"We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search... And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. Any further detention... must be based on consent or probable cause." -U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte
What do you do with a lawless, criminal rogue government with no chance of reform? Maybe it boils down to just cussing them out.
In a volatile exchange yesterday at an internal warrantless checkpoint in Laredo TX 30 miles north of the Mexico border, a truck driver got fed up with the constant, endless interuptions to the sleeping co-driver, which usually causes the freight to be delivered late because the co-driver has to begin their 10 hour rest period all over again if they come out of the sleeper berth - preventing them from driving the load to its destination as scheduled.
The Department of Homeland Security officer demanded that the sleeping co-drive wake up, and refused to give any probable cause for the detainment, other than a zombie-like repetition of the phrase "I'm not gonna argue with you."
This genuinely prompted the fed-up driver to unleash a profanity-laced tirade against the obnoxious agent, and demanded the officer's supervisor.
Two supervisors came rushing up, one recording the scene with a video camera attached to an extension pole.
Despite what the DHS supervisors later claimed, they are not allowed to intrude and question every person in a vehicle unless there is cause to do so. The paper that the supervisor was reading defended the right to conduct checkpoints. I was not disputing that point; I know that the existence of these check points has been upheld by the courts. What I said was the fact that there are checkpoints does not mean they can detain every person who goes through them when there is no probable cause.
There are very strict Hours of Service Rules imposed on truck drivers by the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) as well as many Federal Government Commercial driver sleep studies outlining the grave danger of interrupted sleep. The feds point out that interrupted commercial driver sleep causes many deaths each year on the highways across America. FMCSA's Interruptions to your sleep, for example, states "Disruptions compromise both the quantity and quality of sleep and keep you from experiencing continuous, restorative sleep so necessary for performance, safety, and health."
"Upon questioning the supervisor briefly claimed he was detaining the man, but upon being asked what crime he was being accused of, the supervisor quickly did a 180 degree turnabout and admitted that the man was free to go "now that we know that you're a U.S. citizen." However, note that the man never once answered any questions or said that he was a U.S. citizen.
The reality is that Americans are not obligated to answer questions asked by border agents at suspcionless checkpoints regarding citizenship, "where they're headed", or anything else. Terry Bressi of CheckpointUSA.org recently won over $200,000 in a federal lawsuit from Homeland Security. [Be sure to check out his youtube channel]. Bressi points out on his blog that the border patrol themselves have answered questions in writing regarding internal checkpoints, and they admit the following:
"Q. 11. Am I required to answer the agent's questions at the checkpoint?"
A. "No person can be required to give evidence that incriminates themselves - that is a constitutional right. Neither can any public official compel or coerce such a statement if the person being questioned refuses to give one voluntarily..."
Referring back to the first question, the Border Patrol admits an agent must believe the individual being interrogated is unlawfully in the United States. While operating away from the border or its functional equivalent, merely being suspicious is not enough of a legal basis to further a detention or interrogation. In fact, at an internal checkpoint, the Supreme Court ruled agents MUST have probable cause or consent in order to extend the detention or to search. If an agent diverts a vehicle to secondary for further scrutiny after asking the immigration question, that represents an extended detention and must be premised on 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. Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation" - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte
"...We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. Any further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause." - U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte
As outlined on DontWakeMeUp.org, in 2010, after two rogue Texas troopers illegally woke me up from the sleeper berth, I filed state and federal civil right complains. I had recorded both officers and the Texas Department of Public Safety admitted wrongdoing in writing on behalf of the two officers only one month after an internal affairs complaint was filed against the officers in November 2010. The admission letter, dated December 20, 2010 and signed by Captain Kenneth Plunk of the Waco Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division, stated that "corrective action was needed" against both officers and that "additional training has been taken." [Here is the postmarked envelope the letter came in.] The driver, Martin Hill, then filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit against the troopers for damages, permanent injunction, and to dissuade them from continuing this blatantly illegal practice. Updates on the case are directly below. One of the internal police department documents which they were forced to release as a result of my lawsuit in initial disclosures revealed that the Texas Troopers officially admitted that "The passenger is under no obligation to comply with request" for ID.
