N1120A

It has been a hell of a week for the constitutional rights of one N1120A. I decided not to raise a stink on this one because my Canadian citizen girlfriend (completely legally in the country to drop me off at the airport and a NEXUS holder) was seeing me off and I didn't want them harassing here.

Anyway, standing at the entrance to the TSA gauntlet at BUF was an armed Border Patrol agent (she had a colleague standing nearby too, along with ) demanding whether people were US citizens or not and demanding papers if they answered in the negative. This is Buffalo Niagara International Airport, not a checkpoint facility as outlined in Martinez-Fuerte. This essentially functioned as a suspicion-less, probable cause-less and assuredly warrantless stopping of people as they attempted to travel, only they were on foot in an airport as opposed to being in a car.

Anyone else experience something like this recently? Anyone else considering a complaint filing?

Firebug4

Yes, I have experienced this before. The officer can ask any question the officer wishes without a warrant even. You are under no obligation to answer. If the officer asks for documentation you don't have to show any if you chose not to unless the officer has developed probable cause. If the officer has developed probable cause the officer won't be asking anymore.
FB

N1120A

Except that they are standing in front of the access area, with threat of gun, and all passengers are being directed toward that lane (BUF has separate lanes for premium pax, families and those with medical liquids). That's a stop.

Now, and this is not a personal attack, I'll ask those who don't work for the agency who took this action to answer.

Firebug4

Sorry, you don't get to dictate who responds to the question. It would be wrong don't you think to discount someone who actually has technical knowledge and training. You are of course free to disagree but I have to tell you people accuse LEO's of having an US VS Them attitude that certainly is a two way street. You are incorrect it is not a stop. You are not required to answer the officers questions. This is a consensual encounter. You can chose to answer the question or not. If you chose not to the officer will move on. The officer can stand on a street corner, in front of the terminal, in front of the restroom, and decide to ask the same questions of whomever he wants. Those people have the same choice to answer or not. The secret is officers tend not to take it personally. They just move on.

As to your claim to a threat of a gun, Did the officer remove the gun from the holster? Did the officer have his hand on the gun? If not your claims of threat of a gun are nonsense. The gun is part officers required uniform and safety equipment. It is not at all out of the ordinary for a Law Enforcement Officer to be armed go figure.

Personal attack? I don't think so. The secret is to know what the rules are in reality, not what you think they should be or what in your opinion they should be If you don't like the laws get the representatives to change them. LEO's much prefer clear cut boundaries it makes life much easier. I generally speak about LEO's and specifically CBP Officers. They are not even close to a TSO. They are better trained and are not going to jeopardize their lively hood by dealing with you outside of the established rules. Frankly, there is no real reason to. There are way too many people that break any number of laws to find. You really don't have to look that hard. We really don't spend our off times thinking up new ways to make Joe Citizen's life difficult. We are human like everyone else. We have a job to do and parameters to do that job just like a suspect you do with your job. The only difference is everybody seems to think they know how to do the LEO's job better than him.

FB

N1120A

Sorry, but the majority of police I have come across act like they have far more power vested in them than they do and attempt to intimidate members of the public constantly. In general, only with the CHP have I actually had a majority of favorable encounters in everyday life, and even then I have seen CHP officers misquote the law in an attempt to intimidate and harass the general public.

Indeed, I have been ordered out of my car during a routine traffic stop, then had my car searched after expressly refusing the search. Just last week, if you didn't notice, I was placed in handcuffs and threatened with arrest when a pair of police officers claimed I had violated a code section that says nothing of the sort of what they claimed.

Incidentally, next time (and I hope there isn't a next time) I see one of these ridiculous things, I will specifically mention that a CBP officer told me that CBP considers this threatening behavior a consensual encounter and that I will not be answering any questions. I will also make a point of telling every person I see in the airport the same.

She rested her hand on her gun and blocked the entrance to the TSA line maze (BUF, if you haven't been there, is set up for way more people than it handles) as she demanded answers to her question.

I didn't say you or your colleagues were TSOs. That said, you do not have the limitless powers you often pretend you do.

CBP spends their time beating American citizens and illegally pulling them over and demanding papers. I consider that making "Joe Citizen's" life difficult.

bocastephen

Just curious - did you answer her question or decline?

clrankin

Fair enough. Thanks for the informative post. The only thing I'm left wishing is that the officer would somehow inform people of the above prior to asking, as (generally speaking) most people would tend to "obey" the "authority figure" who's asking the questions-- i.e. answer the questions without a second thought. If they knew they could blow them off, that would be better.

But then again I guess that it also needs to be up to each individual citizen to know his/her rights and understand that s/he doesn't have to answer if they don't want to...

NY-FLA

This is interesting. I observed similar early in March at ROC. The checkpoint line there usually "Y"'s to 2 different "TDC" podiums. Behind each "TDCO" was a uniformed CBP agent staring down each pax as they presented their travel documents, in the hope of being a lucky lowly passenger granted permission to fly that day by the McNeil Security officer used in lieu of TSA at ROC. The CBP officers did not ask any questions of any lowly pax while I was in line; next time I may use a non-US passport as ID to see if the CBP officers will spring in to action at such a sight.

Conceptually, I suppose, these types of dragnet are no different from the southern border roadblocks (eg the particularly annoying I-5 check-point at San Onofre), and this is a logical expansion for the frog slowly boiled in water process.

Objectively though, these checks are nothing but harassment of regular people who are fortunate enough to travel by air and unfortunate enough to be leaving from an airport at DHS's designated internal border. They are symptomatic of how paranoid and petty the US federal government and its agencies have become; a sad ode to what was once a strong, free and vital country.

