US Border Patrol checkpoint on I-10 in west Texas
Jan 9, 2011, 3:35 pm
#106
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Monterey Bay Area
Programs: Independent Libertarian
Posts: 326
xray machines on cars
I would ask that you refrain from attempting to answer for me. I am currently typing on a cell phone something that I loath to do. I am currently moving my family from the rental house to our recently completed new house. My access to the internet is limited. I will try to way watch this video over the weekend from the library if possible. As for the devices in the roadway, they are license plate readers. The same types are used at ports of entries. They are NOT thermal cameras. The truck mounted x-ray referred to in this thread is most likely a VACIS scanner. It is not used on occupied vehicles unless the vehicle contains concealed people and the driver doesn't let the officer know they are there.
I don't understand about a driver notifying them about people inside. How do they determine someone is truthful unless xrayed? I understand physical searching and dogs but how is it xrayed with safety to the driver? I know trucks are xrayed but can't say if it's only the trailer. How to know?
Jan 9, 2011, 4:02 pm
#107
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 37
REALLY, Wow.... look let's be honest. I'm a proud immigrant and US Citizen. I came here from a country where it was normal to be thrown in jail just for the heck of it. Where the "Authorities" could drag you out of your house/car/office and lock you up for weeks without a word. Where you HAD to answer why you looked the wrong way at the "AUTHORITY" etc....
I came here because I couldn't believe that HUMANs can be treated that way. And everywhere I look people are just bending over in the "LAND OF THE FREE" and saying a little harder please.... C'mon - you don't see anything wrong with the "authorities" just stopping anyone for no reason and asking any question they feel like?
Have you read the Bill of Rights?
I'm sorry - I know I went off on this but it's just too many people I talk to these days are just willing to accept this unending abuse of freedom.... Sad part is - most people don't know what it is they're giving up.... and how precious/unique it is.
I came here because I couldn't believe that HUMANs can be treated that way. And everywhere I look people are just bending over in the "LAND OF THE FREE" and saying a little harder please.... C'mon - you don't see anything wrong with the "authorities" just stopping anyone for no reason and asking any question they feel like?
Have you read the Bill of Rights?
I'm sorry - I know I went off on this but it's just too many people I talk to these days are just willing to accept this unending abuse of freedom.... Sad part is - most people don't know what it is they're giving up.... and how precious/unique it is.
I don't see the need for you to apologize at all. It was a logical assumption that when you left your home to come to the land of the "free" that your human rights would be protected as promised and honored.
I can imagine your shock to find out that you went from the frying pan into the fire.
Jan 9, 2011, 5:13 pm
#108
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by N1120A View Post
The refusal of a search is absolutely NOT a basis to seek a warrant. And while they can ask you anything they want, you are not obligated to open anything.
The refusal of a search is absolutely NOT a basis to seek a warrant. And while they can ask you anything they want, you are not obligated to open anything.
It would be illegal to actually search through the contents of the van, but the request itself to open the back to view from the back, while standing on terra firma on their two feet would NOT be illegal...and the refusal of the request WOULD be used as a basis to seek assistance and the warrant for a more in-depth review of the contents...
Do not forget that the request to open a van or even a trunk or hood of a private vehicle is NOT illegal...the operator CAN refuse. Whether enough other factors exist to support PC for the warrant is entirely dependent on circumstances.
Do not forget that the request to open a van or even a trunk or hood of a private vehicle is NOT illegal...the operator CAN refuse. Whether enough other factors exist to support PC for the warrant is entirely dependent on circumstances.
It is not the refusal itself that gives rise to the warrant, but it certainly sets the chain of events into motion that CAN result in a warrant (especially on desolated stretches of highway at 2AM in an area known for illegal activity).
You may have meant that a refusal to grant permission to search could result in an officer seeking a warrant based on other probable cause, but that is not what you wrote.
Jan 9, 2011, 9:05 pm
#109
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13
I have not read through all 7 pgs of the discussion. So I apologize if this has been said already. I live in Arizona. A couple of times a year, we drive to CA to visit friends and family. During that drive, whether it be on I-10 or I-8, we ALWAYS pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint. Sometimes two of them.
FWIW, we are usually always just waved through. For some reason, I'm always the one driving when we drive through the checkpoints. Perhaps it helps that we are driving a minivan with 2 little kids in it, a ton of bags and stuff in the back, etc. I roll down my window, put both hands on the steering wheel where they can see them (as I would if I were in a regular traffic stop), take my sunglasses off, smile, and say "have a nice day. Thank you."
