Actually, you are wrong - as a perm resident, you must carry your papers at all times... see, for example, pg 8 of http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf

In addition to their entertainment value, some of these videos are quite instructional in terms of your rights at one of these checkpoints. Asking if you are being detained is a critical question to keep asking. Based on the stammering, lies, intimidation, etc, that the CBP agents consistently display in these videos in response to this question, they know you have them dead to rights. Their only recourse for retaliation is to either intimidate you into consenting to a search or do a fake dog hit.

A couple of years ago, they literally assaulted an activist pastor (U.S. citizen) which resulted in a huge lawsuit win. Regretfully, even this victory won't change their tactics. A guy named Steve Bressi is also legendary in this effort to take back our Constitution in the border states.

My advise is this:

Stop at the checkpoint. If they ask you your citizenship, say "US". If they ask anything else, then ask "Am I being detained?". The video examples are pretty good at that point.

They know that they have no real legal grounds to stop you. That doesn't prevent them from stopping you, since the vast majority of people will comply with their demands. I've passed through these checkpoints maybe a dozen times, maybe more, and have never been asked for more than a verbal declaration.

However, if I ever am asked for more, I will ask if I'm being detained, and will refuse to allow a search of my auto without a search warrant. I doubt if it will come to that though.

The incident you are referring to happened to Pastor Steve Anderson at an inland border patrol checkpoint, here is the YouTube video of his encounter with the CBP

http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc.

Fortunately for him he had his cell phone on record and recorded the whole incident with audio. He pleaded not guilty and his whole trial is on YouTube in 5 parts and he was found not guilty on all the charges. I have seen the video of the incident on YouTube, but can’t seem to find in lately so it might have been removed because he has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety and specifically against the 2 APS officers involved, one who has since retired so this is probably the reason for the removal of this video.

Pastor Anderson has loaded numerous videos of his encounters at these CBP inland checkpoints, I believe he works for a fire detection company and in his travels has to pass through these checkpoints and always refuses to comply with the CBP requests for declaring himself a citizen and refusing to comply with orders to pull over for a secondary inspection. In one video he declares himself a child of Israel when asked if he is a US Citizen as he reads the verse from the Bible and in another he tells the CBP agent that he can help save the agent and quotes from the Bible. To me has has made a mockery of the CBP agents and it appears some of these agents are a little short in the intelligence level and I don’t know how they managed to get hired, but from what we have seen with the TSA, due to the CBP’s rapid expansion they must have lowered their intelligence requirements, what is scary is unlike the TSA screeners these CBP agents are armed.

There are also many more videos posted on YouTube of other people who refuse to cooperate, in one video the driver refuses to say anything, he just stares at the agent until the agent lets him go, in another the driver hands the agent a preprinted card declaring himself a US citizen and says nothing to the agent.

From what I have seen in the videos, the CBP agents do not like being recorded and it appears the best protection against abusive agents is to always have you cell phone on record and make it clear to the agents that you are recording them either by telling them or just have the cell phone or any other recording device in plain view.

In some videos as the drivers refused to cooperate the agents take pictures of the driver, remember that the CBP uses facial recognition software and they download these pictures into a database so while you might think they are just taking your picture to record the event, that are actually downloading it into their databases so the best way to counter this is not to look at the camera and if possible wear sunglasses

The CBP uses the term mere suspicion as their legal grounds to search your car at these inland checkpoints, at a port of entry the CBP can do anything they want for even the slightest reason because they have the right to, this includes even stripping your car down to nothing and if they do not find anything you get your car back in pieces and good luck in trying to get the US government to pay for the damages.

These CBP inland checkpoints were ruled legal by the US Supreme Court in the case of US vs. Martinez-Fuerte, here is the Courts opinion.


The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.
The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.
However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols [as opposed to permanent checkpoints]." 428 U.S. 543, 567 (1976).



This ruling says the agents need consent or probable cause at a fixed checkpoint, but the CBP in the videos posted claim all they need is mere suspicion, the term mere suspicion is not a legal term recognized in any court of law, do a google search on it and nothing comes up, this term was invented by the CBP and it appears only in their field manuals, the court ruling says that the CBP can use a lower form of probable cause, but somehow they must have interpreted this to be mere suspicion as the legal basis to search.

I would like to hear form our resident CBP agent Firebug4 about the term mere suspicion as it is being used by the CBP as a basis for searches.

F4 is right about not stopping at these checkpoints, you will be arrested, these checkpoints are legal and you have to stop. But unlike a Point of Entry where you have no constitutional rights, they are all in effect at the checkpoint, Martinez-Furte clearly states so and the Federal Law that allowed these checkpoints only says they have the right to ask you if you are a US Citizen, not anything else like where you are coming from or going to and you have the right not to answer any of these questions if you do not want to. There is no law on the Federal level that a US citizen must have any form of ID with you at all times unless entering the country or flying on an airline, and the only ID you need to carry on you is your drivers license when you are operating a motor vehicle.

