Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
We hit one every time we go out of the border town we live in. North, east, west. Got an extra question when we had a Jeep full of camping gear. Once had an agent ask us to turn our heads and look at another officer on the other side of the car, who gave us a weird smirk.
Checking for neck tats? Behavioral analysis? I don't know.
Never bothered me much. They run the dog around the car, ask if we're citizens, and off we go.
Does walking a dog around my car and peeking through the window constitute a search? I don't really think so. I wouldn't let them open anything, though.
Praise be to the LORD my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle.
-Psalm 144:1
The one time we had a dog falsely hit out car they let the sog scratch up my dads truck pretty bad. They also asked us to give them our concealed carry guns once we were out of the car. I think they ran them to check if they were stolen, not honestly sure. Again I've been going through these things my whole life and I only had that one problem. I know some people that get pulled over and checked a lot.Originally Posted by seabiscuit
I've only run into them in TX round El Paso while traveling I-10.
My suggestion to the BP is to catch the illegals and seize the dope at the border and not 50 miles from it. Why not just do the job right the first time?
No. Neither of these constitute a search. There is no Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the air around your vehicle when it's in a public place. Same with looking through the window when your vehicle is in a public place.
A positive K-9 alert constitutes probable cause for a search.
The Dogs are not perfect, and false positives happen, especially when working high volume like at a check point.
Oh golly, why didn't they think of that first?
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
If only it were that easy. I'm sure BP would prefer that also, but unfortunately it is not a perfect world out there.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
Makes sense, thanks.
Praise be to the LORD my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle.
-Psalm 144:1
This was sent to me via PM... Some interesting points.
I am not a lawyer, but this is an area of keen interest for me. The questioning at these checkpoints are not Terry stops, tied to immediate officer or bystander safety - they do not involve a patdown or frisk to look for weapons. Instead, they are rather free inquiries by law enforcement absent articulable suspicion that meets a standard of objective reasonableness, and the individuals are therefore free to fail to respond/comply, as shown in the videos.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held (Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) ) that individuals in such circumstances can refuse to answer or even listen, and that their refusal to do so does not, in and of itself, create any articulable reasonable suspicion. From the majority decision (starting near the bottom of page 498):
Second, law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. See Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 442 U. S. 210, n. 12; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 31, 392 U. S. 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id. at 392 U. S. 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 446 U. S. 555 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.).
The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all, and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id. at 392 U. S. 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall, supra, at 446 U. S. 556 (opinion of Stewart, J.). If there is no detention -- no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment -- then no constitutional rights have been infringed.
The full decision in Royer can be found here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../491/case.html Based on my keeping up with my favorite blog on the topic, http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/, I'm pretty sure that this is still the law of the land.
I got a real kick out of this video. Living in San Diego, I get stopped at these checkpoints pretty regularly anytime I'm traveling to outlying areas. Most of the time, I just get waved through. Some of the time, they ask a couple of questions and I'm on my way. However, there have been a few occasions where I've been pulled into secondary. I think that being a 20-something brown skinned male with a shaved head and hispanic sounding last name probably had something to do with it. Sure, it is a pain in the ass, but I've never had any property damaged or been inconvenienced for more than 20 or 30 minutes. I wasn't thrilled about it, but I don't get too wrapped around the axle about it either.
Story time: My boss took another employee and I to work the Small Arms Review gun show in AZ one year... driving back, we had a trailer stuffed to the gills with ARs, AKs, a couple of 1919s, ammo and a bunch of other fun stuff. We hit a BP checkpoint at some point in the middle of nowhere in the CA desert at 10 or 11 o'clock at night. We stopped, the boss rolled down his window, the officer asked us about our citizenship and then asked what was in the trailer. My boss replies, "Guns." He waved us through. No pulling into secondary or anything... and in California even!
Reply With Quote