Frankly, I would take a couple of questions from Border Patrol any day over the morons at the TSA.
FWIW, we are usually always just waved through. For some reason, I'm always the one driving when we drive through the checkpoints. Perhaps it helps that we are driving a minivan with 2 little kids in it, a ton of bags and stuff in the back, etc. I roll down my window, put both hands on the steering wheel where they can see them (as I would if I were in a regular traffic stop), take my sunglasses off, smile, and say "have a nice day. Thank you."
Frankly, I would take a couple of questions from Border Patrol any day over the morons at the TSA.
Jan 10, 2011, 3:49 am
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Dog sniffs are allowed during traffic stops, so long as they don't cause an abnormal delay. Its bad law, but it is the law set in Illinois v. Caballes. Now, if they have established your citizenship, keeping you beyond that to bring a dog out doesn't seem to comport with Caballes, but it hasn't been challenged either. What has been challenged, and the Supreme Court ruled against the United States on this one, is if a cop decides to feel up your bag and demands permission to search because he suspects something, even if permission is given under such duress, it will be surpressed. That's Bard v. United States.
Yeah, that is a bigger invasion than a thermal imaging search and that majority won't shift.
Yeah, that is a bigger invasion than a thermal imaging search and that majority won't shift.
Jan 10, 2011, 4:07 am
#111
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,839
I realize that. Doesn't change the fact that the Supremes seem to love the dogs. Then again, based on a delay standard, one could argue that this creates an undue delay beyond the time needed to establish documented status.
Jan 10, 2011, 10:47 am
#112
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
"He might alert to drugs, or to a person hidden in car. He can tell there is someone in the car from the smell."
"Maybe that 'someone' is just the driver?"
"No, he couldn't be reacting to the driver, because he wouldn't be able to smell the driver."
"No, there couldn't be a false positive when alerting for drugs, but yes sometimes the dog alerted when there were no drugs in the car. This would be because maybe there had been drugs in the car previously, but they they are now gone."
"So when the dog alerts, there really isn't probable cause, because he might just be reacting to there having been drugs in the car in the past, but it's no indication that there are drugs in there now?"
"No, the dog would be able to tell that..."
"Do you keep any statistics about how often the dog alerts and when drugs or a hidden person are actually found?"
"No, we don't do that"
"So you have no evidence to support your view that the dog is actually reliable?"
"No, we know he is reliable"
...and on and on and on.
Jan 10, 2011, 11:57 am
#113
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
I said it before and I wil say it again: SCOTUS decisions, upholding immigration checkpoints, DUI checkpoints, and, yes, this time I will include airport administrative searches, were grave errors.
Maybe the outcome would have been different if stricter language had been included in those decisions.
It is worth noting that some states (including Michigan where Sitz originated) outlawed or at least restricted the use of DUI checkpoints either legislatively or by court decisions referencing their own constitutions. Cannot be done (unfortunately) with other two grave errors.
Jan 10, 2011, 6:51 pm
#115
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago
Programs: Chairman US Air, four million miles Delta and F.C., Plat Prem Marriott, Marquis Jet," Air America
Posts: 222
Hate check points
Hate red light cameras
But really hate drunk drivers and people who run red lights and kill innocent kids
So, support check points and cameras until something better comes along
Unfortunately we need illegal immigrants as Americans are too proud to work for similar wages. Too proud to do community service to get welfare
Hate red light cameras
But really hate drunk drivers and people who run red lights and kill innocent kids
So, support check points and cameras until something better comes along
Unfortunately we need illegal immigrants as Americans are too proud to work for similar wages. Too proud to do community service to get welfare
Jan 10, 2011, 6:58 pm
#116
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,839
When will SCOTUS finally realize that LE/security "community", given an inch, always takes a mile?
I said it before and I wil say it again: SCOTUS decisions, upholding immigration checkpoints, DUI checkpoints, and, yes, this time I will include airport administrative searches, were grave errors.
Maybe the outcome would have been different if stricter language had been included in those decisions.
It is worth noting that some states (including Michigan where Sitz originated) outlawed or at least restricted the use of DUI checkpoints either legislatively or by court decisions referencing their own constitutions. Cannot be done (unfortunately) with other two grave errors.
I said it before and I wil say it again: SCOTUS decisions, upholding immigration checkpoints, DUI checkpoints, and, yes, this time I will include airport administrative searches, were grave errors.