Firebug4

I am well aware of your encounter at TSA. Now I have become kind of curious. What type of law do you practice? It is not that CBP considers this a consensual encounter the courts consider this a consensual encounter. This is NOT a new procedure. CBP has been doing airport, bus, and train terminal checks for long before CBP existed. It was done by Border Patrol when they were under the now defunct INS decades ago.

As for your encounter during your routine traffic stop, what did you do about it if you felt the officer didn't have probable cause? Did you follow up? Did you file a complaint?

I don't believe nor pretend to have limitless powers. However, I am well aware of exactly how far my authority extends and can document that with the statues and the case law. Unlike TSA we are not operating in a vacuum. Our laws and regs are clearly published for anyone to read. Our laws and regs are not new and most have already gone through a legal challenge or two in court. It appears you don't agree with the court interpretation of those laws and regulations. You don't have to agree though you should probable understand that the "system" so to speak is going to operate by those rules you don't agree with. You should know that better than most counselor.

If you really want to discuss use of force, we can do that as well. I am guessing you are referring to the pastor and his video. We will all see how that plays out in court. I will comment this far. The pastor was told to move his vehicle to the secondary area. He chose not to. He ultimately was arrested by state authorities for blocking the highway. That kind of illustrates the point I have been trying to make. If you don't agree with something there are forums to fight, argue and debate including court. The place for that argument to take place is NOT the side of a road. Many would agree that the good pastor had spent many many hours baiting the officers to get exactly the response that he eventually got. Again, in protest of something that has already been decided by the US Supreme Court. You can jump up and down all you want and scream that it is illegal. You are entitled to do that however it is just your opinion and you are not a US Supreme Court Judge yet and that is whose opinion really matters. There are many things as an officer I wish I could do. There are many things I could do before but can't do now. That is the nature of the legal system it changes usually slowly but it changes. I don't get angry. I just adapt to the new rules. I don’t get try to prove that I am right and the court is wrong by my actions cause that would be illegal and more than likely violating someone’s rights would it not?

FB

PoliceStateSurvivor

+1, with very, very deep sadness, if not disgust.

Firebug4

Someday that change may happen. In some states in regards to a consent search of a vehicle the officer has to exactly what you are suggesting. The courts ruled that the officer has to tell the subject that he has the right to refuse the search. If that change ever occurs the LEO's will adapt and continue to do their jobs within the parameters that exist at the time.

FB

nrgiii

If it were only that simple. The fact is that any question or request by a LEO *is* intimidating to most people. Why? Because the LEO has the power to make life miserable, or at least cause great inconvenience. If I refuse to answer, I could be detained for questioning and/or handcuffed and/or arrested. The fact that a charge would not pass muster in court, or that a charge might never be filed, is immaterial. Even being detained for 15 minutes could be hugely inconvenient if I miss my flight. All LEOs at airports know this. Heck, even the TSOs know this.

This is why most people don't mess with LEO. Not just because people don't know their rights (although most don't) or don't have the cajones to push back (some don't), but because they know that LEO can cause huge inconvenience for which there is virtually no recourse.

nrg

codex57

I sure as hell hope that's never required. The people on FT tend to be pretty knowledgeable on their rights. That's cuz they took the effort to read up on it.

This is pure opinion, and it's just my personal opinion, but I think there are people who absolutely do not deserve the rights that they are entitled to. Btw the Bill of Rights and many other procedural requirements, these idiots are protected anyways. With all the protections built in (right to an attorney, Miranda, etc), is it too much to ask that citizens make that small effort to learn a bit about their rights?

After all, there are plenty of dumb criminals out there (mixed in with the dumb law abiding citizen). Frankly, if an officer wants to sit out there and ask people if they've broken the law or not, why prevent dumb criminals from doing so? Why prevent a fishing expedition if they don't go beyond yanking up the ones that bite hook, line, and sinker? If civil liberties is something you want protected badly, take the small effort to know your rights and then assert them. Most people don't care for something like that. It's like the receipt checker at Walmart. Some people raise holy hell about it, but the great majority are sheeple and couldn't care less. By not caring, they don't raise their blood pressure and the extra 10 seconds doesn't affect their day any.

There's a huge difference btw a cop on a fishing expedition who backs off if you assert your rights vs the TSO who doesn't even know what your rights are even when it's printed in their own documentation.

You're projecting TSO behavior onto LEO. There's a pretty big distinction, which is why FT members are so up in arms about TSOs trying to deputize themselves.

Yes, intimidation is in the arsenal of an LEO officer. However, they're much more highly trained and understand intimidation is just a tactic. If it fails, they move on rather than try and start a pissing match. For example, you show a LEO that a Nexus card is listed right on their own department's web page as a valid form of ID, they have the brains to accept it and move on. They won't blindly ignore it like TSO will in some bizarre chest puffing ritual.

nrgiii

So you're saying what the OP described doesn't qualify as the same type of behavior?

PoliceStateSurvivor

I believe this post hits the nail on the head.

Let's not kid ourselves. An LEO is a profession that gives a lot of power, real or perceived. For this reason, IMO, it tends to attract people with unhealthy lust for power as well as just plain old schoolyard bullies. Some of them are weeded out (and, I suspect, later end up as TSOs or retail loss prevention "officers"), but others make successful careers because they "get the job done". IMO, these are the types that can cause a lot of inconvenience, to say the least, and there is no way of telling them apart from the good ones.