MDtR-Chicago

There's another recent thread here about these disgusting checkpoints.

OP did exactly what he should have done - and the only thing he CAN do in this "free" country.

These checkpoints are even more repugnant to me than the TSA gauntlet. The legality requires so many unlikely leaps:

1. That the illegal immigration problem is so immediate a danger to the safety of America that it is reasonable to question every person an agent happens upon
2. That simply "asking a few questions" is a reliable way to determine if someone is illegal
3. That it is not patently obvious that the checkpoint is much more about letting the dogs sniff for drugs - it's a drug checkpoint
4. That the courts' opinion of the legality of the search rests on the interrogation being only a minor inconvenience - yet as the OP described, there was a big waiting line, and also anyone living nearby could be subjected to the questioning multiple times a day

I wish someone would figure out an effective way of challenging all of this and getting it shut down.

janetdoe

I know that in South Texas, they have border checkpoints on the major northbound highways at least an hour north of the border. I think the logic is that the border is long and porous, and they can't plausibly cover it. So they do checkpoints at major highways inside the country, assuming that any traffic that crosses the border will eventually funnel through to a major thoroughfare.

Even at CRP airport (nearly 200 mile north of the border), they have some CBP officers standing at a podium before you get to the TSA at the airport. They have never said anything to me except 'good morning'. I asked them once if they were looking for drugs, and they said they were there for illegal immigration. So... I have no idea what they are looking for - brown skin?

T-the-B

Unfortunately, the dog does not have to actually alert. All that is required is for the handler to say that the dog alerted. Frankly, I'm not sure which of those two alternatives happens more frequently.

clrankin

The time to argue "probable cause" for searches and refusal is, unfortunately, not on the side of the road. I hope you never have to find that out the hard way.

My recommendations (IANAL, take it for what it's worth):
1. Record everything when going through these checkpoints

2. If in a state that doesn't allow secret recording, respectfully state to the office that just as his interaction with you is being recorded by his agency you're making a recording for yourself. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't care. (If they do care, what are they hiding?)

3. When asked about searches, clearly state that you will not voluntarily submit to any search. (Something like "Officer I respectfully refuse to voluntarily submit myself or my possessions to any type of search" should do.)

4. If the matter is pressed further, ask questions and make it clear you're not voluntarily submitting. ("Officer, does this mean that you intend to search my vehicle even though I do not give my permission to search the vehicle?")

5. Ask one final question: "Officer, I have one final question. Do you understand that I am 'on the record' as not voluntarily submitting myself, my vehicle, and my possessions to a voluntary search?"

6. If they still want to search, don't argue. Stay out of the way. Keep recording. Speak at your recorder and describe what's happening. Above all, don't offer physical resistance.

7. After the whole thing is over, immediately contact a good attorney. Take him the phone that you recorded the entire stop on. At this point you're not looking for a good defense lawyer, you're looking for a shark. You're looking for someone who can make the abuse you just endured become a line item on the department's budget for years to come. You're looking for someone who can get the sign "foreclosed' to be placed on the officer's front lawn. Hopefully you enjoy your revenge.

cb1111

I believe there would be more serious charges than obstruction of justice. Felony evasion comes to mind. CBP officers are law enforcement so trying to run a checkpoint isn't very healthy.

The OP was well within his rights to refuse a search of his luggage. It sems unlikely that CBP would have any reason to entice a K-9 to alert on some random car (even if the driver "annoyed them by asserting his rights."

What may be interesting is how he got chosen. Was it merely "every xx car get's pulled over" or was there something that raised suspicion.

You guys are giving the K-9s a bad rep - poor Fido. His or her only ulterior motive is to get a cracker or a toy when they actually found something. They don't get rewarded for false positives.

Often1

Just to be clear, Obstruction of Justice (the broad-based Federal crime) carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of $250,000.

ND Sol

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543 (1976), states the reason is for searching for illegal immigrants. The way the Border Patrol gets around this for drugs is that while you are being "seized" for determining your citizenship status, the dog is checking out the car, so theoretically, no additional delay is incurred.

GUWonder

Some do get rewarded for "false positives".

Wilbur

Because the US federal government has retreated from the US-Mexico border in Arizona, they have to set up their operations at a fall-back position and hope to do their job there.

Thus you get CBP hassling US citizens who are NOT trying to cross borders, but failing to police the actual illegal ENTRY of non-citizens into the US.

jco613

Do You Want To Drive Today?

cb1111

Then they are not properly trained. Depending on the training they received they may get a different reward for a false positive, but unless the training program was completely wacko, they would not get the same reward for a false positive as for a real hit.

chollie

Yup, makes perfect sense to me.

SFOSpiff

Then then Border Patrol must have dropped this piece of paper between their couch cushions when they reorganized post-9/11. In 1997, I was stopped at such a checkpoint somewhere southwest of Alamogordo, NM. There was no questioning of my citizenship status or whether I had illegals in my vehicle. It was entirely about drugs.

I cooperated, because I was terrified, but the guy was a jerk. He even said something like "come on, just tell us where the drugs are, and we'll let you go." (Sure, go to jail, go directly to jail, ...) However, I did not cooperate just this past year when a rural Nevada cop trumped up a speeding charge to strong-arm me into a drug search. I refused, and he let me go. No ticket, either, which means he was lying about that part.

GUWonder

It seems you have missed the point, which is in large point my fault (because I am not about to share some details about some criminal "investigations" done using dogs for detection purpose). The point is that some dogs do get rewarded by handlers for producing "false positives" on command.

Flaflyer

No but their owners do. Legal search or not, the cops steal I mean confiscate I mean sieze the $100,000 cash they find in the car and keep it.

I am so sad you and a million more like you are not ACTIVE LEOs. They need more like you.

The "Cops" type TV shows show hundreds of people getting stopped in a car or walking down the street and then
"Do you have any weapons or drugs in you pockets/car?'
"No."
"You don't mind if I check, just for my own safety, do you?"

Guilty or innocent, not ONCE has the person said "No" or "Let me see that written warrent with probable cause listed." Every idiot consents. From the myth that "cooperating" with the cop will somehow allow a better outcome. Some get busted when they would not have if they had said "No," as the cop has no probable cause to search them or their car at that point. The average person is so clueless about their rights, and the cops know it and prey on it.