deleted.

"What happens if I pick a fight with a CBP officer?" is not a simple question, and that is what is being asked here. There is little doubt that some of the practices of DHS, particularly with regards to individual officers, pushes right up against the edge of constitutionality, and may even cross it. However, the only way unconstitutional practices get corrected is in the courts, and that takes attorneys. An individual citizen, particularly a non-lawyer, is not going to get anything changed by simply challenging everything that a CBP officer does.

I don't think that's what's being asked. The question was "What do I have to say?" And the answers have ranged from [to paraphrase] "Citizenship & nothing else" to "Grovel in the hope they don't decide to kill you & then cover it up."

For the vast majority of interactions it will be somewhere in between & it's up to the individual to decide what/how they deal with it.

If you read my posts (on this thread and elsewhere), you will see that I don't advocate picking fights or standing up for one's self (absent very very very careful consideration) in any CBP/LE/TSA/etc. encounter. In fact, I shamelessly advocate what I myself do: humility, sir/ma'am, non-confrontational behavior to the nth degree. I'm also not trying to change anything. I see no action an ordinary citizen such as myself can take to hope for change. I once believed in communicating with my representatives about this, but ever since Napolitano proposed some kind of 'domestic extremist' classification, I've ceased to even do that.

I was addressing a very specific question, not making a broad brush statement. I've frequently read and heard that US citizens have nothing to fear at these roadblocks, because all one has to do is answer the citizenship question, there is no obligation to do more. In point of fact, it appears that one's legal situation at the checkpoint is much more complex. I've read that one has the option to decline to open the trunk or allow the car to be searched, but it appears that such searches are perfectly legal and one will comply. The question: if I declare US citizenship but I am asked for a passport that I don't have, what happens next (should or will or may) was never addressed in any way.

Functionally, IMHO, one will comply immediately and promptly with all CBP orders or potential consequences, the nature of which depend on the agent. Legally? I have no idea what is and is not legal at a roadblock. Like TSA checkpoints or VIPR operations, I have no idea what is legal, but I do know that my 'rights' are whatever the person in uniform in front of me says they are. Acting in any other way is inviting real trouble.

My comment about attorneys addresses this. There is no where I can go to find out what is proper or improper conduct at a CBP roadblock (for example, if I look like a 'perv', can a roadblock search demand to see my phone, laptop, camera? - IIRC, this can happen at the actual border). I've seen colorful debates (on the internet and on TV and in print) where attorneys have discussed the allowable permutations of the 'administrative search' and concluded that absent a definitive SCOTUS ruling, there is nothing close to an concrete answer.

Now they want to hire 40,000 more Border Patrol Agents to "secure the border" . Now guess how many of them will actually be posted at the border. Not to mention that at least half will probably be former TSA drones. :(

You are right it is all about jurisdiction. US Customs and Border Protections jurisdiction is the entire United States. CBP authority does not stop at the Border, 50 miles from the Border, or 100 miles from the Border. What those authorities are can be have different distinctions depending where the officer is and the nature of the encounter. It has always been such. CBP Officers get their authority from Title 8 and Title 19. There have been no significant changes to those titles in decades except for the name changes such as Immigration (INS) to CBP and Customs to CBP. Some of the concepts being discussed here are very old. Border Search authority came into being with the First Congress and is just as old as the 4th amendment itself.

In your I-8 example, you would be arrested because possession of drugs is a Federal crime. CBP is authorized to enforce Title 8, Title 19, Title 18, Title 21 and many others but those are the big ones. You are getting hung up on the title of the agency. This is an error. You must understand what the agencies authority is, what laws they enforce, and where the agency derives the authority to enforce such.

To further expound on your I-8 example you specify gown so I will assume until you say otherwise you are talking MJ. The Federal government is not really interested too much in MJ unless you are talking about in the hundreds of pounds. If you are talking about that much, chances are strongly in the favor that it was not locally grown. Any other drug (coke, heroin, and in most cases meth) was not manufactured in the United States and most certainly crossed the Border.

You say the DEA or locals should get court approval to set up checkpoints? CBP has done exactly that and the court has ruled repeatedly that they are both legal and constitutional. So where do we do from there?

