border are an issue.
Feb 3, 2012, 4:33 pm
#188
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,642
I have lost count of the suppression motions that I have won because the police officers thought their knowledge of the law was superior to the lawyers or the judge's.
Feb 3, 2012, 8:46 pm
#189
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 200
How can you tell the difference between an agent who is lying and an agent who is acting on good faith 'error'?
Seriously. You are suggesting that a highly paid, experienced officer never lies as an excuse to act on a strong suspicion or 'hunch'. If an agent lies and says a dog alerted or that he/she smelled or saw something suspicious and his/her suspicions prove to be wrong after a rigorous search, then it is called a 'good faith error'.
If an agent lies and a rigorous search turns something up, then it is called a 'good catch' and in most cases, the agent's initial lie is going to be difficult to disprove.
Seriously. You are suggesting that a highly paid, experienced officer never lies as an excuse to act on a strong suspicion or 'hunch'. If an agent lies and says a dog alerted or that he/she smelled or saw something suspicious and his/her suspicions prove to be wrong after a rigorous search, then it is called a 'good faith error'.
If an agent lies and a rigorous search turns something up, then it is called a 'good catch' and in most cases, the agent's initial lie is going to be difficult to disprove.
)
Feb 3, 2012, 8:51 pm
#190
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,704
Not all CBP interactions involve dogs, of course.
Feb 3, 2012, 8:52 pm
#191
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 200
Feb 3, 2012, 11:10 pm
#192
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,704
Where do you think the phrase "It's a dog's life" came from? If I were a dog, I'd much rather chase sticks for a treat than hang around harassing people and smelling nasty stuff all day. And then get dumped when my nose was fried from sniffing all that stuff repeatedly during training and on the job.
Feb 4, 2012, 8:26 am
#193
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
"The actions of one dog in no way reflect on the professionalism of the over 50,000 dogs employed by the CBP. The CPB has a zero tolerance policy towards any canine misconduct. Such misconduct will be dealt with quickly and completely."
Feb 4, 2012, 10:39 am
#194
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 200
Or does CBP really mean Cat Border Patrol?
Feb 4, 2012, 10:55 am
#195
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956