Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Border Patrol - random sideroad stop

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 1:07 pm
  #106  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grantham, NH
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by DevilDog438
Checkpoints may be established within 100 miles of any border, which includes the coastlines.
Indeed, Hartland VT (just under 100 miles as the crow flies from the CA border) has a CBP checkpoint on I-91, but it's seldomly staffed these days.

When it is staffed, it's not too unusual for them to pull random people over on US-5, which parallels I-91.

These sorts of checkpoints bother me (I have to deal with the checkpoints near Yuma, AZ as well). Nothing like being a US Citizen, driving between two points in my own country, and have some guy stop me, conduct vehicle searches, and ask detailed questions about who I am and where I'm going.
kaszeta is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 1:29 pm
  #107  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Indian Harbour Beach, Fla, USA
Programs: AA Lifetime Plt
Posts: 1,986
Originally Posted by kaszeta
Indeed, Hartland VT (just under 100 miles as the crow flies from the CA border) has a CBP checkpoint on I-91, but it's seldomly staffed these days.
Maybe they're just being cautious. I mean, during the U.S. Civil War Confederate forces operating from Canada raided Vermont. It could happen again, you know.
greggwiggins is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 1:34 pm
  #108  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grantham, NH
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by greggwiggins
Maybe they're just being cautious. I mean, during the U.S. Civil War Confederate forces operating from Canada raided Vermont. It could happen again, you know.
Yup. Canada. The Northern Menace!
kaszeta is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 1:47 pm
  #109  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
Where is the number 100 in the constitution?
The last time I read the Constitution, the specific number 100 is not identified in any way. The numerical descriptor "hundred" is, in fact, listed three times when written out as a part of a year:
  1. Article 1, Section 9
  2. Article 5
  3. Article 7

However, to be honest, I just posted a fracking link; I did not ARGUE one way or the other on the position of the ACLU, merely provided a reference point for the poster immediately prior to my post.

Take the information and do what you want with it. Obviously, our esteemed elected asshats on the Capitol Toilet decided to wipe their collective backsides with the Constitution when they passed the enabling legislation for the 100 mile limit. The only legislation that I have been able to find says that DHS may inspect within a "reasonable" distance from the border. DHS, by their own statements, feels that 100 miles is reasonable, today. Who is to say what those ........s are going to say tomorrow, next month or next year.

Last edited by DevilDog438; Jun 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 2:01 pm
  #110  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by DevilDog438
The last time I read the Constitution, the specific number 100 is not identified in any way. The numerical descriptor "hundred" is, in fact, listed three times when written out as a part of a year:
  1. Article 1, Section 9
  2. Article 5
  3. Article 7

However, to be honest, I just posted a fracking link; I did not ARGUE one way or the other on the position of the ACLU, merely provided a reference point for the poster immediately prior to my post.

Take the information and do what you want with it. Obviously, our esteemed elected asshats on the Capital Toilet decided to wipe their collective backsides with the Constitution when they passed the enabling legislation for the 100 mile limit. The only legislation that I have been able to find says that DHS may inspect within a "reasonable" distance from the border. DHS, by their own statements, feels that 100 miles is reasonable, today. Who is to say what those ........s are going to say tomorrow, next month or next year.
This is, essentially, the same argument I was making earlier. Martinez-Fuerte was a grave mistake that gave them an inch. They promptly took 100 miles.

This is why I am placing the blame directly on SCOTUS. Will they ever learn the "inch - mile" lesson?
PoliceStateSurvivor is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 2:07 pm
  #111  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,487
Originally Posted by DevilDog438
Take the information and do what you want with it. Obviously, our esteemed elected asshats on the Capital Toilet decided to wipe their collective backsides with the Constitution when they passed the enabling legislation for the 100 mile limit.
CBP should do stops on DC streets in front of the Capitol and White House (within 100 miles of the border). "Obama: that sounds foreign. Can you prove you're a US citizen?"
ralfp is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 2:15 pm
  #112  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Originally Posted by ralfp
CBP should do stops on DC streets in front of the Capitol and White House (within 100 miles of the border). "Obama: that sounds foreign. Can you prove you're a US citizen?"
Hell, why stop on the streets. Do it at every entrance to the Capitol building, and all of the House/Senate office buildings. Hell, CBP/BP claims that the protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are "relaxed" in relation to border security issues, so it shouldn't matter to them that this method would unduly impact the Right to Petition for the Redress of Grievances.
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 2:37 pm
  #113  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by ralfp
CBP should do stops on DC streets in front of the Capitol and White House (within 100 miles of the border). "Obama: that sounds foreign. Can you prove you're a US citizen?"
CBP is not that stupid. They know that doing something like this will put an end to their power trip very quickly.