FB

I find the bolded part somewhat interesting. I believe that this is not the first time you have mentioned the DOJ stepping in to monitor or correct a law enforcement agency. The practices we are discussing concerning Border Patrol checkpoints have been in practice for decades back when there was a Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol fell under INS. Nothing really significant has changed at all in that time. You are aware that INS an in turn Border Patrol was an agency that fell under and were controlled policy wise by the DOJ. The very same policies being used today were in force and approved by the DOJ.

I am not saying that CBP as an agency is never at fault. I never even implied that. However, this discussion has not really been about specific instances or cases. It has been about the general practices that happen at checkpoints. There appears to have been disagreement concerning the whole practice and what is allowed and not. I have discussed what happens; to the extent I can why it happens, and some of the court decisions that have formulated the policies in use. I am well aware that there are cases that officers do not act appropriately. However, there are cases where the officer did act appropriately but the traveler or the public do not believe the officer did. This can happen because the traveler or the public does not truly understand the legal concepts at work. This can also happen because the traveler or the individual member of the public does not agree with the legal concept or the courts interpretation. In either case, that does not make what the officer did wrong. Again, I am not saying nor implying that the officer is always correct because they are not.

The issue that appears to concern you the most, and by all means correct me if I am wrong, what happens if a US Citizen does not have documentation at a checkpoint and is asked to produce that documentation. I have indicated to you that 9 time out of 10 the verbal assertion of US Citizenship absent any other indicators will be enough. If you don't have any documentation, you have no other choice but to tell the officer you don't have any. The officer will at that point have to determine based on what information he already has that he is satisfied that you are a US Citizen. If he is satisfied, you go on your way. If he is not satisfied, he can detain you to investigate your citizenship or immigration status. The officer will have to have reasonable suspicion to justify that detention. The lack of documentation will not be enough to meet that detention standard. I believe that you seem to be looking for an assurance that if a US citizen cannot show documentation that they are a US citizen that the encounter will end. No one can give you that assurance because there can be circumstances that warrant a continued investigation.
FB

Deleted.

Sorry for the late response on the bolded comment. I have addressed the rest of this post in other responses. Anyway, on to what I meant in reference to the bolded part, I am not saying CBP never screws up but yes I am saying that video if it is going to be used to support discipline, civil actions or worst yet criminal actions it should be viewed and evaluated by individuals that understand what they are seeing. It should be performed by people that have an understanding, experience and grounding in the legal concepts that are in play.

This is no different than any other profession. The general public does not have input when there are problems in other professions. If a doctor is suspected of screwing up the general public doesn't examine his actions the medical review board does. If pilot has issues, it is another pilot that performs the review and subsequent check flights, If a lawyer screws up, it is the bar association that is doing the reviewing. The list goes on.

In addition, do you really believe that the public should have access to all the information that is in play? That means the public would have not only access to the officer information, but also defendant information, witness information, and victim information. All that and more have bearing on all encounters. This is not an agency being secretive or without independent oversight. It is protecting not only the officer’s rights but everyone else’s rights and privacy that are involved. The occupations I mentioned above are all overseen by industry organizations not exactly what would be called independent oversight. Yet, the public is not on the news and the internet judging their actions to the extent that happens with law enforcement.

I really don't understand the belief that you and some of the public seem to have that without any training or experience you can just evaluate and judge an occupation that can be very complex, involved and ever changing.
FB

Stop typing while I am it is hard to keep up. :P See the response that I posted above this. It answers some of this but I will respond anyway. It is not oversight that I am against or independent oversight. It is civilian oversight at I have a problem with if those civilians have no training in the matters that they are overseeing.

This conversation has spanned several days with many posts and you still do not have the correct understand of the legal concepts in play.

Nowhere in this thread did anyone say that you are required to open the trunk or allow the car to be searched absent probable cause unless you are at a land border POE. You have admitted the legal situation is complex. That is exactly my point the situations are complex and a civilian with no training at all is not qualified to judge if a law enforcement officers actions were correct or not.

I don't say that to disrespect your opinion at all. I say that because it appears to me (again correct me if I am wrong) that you believe that you would be qualified to evaluate videos and be civilian oversight. There already is oversight in place. It is the court system. That is where these disputes should be played out. There is a judge who is versed in the law and expert witnesses that understand the issues can be used by both sides.