Pastor Anderson has proved on numerous videos where he tells them it is none of their business and even tells them that when they ask him if he is a citizen, in most cases the agent calls for a supervisor and the supervisor eventually lets him go on his way.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that it is legal for a LEO to use a drug dog to sniff the outside of a car without any reason for suspicion, you cannot be pulled over for the sole purpose of a drug dog search, but if stopped for any other reason they have the right to do so within a limited time frame, but once the traffic stop is over, the LEO cannot detain you any more if the K9 officer has not shown up. There is also other videos on YouTube where former drug officers say that if they suspect drugs in a car, all they have to do is follow the car for a few miles and they will find a reason to pull the car over, in one video the officer pulled the car over for going 3 miles per hour over the speed limit.

One thing on this point, I believe CBP agents do not have the right to pull motorists over for traffic violations, they are not trained or certified to do so, the only reason they can pull a motorist over is if they have reasonable suspicion the motorist is carrying illegal aliens or smuggling drugs

In these videos the officers also said that drug dogs can also be trained by their handlers to respond the same way when they find drugs by either a voice command or a hand gesture and Pastor Anderson feels this was done by the CBP agent because they refused to do the drug dog check the second time when the APS officer requested it.

I know this response has been quite lengthy, the CBP has a serious job to do, keeping out and apprehending illegal aliens and apprehending the drug smugglers and I applaud them for their work, but when they step over the boundary line and clearly violate the Supreme Court’s rulings and US citizens rights at these checkpoints they must be held accountable for these violations. And as Pastor Anderson has said, this country is fast becoming a police state.

Mr. Elliott

You actually don't have anyone dead to rights. The correct answer to that question being repeated is YES. The supreme court has ruled repeatedly that immigration checkpoints are indeed a detention a reasonable detention but still a detention to determine immigration status.

I suggest that if you wish to change the CBP policy on this lawful detention you get together with many of likeminded folks and petition congress to change the law. The courts have been pretty clear on this topic. If you are a US citizen, state that you are and move on. IF you are not a US Citizen, you are required to carry the document that allows you to be in the United States. If an LPR that would be your Lawful permanent resident card, If a visitor your passport and visa will do it.

FB

Some of what you have written is correct or at least very close most of the time.

A couple of things, the agents at the BP checkpoints have the right to ask whatever they like. You have the right to answer or not to answer except for the question of Nationality. The Supreme Court ruled that this seizure (that is what it is) is reasonable to determine Nationality. If you refuse to answer that question the officer can continue to detain you.

A search of your vehicle at a Border Patrol checkpoint requires either consent or probable cause.

I have limited exposure to the term mere suspicion. I have seen it in training materials. It was used to describe conditions needed in reference to Border Search only. It should not be used in the context of a Border Patrol checkpoint. There is also another term that is used in the other end of the spectrum. "Reasonable certainty" this is used in reference to extended Border Search. This is the supposed "100 mile constitution free zone" almost always misunderstood and misrepresented. The government does not have the right to search anything within 100 miles of the border. They do have the right to search conveyances and people within 100 miles of the border as long as they have these three things.

1. Reasonable certainty that the conveyance crossed the border. This is higher than probable cause. It means the conveyance had to have been under surveillance from the time it crossed the border to where it is to be searched.

2. Reasonable certainty that the conveyance has not materially changed since it crossed the border. Meaning nothing added to the conveyance or the chance that anything was added.

3. Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Lose any of those 3 things no search without probable cause.

In some jurisdictions, Border Patrol agents can perform vehicle stops for traffic violations. They have been commissioned by local authorities to perform that function. This is not by any means nationwide but be aware that it does exist in parts of the country.

With all that said, you should keep this in mind. A law enforcement officer is not required to tell you what his reasonable suspicion or probable cause is. The LEO only has to provide that information in court or court documents. The place to fight those battles is in court not on the side of the road.

FB

ok, assuming those are legal. What happens when CBP is not satisfied with "yes"?
As OP noted - they were asked for passport.
What if its a car with 4 heavy accented individuals - all of which are US citizens. Should they be carrying passports now?
Spend hours in secondary?

1 minute of legal research comes up with the following, from a US Court of Appeal 6th Circuit case decided this month (June, 2013):
I am not a criminal attorney and I didn't read the cases cited, but it is clearly a term used in the criminal law.

Thanks Firebug for your response, at least you clarify to the best of your knowledge the term mere suspicion, but unfortunately in many of the posted videos at CBP inland checkpoints the agents are using the term mere suspicion as just cause to send someone over to secondary inspection, so apparently these field agents, I am sure with their field supervisors approval are clearly violating the SCOTUS ruling in Martinez-Furte which clearly states reasonable suspicion is needed for a secondary inspection.