Maybe the outcome would have been different if stricter language had been included in those decisions.
It is worth noting that some states (including Michigan where Sitz originated) outlawed or at least restricted the use of DUI checkpoints either legislatively or by court decisions referencing their own constitutions. Cannot be done (unfortunately) with other two grave errors.
I agree that the Berger Court was arguably worse on these issues than even the Roberts or Rhenquist courts. What I do think is that DHS is clearly acting outside the well outlined authority, and has been since the Bush Junta formed it.
Yes. My apologies. Thanks for pointing that out.
Mar 18, 2011, 1:45 pm
#117
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
I would ask that you refrain from attempting to answer for me. I am currently typing on a cell phone something that I loath to do. I am currently moving my family from the rental house to our recently completed new house. My access to the internet is limited. I will try to way watch this video over the weekend from the library if possible. As for the devices in the roadway, they are license plate readers. The same types are used at ports of entries. They are NOT thermal cameras. The truck mounted x-ray referred to in this thread is most likely a VACIS scanner. It is not used on occupied vehicles unless the vehicle contains concealed people and the driver doesn't let the officer know they are there.
I see from multiple recent threads that you now have time and internet access. We are still waiting for your answer.
Mar 18, 2011, 2:19 pm
#118
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bansko, Bulgaria
Programs: Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,260
We go through these ridiculous checkpoints on a regular basis. A couple of days ago we went through the one outside Sonoita AZ. BP agent asked where we were coming from - DH pointed behind us and said "that way"... Agent said "no, like Sonoita, Elgin... where were you coming from".... Again DH pointed behind us and said "coming from that way" pointed ahead of us "and going that way"... Agent was perplexed. I enlightened him that we don't have to answer and would not. He snarled out "have a nice day".... and we did.
So tired of the jackbooted thugs everywhere. TSA, BP, ICE same sh*t different day. 25 SUV's parked outside the checkpoints, a new 40 million dollar BP station a mile from my house. So much disgusting $$$ waste.
So tired of the jackbooted thugs everywhere. TSA, BP, ICE same sh*t different day. 25 SUV's parked outside the checkpoints, a new 40 million dollar BP station a mile from my house. So much disgusting $$$ waste.
Mar 18, 2011, 3:46 pm
#119
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 353
It's particularly insidious because it's so easy to view what people like me are saying as unthinkable, so it makes it that much easier for authorities to push draconian measures like checkpoints and cameras.
"But how could you not care about the deaths of CHILDREN?" Strawman. I do care. But it's not so simple as that. The severity of a tragedy does not reduce the importance of principle. Many moons ago, the people who founded the USA decided that the modus operandi of the nation they were building would be "Liberty first, all else is negotiable."
We need only look to stories like those of illegally short yellow-light intervals, intended to increase the count of red-light camera tickets and thus the resultant revenue generation, to see how the seemingly well-intentioned devices are actually being used. I would submit that the people interested in getting cameras installed or checkpoints implemented are drooling at the thought of a child dying as a result of a drunk driver running a red light. After all, what decent person could be so thoughtless and callous as to even consider standing up for their 4th-amendment rights in the wake of a child's life, a flower just beginning to bloom, being so tragically snuffed out by this MONSTER of a drunk driver? Our hearts go out to the family in their time of loss and grief.
That's the kind of language they'll use. You know it, I know it, we've all heard it used before.
Funny thing is, you never hear them talk about "once the epidemic of drunk driving is under control, we'll retire these measures." No, it's always "The cameras and checkpoints are doing such a good job, why would we ever discontinue their use?" Lots of security measures are implemented. Not so many are introduced with the built-in expectation of decommissioning.
Just look at the TSA itself if you need an example - they're probably the best example of a runaway agency we've seen in a long, LONG time. The fact that it's taking lawsuits, Congressional hearings, and medical reviews just to even start to put a dent in their mere determination, not even necessarily to effect real change (how many of those state resolutions said something like "this resolution urges TSA to reconsider..." rather than "WE WILL JAIL YOUR TRAITOROUS @$$3$"?) shows how easily these efforts can snowball out of control.
I don't fault you for your compassion. It humanizes you, and next to me it probably makes you seem by far the better person (or not, I don't know and withhold all judgment). I just don't want to see your good-intentioned compassion turned into a bludgeon or wedge to be used and abused by those who would see us surveilled wholesale, scanned, documented, chipped, questioned, and otherwise sacrificed on the altar of safety.