This is excatly the problem I have with Congresscritters: They have no idea what the rest of us have to deal with.
PoliceStateSurvivor is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 4:32 pm
  #114  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by ralfp
CBP should do stops on DC streets in front of the Capitol and White House (within 100 miles of the border). "Obama: that sounds foreign. Can you prove you're a US citizen?"
It's funny because he can't.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 4:55 pm
  #115  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
The weapons I deal with are nuclear. A firearm isn't even in the discussion.
A nuclear weapon is of zero value in CQB.
law dawg is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 4:58 pm
  #116  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
"Goon" and "professional" are not mutually exclusive. The debacles of Ruby Ridge & Waco come to mind. Elian Gonzales was a relatively minor example.

His "rescue" at the point of an H&K MP-5 was a completely unnecessary show of force.
goon (gn)
n. Slang
1. A thug hired to intimidate or harm opponents.
2. A stupid or oafish person.

Mutually exclusive. Professionals in the US enforcing the law aren't goons. They would become goons if they step out and dole out street justice.
law dawg is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 4:59 pm
  #117  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by kaszeta
Indeed, Hartland VT (just under 100 miles as the crow flies from the CA border) has a CBP checkpoint on I-91, but it's seldomly staffed these days.

When it is staffed, it's not too unusual for them to pull random people over on US-5, which parallels I-91.

These sorts of checkpoints bother me (I have to deal with the checkpoints near Yuma, AZ as well). Nothing like being a US Citizen, driving between two points in my own country, and have some guy stop me, conduct vehicle searches, and ask detailed questions about who I am and where I'm going.
They shouldn't be conducing vehicle searches, not without consent or PC.
law dawg is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 5:50 pm
  #118  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Grantham, NH
Posts: 533
Originally Posted by law dawg
They shouldn't be conducing vehicle searches, not without consent or PC.
According to the last CBP guy that checked my car, the fact that I was merely driving south (away from the border, as is everyone at the checkpoint) was probable cause.

For that matter, I got delayed once by 45 minutes since I refused to tell them where I was going other than "south", since, as far as I was concerned, once I had showed them my valid US passport there was no immigration reason for them to question or detain me.
kaszeta is offline  
Old Jun 15, 2009 | 8:27 pm
  #119  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by kaszeta
According to the last CBP guy that checked my car, the fact that I was merely driving south (away from the border, as is everyone at the checkpoint) was probable cause.

For that matter, I got delayed once by 45 minutes since I refused to tell them where I was going other than "south", since, as far as I was concerned, once I had showed them my valid US passport there was no immigration reason for them to question or detain me.
What he said is wrong. He may have had other cause and didn't want to tell you what it was (he's not under any obligation to do so to you, only a judge). But if that was his "real" cause, then he's wrong, unless he's at a land border. At a checkpoint, not correct.
law dawg is offline  
Old Jun 16, 2009 | 1:06 am
  #120  
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Programs: WN RR, DL SkyMiles, CO Captain America
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by PoliceStateSurvivor
CBP is not that stupid. They know that doing something like this will put an end to their power trip very quickly.

This is excatly the problem I have with Congresscritters: They have no idea what the rest of us have to deal with.
"That's all the authority I need."l

Apparently some BP agent was stupid enough to stop Sen. Leahy's vehicle with US Senate plates. He also must have been functionally retarded, as he ordered the senator out of the vehicle. I wonder which shopping mall the agent works at now.

In the movie The Dark Knight, Leahy's character says, "We won't be intimidated by thugs!" If only he said that during his detention.
planedude86 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.