There is no law in this country that says a US citizen has to carry proof of citizenship to travel within the borders of the US, yet the OP was ordered to show her passport after I am sure she declared her citizenship to the CBP agents, to me this was a clear violation of Martinez-Furte unless the CBP agents had reasonable suspicion that she was not a US citizen

I know that in some counties in Arizona, the counties have deputized CBP agents as sheriffs so they could arrest and fine travelers heading back to California who are found to carrying a small amount of marijuana found during a secondary inspection or by a drug dog. Arizona has a zero tolerance policy where California allows a small amount for personal use so this is a way for the Arizona county to make money without tying up their deputies, they get a lot of California college students headed back from Lake Havasu during spring break this way.

I would assume that being deputized as sheriffs this would also allow the CBP agents to pull motorists over for traffic violations but if they did and were not properly trained and certified to do so, CBP could be open to a large lawsuit if they did.

There is a video of someone who defied the CBP agents at an inland checkpoint, after he left the checkpoint he was pulled over by a local police officer and issued a summons for obstructing traffic at the checkpoint. The local police officer turned out to be an Indian tribal police officer who had no jurisdiction on non indian state property, he fought the summons in court and it was dismissed. He then filed a lawsuit and settled for $200.000 dollars, I don’t know who paid the judgment, but it is nearly impossible to sue an Indian tribe because they are considered a sovereign nation so it might have been the CBP because they were the ones who called in the tribal police officer in the first place.

I have watched almost all of Pastor Andersons 5 hour trial that is posted on YouTube and his lawyers made the CBP agents look like bumbling fools and plus the fact he had recorded the stop as well and I feel this is the reason the judge dropped all the charges against him. But the CBP agents were smart in they let the Arizona DPS officers do all their dirty work for them, they just stood back and watched, I don’t know if Pastor Anderson has included CBP in his lawsuit he filed against the Arizona DPS, but my feelings in this is Pastor Anderson is going to get a very large donation from the state of Arizona deposited into his retirement account.

There is another video posted where the driver recognized the CBP agent as the same one who initially stopped Pastor Anderson and they asked him if he was the one in Pastor Anderson’s video, the CBP agent, clearly embarrassed about his fame then cleared the motorist without getting a conformation that they were US citizens.

There is also another video of a CBP agent ordering a motorist over to secondary after he refused to allow the CBP agent to search his trunk, the agents excuse for the search, the car looked too dirty, the motorist refused and he was let go after a brief detainment without his vehicle being searched.

Pastor Anderson has clearly shown is at least a dozen videos that the CBP agents back down when confronted, either they already know who he is and don’t want to get involved with him in any way or know how far they can go without getting in trouble,

I think this video is his best and as usual he did not answer the question if he was a US citizen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFxijuRjX1U

Mr. Elliott

Seems to me that deputizing a CBP agent and allowing them to issue traffic citations could lead to a waste of resources.

If a CBP agent issues me a traffic citation and I decide to go to court to fight it, does the federal taxpayer really have to pony up to pay for the CBP officer sitting around in court? Or does CBP then seek reimbursement from local LE?

In spite of what some say, if a CBP officer at one of these checkpoints decides to interrogate the occupants of an automobile, demand to see ID, demand to search the vehicle, it is a brave citizen indeed who will risk saying 'no'. An honest agent without a chip on his/her shoulder may allow it, but it is equally likely that the agent will turn the encounter into a p*ssing match, and everything is in his favor.

Unfortunately, it is equally questionable whether or not more professional agents and supervisors on duty will call 'foul' or just back the agent up.

Functionally, you have no 'rights' in any encounter with CBP. Anyone believing otherwise and attempting to exercise their 'rights' is taking a big risk, IMHO. Much better to practice humility, obsequiousness, 'yessir'/'yes maam' everything, copious butt-kissing all around.

This is wrong, since we have NO way of knowing where these checkpoints are, except by prior experience (unless they listed somewhere?). It seems strange that you can give up your rights without prior knowledge - after all, even DUI checkpoints are required to be published. Not that I believe in butt-kissing someone trampling my rights to begin with.

Yeah, this. In my case, I answered "US". I was still asked for my passport. I do not look "foreign" and have a Southern accent. What if I hadn't had it? I shouldn't have to prove citizenship to travel internally anyway. Not to mention most people can't.

I think from now on, I will answer the question with, "What do you think?"

Not. True.

People with GC's have to carry them ("papers please"), but there's a whole range of visa classes that don't need to carry passports and don't have GC's. L and most H classes, for example.

Can. You. Cite. Source?

My husband has often taken the snarky route when replying to CBP questions and usually that does not go too well for him. You could just consider something like "I'm sorry but I was not planning any international travel this trip so my passport is back home in _state_where_you_live_. But here is my driver's license if you would like that instead."

I believe you are mistaken here. CBP does not need to be deputized by anybody to make an arrest or fine for possession of marijuana. Regardless of local or state regulations marijuana is still classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal by federal law. All CBP personnel are operating under federal law and regardless of what state they are in, persons transporting such drugs, are subject to arrest or fine.