Mar 18, 2011, 4:20 pm
#120
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
While the death of children is tragic, we must be careful not to allow the tragedy to be used as a means of violating our rights.
It's particularly insidious because it's so easy to view what people like me are saying as unthinkable, so it makes it that much easier for authorities to push draconian measures like checkpoints and cameras.
"But how could you not care about the deaths of CHILDREN?" Strawman. I do care. But it's not so simple as that. The severity of a tragedy does not reduce the importance of principle. Many moons ago, the people who founded the USA decided that the modus operandi of the nation they were building would be "Liberty first, all else is negotiable."
We need only look to stories like those of illegally short yellow-light intervals, intended to increase the count of red-light camera tickets and thus the resultant revenue generation, to see how the seemingly well-intentioned devices are actually being used. I would submit that the people interested in getting cameras installed or checkpoints implemented are drooling at the thought of a child dying as a result of a drunk driver running a red light. After all, what decent person could be so thoughtless and callous as to even consider standing up for their 4th-amendment rights in the wake of a child's life, a flower just beginning to bloom, being so tragically snuffed out by this MONSTER of a drunk driver? Our hearts go out to the family in their time of loss and grief.
That's the kind of language they'll use. You know it, I know it, we've all heard it used before.
Funny thing is, you never hear them talk about "once the epidemic of drunk driving is under control, we'll retire these measures." No, it's always "The cameras and checkpoints are doing such a good job, why would we ever discontinue their use?" Lots of security measures are implemented. Not so many are introduced with the built-in expectation of decommissioning.
Just look at the TSA itself if you need an example - they're probably the best example of a runaway agency we've seen in a long, LONG time. The fact that it's taking lawsuits, Congressional hearings, and medical reviews just to even start to put a dent in their mere determination, not even necessarily to effect real change (how many of those state resolutions said something like "this resolution urges TSA to reconsider..." rather than "WE WILL JAIL YOUR TRAITOROUS @$$3$"?) shows how easily these efforts can snowball out of control.
I don't fault you for your compassion. It humanizes you, and next to me it probably makes you seem by far the better person (or not, I don't know and withhold all judgment). I just don't want to see your good-intentioned compassion turned into a bludgeon or wedge to be used and abused by those who would see us surveilled wholesale, scanned, documented, chipped, questioned, and otherwise sacrificed on the altar of safety.
It's particularly insidious because it's so easy to view what people like me are saying as unthinkable, so it makes it that much easier for authorities to push draconian measures like checkpoints and cameras.
"But how could you not care about the deaths of CHILDREN?" Strawman. I do care. But it's not so simple as that. The severity of a tragedy does not reduce the importance of principle. Many moons ago, the people who founded the USA decided that the modus operandi of the nation they were building would be "Liberty first, all else is negotiable."
We need only look to stories like those of illegally short yellow-light intervals, intended to increase the count of red-light camera tickets and thus the resultant revenue generation, to see how the seemingly well-intentioned devices are actually being used. I would submit that the people interested in getting cameras installed or checkpoints implemented are drooling at the thought of a child dying as a result of a drunk driver running a red light. After all, what decent person could be so thoughtless and callous as to even consider standing up for their 4th-amendment rights in the wake of a child's life, a flower just beginning to bloom, being so tragically snuffed out by this MONSTER of a drunk driver? Our hearts go out to the family in their time of loss and grief.
That's the kind of language they'll use. You know it, I know it, we've all heard it used before.
Funny thing is, you never hear them talk about "once the epidemic of drunk driving is under control, we'll retire these measures." No, it's always "The cameras and checkpoints are doing such a good job, why would we ever discontinue their use?" Lots of security measures are implemented. Not so many are introduced with the built-in expectation of decommissioning.
Just look at the TSA itself if you need an example - they're probably the best example of a runaway agency we've seen in a long, LONG time. The fact that it's taking lawsuits, Congressional hearings, and medical reviews just to even start to put a dent in their mere determination, not even necessarily to effect real change (how many of those state resolutions said something like "this resolution urges TSA to reconsider..." rather than "WE WILL JAIL YOUR TRAITOROUS @$$3$"?) shows how easily these efforts can snowball out of control.
I don't fault you for your compassion. It humanizes you, and next to me it probably makes you seem by far the better person (or not, I don't know and withhold all judgment). I just don't want to see your good-intentioned compassion turned into a bludgeon or wedge to be used and abused by those who would see us surveilled wholesale, scanned, documented, chipped, questioned, and otherwise sacrificed on the altar of safety.