FB

If DHS/CBP were further restricted in its activities in the US and abroad, the resources could be used to expedite admission of US persons on arrival to the US.

As it is, the practical result of non-border DHS/CBP checks is that it consumes resources -- not exactly like DHS/CBP spending resources to "secure" Afghanistan but that also consumes resources -- even as we have ridiculously long delays for even US citizen passengers waiting to be cleared at CBP-controlled areas at US ports of entry.

If it weren't also for slow baggage delivery at US ports of entry -- due in some part to CBP too -- more passengers would be more annoyed with CBP than is currently the case and the practical focus would be more on limiting CBP than is currently the situation.

Nothing is going to change in this regard anytime soon, in large part because of the narrowly-tailored way in which oversight is currently managed.

We can continue to play word games if you would like. Your posts came across and could be construed to suggest that there are classes of non-immigrants that do not have to have documentation in their physical possession to prove their Immigration status to an Immigration Officer upon request.

This is false as has been cited in the posts above. Non-Immigrant visa holders have to have documentation in their physical possession including H's and L's. Part of why I like to visit these forums is to correct the incorrect information that is posted such as situations like this. I do this for the many that lurk and don't post but could read your posts take away the wrong information and end up in a lot of trouble. You of course can say you were technically right regardless of the impression your posts gave but that really isn’t very helpful to the person that got in trouble.

FB

Follow it on the 'other' IBB.

So, are you saying that the court system is not an appropriate place for oversight? You also didn't address any of the other point’s concern access to other information. Why don't other occupations need "civilian oversight"? Medical errors kill, maim, and otherwise cause harm to significantly more individuals than law enforcement yet no massive outcry for civilian oversight for them.

What training should these civilians receive and how much should they receive? Do you still believe that an individual is required to open their trunk or submit to a vehicle search absent probable cause? What constitutes probable cause? These are just some of the concepts that we discussed in this thread. You asked the questions as a third party and still didn't get it right in the recent posts above. In this instance, you would be coming down on the incorrect side of the equation and ruling against the public individual if it was a matter of a BP agent forcing a search absent probable cause.

I am not against oversight, independent or otherwise, I am against oversight by people with no training or understanding of the job. Oversight by people with the opposite bias is just as bad oversight with the bias you believe exists. Or do you believe that there is no way that a civilian can have bias against an organization or institution?

A lot of these concepts sound great on paper but in practice not so much. You can have too much of a good thing or in some cases too much political correctness. For example, New York City council would like to pass an ordinance that would make it illegal for Law Enforcement to use any physical descriptors to describe suspects only clothing. You would not be able to use age, gender, race, or disability to describe wanted individuals. Picture this precinct 55 you are looking for a rape suspect white shirt, blue jeans can't give you any further description good luck narrowing that down in New York. This comes from a misguided urge to fix something they perceive as broken yet have no expertise or understanding of the damage their "fix" is going to cause. It is dangerous for the officers but more importantly it is more dangerous for the public because you can’t be told anything more either.

Also, in addition, just for accuracy you should go back and have a look at the Rodney King video. RK was not handcuffed nor facedown at the time the blows were delivered. I would hope some better research would be done by these civilian oversight people. It is also interesting that you say what happened before makes no difference. Are you aware of what happened before the video started? Are you aware of the two other occupants of the vehicle that complied with the lawful orders after the high speed chase were taken into custody without incident? Are you aware that Rodney King was tased twice without effect before the video started? Are you aware that Rodney King was struck thirty three times with a baton? However, only the last six strikes where deemed out of policy and were the factors that convicted the two officers in Federal Court after being exonerated in state court. You should read the actual transcript of the Federal decision. You would find even in Federal Court RK did not come across as the innocent victim that the media portrays. I wholeheartedly agree to the fact that the RK video is disturbing and if I was there I can’t say that I would have let thirty three strikes happen but the officers had tried other options, options that are supposed to work better than a baton. I also have the luxury of being behind a computer screen, having lots of time to consider options, not having just witnessed two taser deployments be ineffective. The fact is use of force, any use of force, is ugly.

FB

Duplicate post