"Denise Gilman, co-director of the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, says that Border Patrol agents at internal checkpoints are allowed to ask motorists basic questions about citizenship, identity and travel itinerary, but they cannot detain you or search your vehicle without probable cause. Your refusal to answer questions would not provide probable cause to allow for such a detention or search, she added."So, if you refuse to answer, they can pull you out of the line and over into 'secondary inspection' and they can probably hold you there for about 20 minutes or so," she said. "But they cannot do anything more if you continue to refuse to respond unless something else develops during that time period that would lead to probable cause."
More than one motorist in the video declined to pull over into secondary inspection, yet they were allowed to go on their way without incident. "I don't know of any case where the person has refused to go into secondary inspection as in the YouTube video," says Barbara Hines, a clinical professor of law at UT who co-directs the immigration clinic with Gilman. "But it is a very interesting civil disobedience idea. Because in order to arrest the person, the Border Patrol, again, would need probable cause."
In January of this year, Reason Magazine reported the story of Greg Rosenberg, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was Detained for 19 Days after an 'Immigration Checkpoint Refusal Gone Wrong' at this same Laredo checkpoint.
The upshot: they're hassling you and your wife with their insistence on determining that you're both "citizens" when their nigger president is openly importing illegals by the millions!! Next time, ask them why they aren't hassling Caesar Africanus Obama in the White House and searching all of the FedGov motor carriers/planes/railroad cars rolling into America that are loaded with illegals.
Next time, ask them why they aren't hassling Caesar Africanus Obama in the White House and searching all of the FedGov motor carriers/planes/railroad cars rolling into America that are loaded with illegals.
Exactly. These worthless corrupt MFers aren't competent enough to survive in the private sector so they become govt welfare recipients, thinking they get to tell people what to do. I see from the yt comments that videos like this only expose them further and generate hot contempt & disdain for dhs & cops. They deserve it.
And then did you notice how the mexican supervisor says that DOT is "state law" before I call him an IDIOT, twice? What kind of fucking moron who workks a commercial truck lane thinks dot is state? That is wild beyond words. Dot is a federal gov agency (FMCSA, the f is for "federal".
What kind of fucking moron who workks a commercial truck lane thinks dot is state? That is wild beyond words. Dot is a federal gov agency (FMCSA, the f is for "federal".
Interesting that you say that. First of all, you essentially answered your own question, as no doubt you realize, but these guys are almost categorically of below average intellect if not approaching being morons.
As to the laws, my personal experience is that they also have no clue what the laws are besides those that help them fill their ticket quotas, that they say don't exist, yet they're out there at the end of every month heavy, but there are no quotas. Right, and everyone of above average intelligence is an idiot.
Most enforce one or two laws, like speeding, whereby they can read a number and if it's too high, a relatively trivial intellectual exercise, then they write a ticket using information directly in front of them or that they've written a million times.
I've seen cops completely ignore illegal driving behavior that unfolds right in front of them, I can only assume because they are clueless.
It's also a sign of an extremely weak intellect to issue blanket statements stating that someone else has to do exactly what they say. So OK, if they say blow them then that's what we have to do? I don't think so. If not that, then where's the boundary. For us it's clear, for morons it's not. Hence their confusion.
What's funny is the crybabies they become when trying to sell the bogus notion that their jobs are so dangerous when they're almost always armed and armored well beyond anything that those that they harass, maim, and kill are.
Naturally they're all too stupid to reason that if it's so dangerous, and so low paying, then perhaps a career change is in order. Unfortunately most other jobs do not allow these neanderthal morons to beat people up or kill them simply because they can. Their basest immoral underpinnings must be satisfied.
Heaven forbid that you actually ask them a question as you did, hell, that blows their water-balloon filled heads. They're clueless on what the laws really are. I'd defend them on it since the law is so complex and extensive, but they're not even remotely informed, as "law enforcers," and otherwise have not earned any benefits of doubt as such.