I agree with you. I have been saying that all along. My issue with recording is how it is used. I have said all along that I don't object to video as long as it is regarded as a tool and not the end all solution. Video used in a courtroom while true that the jury very likely does not have the expertise to judge it by itself is being given information by experts that do know what they are looking at and is being guided by a judge who does have an understanding of the legal principles in play, in theory anyway.

There is no legal prohibition against video recording in a checkpoint per se. There are things in the checkpoint that cannot be recorded (equipment not actions). POE's are little different because they are owned by the government and have restricted access regulations that go with them.

That being said, depending on the circumstances of the encounter if you are the person I am dealing with you will not be holding things in your hands. You can have someone else do the recording but it will be from a distance. You can put the recording device on something in order to catch the encounter but you are not going to be holding it while the officer is physical proximity and depending on the circumstances.

Cell phones are pretty problematic. Cell phones are used pretty extensively to facilitate smuggling so much so that our officers are not supposed to be carrying them, unless they are government issued, in the primary or secondary environment.

FB

Nevermind....

Although it would be nice to get a straight answer from someone claiming to be CBP as to what a person with no proof of citizenship is supposed to do when asked at one of these checkpoints.

You know in this country even the people who create the laws are not required to be legal experts. Members of Congress might be lawyers but they could just as easily be a TV comedian.

I think you are holding these experts up on a pedestal and I'm not so sure that is the right thing to do. I may not know the law but I do think I have the ability to know when something is wrong. Case in point, one of the internal checkpoint frequent flyers recorded a CBP agent who brandished a weapon for no apparent reason. The guy was in his car behind a closed window and made no threats. I would say the CBP employee stepped over the line but without the citizens video of the event we would never see it because CBP would cover up for its employee even if the event was captured on a CBP camera.

Again, I don't think most people are particularly stupid, have fairly good reasoning abilities, and can tell when events are not being conducted properly.

I think citizen videos of LEO's is just a tool to help keep cops honest or document when they are not.

You do realize that my quote that you used for this post was sarcasim. I was trying to point out to him that it is unlikely that US citizens would have a passport card on them.

To address your statement in this specific post, you are missing the finer points of the legal principle of investigative detention and the Supreme courts decision on BP checkpoints. What exact definition are you referring to? Please cite it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of your person at a Border Patrol checkpoint to determine citizenship and/or immigration status is a reasonable detention. It does not say that a US citizen has to provide citizenship documents on demand. If you are asked to provide citizenship documents, can't or won't provide them and are a US citizen, the agent or officer will attempt to use other methods to determine citizenship, you can be detained while this occurs and the court has determined this to be reasonable.

This does not translate in to a requirement a citizen provide documentation on demand. The officer or agent cannot arrest (different than a detention) a US Citizen even at a checkpoint because they cannot or will not provide documentation. It is the Citizen choice to provide it or not if requested.

Pesky things like legal facts getting in the way if perfectly good indignation.

FB

And no one sees this as a problem? Wow. Just wow. As a previously single woman driving through the desert alone outside of cell phone reception, this sets off all sorts of alarm bells.

Just goes to show it's not serial killers you need to worry about, it's your own government. But then, we knew that.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei.........0.&pbx=1

Read them for yourself. The last thing people usually accuse me of is not being able to cite sources. That was just the beginning of any real serious research on the subject. I have a more than passing interest in that particular subject as my wife is a mid-level provider and we spend a significant amount of money between her and my professional liability insurance.

FB

You were given a straight answer. You just didn't like the answer or agree with it.

FB

Apparently, quite a few people do not see this as a problem. Perhaps that is telling you something.

FB

Like I said, "exponentially" is up for debate.

Unfortunately, the government depends on sheep to maintain control.

For any of us who disagree with the federal US policies on this matter, I would encourage ya'll to:

1. write to your local congressman and senator
2. during subsequent federal elections, vote for individuals who are committed to your views, values, etc. on the topic.
3. volunteer to help on said candidate's campaign.

....because as the US Declaration of Independence states, "We the people."

How can a cell phone be used to facilitate smuggling?

The same people who passed the Patriot Act. Yeah, they care about liberty.

I've travelled in former Eastern Bloc countries, African dictatorships and countries run by military juntas where roadside document checks are not unusual. It is surprising and sad that the U.S.A., a country I once held in high regard, is now becoming more like them.

When LE pulls out a weapon they're intending to harm. (If they're not then they don't understand the nature of weapons.)

Doctors aren't (usually (ie. nutters excepted)) intending to harm when they pull out a scalpel or compression bandage or bed pan. Moreover, independent oversight often exists for the medical profession. LE (incl CBP) fights very hard to deny any sort of oversight, let alone independent.

And, more importantly, he didn't bother to substantiate his claim in the first place. Hence my reply to him. Or her. :)