Top DHS checkpoint refusals

[Deberg_1990]

Interesting...This is how you resist tyranny....warrentless, unconstitutional checkpoints.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

better thread title would have been "how to travel unmolested in america"

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Not sure anyone would celebrate the driver being a dick.

You want border security but don't want to be subject to answering a question upon re-entering the country?

stfu govt op

[CoMoChief]

most of these checkpoints aren't even on the border. they're sometimes even a couple hundred miles inside the US

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by jettio

I noted that the tape that ended at the 11:00 mark, was one where he screwed himself by generating reasonable suspicion by not pulling over to the checkpoint.

Probably no coincidence that he does not show that one to its conclusion.

The driver was asked to pull over to a secondary checkpoint on most of the stops, not just that one.

It seems like the border agents where quite professional.

In some cases they were, in some they weren't. Is it a coincidence that you don't remember that agent telling the driver that he was ordering him to comply, or any of the instances where the agents would just repeat directives as if the driver had no choice but to comply?

Constitutionally, according to the Supreme Court, law enforcement can always ask for your name and identification, even without reasonable suspicion. Unless, there is something about there being a checkpoint without reasonable suspicion that changes that.

Here's a site that disputes it:

The relevant Supreme Court cases are Terry v. Ohio and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. In Terry, the court said that law enforcement can stop a person and conduct a frisk if the officer has a reasonable suspicion (which is less than probable cause) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” This may extend to asking you to identify yourself as it is a kind of investigation.


In Hiibel, the police were investigating a report of a possible crime. They approached Hiibel, who was parked in a car. Hiibel repeatedly refused to give his name, and was subsequently arrested. Nevada had a stop and identify law, which was used to convict him. The Supreme Court determined that these laws are constitutional, so long as they require officers to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. However, if the person believes that providing their name would be incriminating, it’s possible that fifth amendment protections might still apply. But if police are not investigating and have no reasonable suspicion, then you do not have to give your name.

http://crimedime.com/2012/04/16/do-y...ice-your-name/

Seems to me that it is reasonable to have immigration checkpoints in border areas.

It's more reasonable to have immigration checkpoints at borders, then you don't have to intimidate and harass citizens into giving up their rights.

It would have been interesting to see how the agents would have handled it if he immediately said that he was a citizen. Unless they are using that answer as a foot in the door to ask unreasonable follow-up, seems like he is just having a ball.

Good point.

I think it would be better if he tried to do that at the beginning of a shift and when there is less possibility of creating a bottleneck at the checkpoint. Seems like every situation involved that pressure on the agents. Seemed like they let him go to avoid delaying other drivers.

Seemed like the one situation where there was not bottleneck pressure was the one he screwed up and gave the officer a basis for reasonable suspicion and the one that he did not show to conclusion.

Interesting to watch, but I am sure that it is selectively edited and incomplete.

I agree.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by jettio

I noted that the tape that ended at the 11:00 mark, was one where he screwed himself by generating reasonable suspicion by not pulling over to the checkpoint.

Probably no coincidence that he does not show that one to its conclusion.

It seems like the border agents where quite professsional.

Constitutionally, according to the Supreme Court, law enforcement can always ask for your name and identification, even without reasonable suspicion. Unless, there is something about there being a checkpoint without reasonable suspicion that changes that.

Seems to me that it is reasonable to have immigration checkpoints in border areas.

It would have been interesting to see how the agents would have handled it if he immediately said that he was a citizen. Unless they are using that answer as a foot in the door to ask unreasonable follow-up, seems like he is just having a ball.

I think it would be better if he tried to do that at the beginning of a shift and when there is less possibility of creating a bottleneck at the checkpoint. Seems like every situation involved that pressure on the agents. Seemed like they let him go to avoid delaying other drivers.

Seemed like the one situation where there was not bottleneck pressure was the one he screwed up and gave the officer a basis for reasonable suspicion and the one that he did not show to conclusion.

Interesting to watch, but I am sure that it is selectively edited and incomplete.

hey dumbass, he was never asked his name, he was ask his nationality among other requests. this went right over your head -- he stumped law enforcement because what they are doing is unconstitutional.. and that means they are too ****ing retarded to uphold the most basic laws of the land. JFC they are breaking the law idiot

[Iowanian]

I think they're all acting like douchebags.

[LoneWolf]

Does this mean I don't have to pull over at a DUI checkpoint. When the officer asks me if I've been drinking can I tell him I refuse to answer the question because he has no probable cause to stop me?

[notorious]

Put me in the "They are douchebags" column.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by notorious

Put me in the "They are douchebags" column.

You're in.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Does this mean I don't have to pull over at a DUI checkpoint. When the officer asks me if I've been drinking can I tell him I refuse to answer the question because he has no probable cause to stop me?

Do Sobriety Checkpoints Violate The 4th Amendment?

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.


The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legali...eckpoints.html

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Do Sobriety Checkpoints Violate The 4th Amendment?

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.


The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legali...eckpoints.html

Not that I give a shit because I don't live in an area close to the border, but if illegal immigration is the huge problem that many politicians have claimed it to be wouldn't the minor infringement on an individual's rights be justified?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

Not that I give a shit because I don't live in an area close to the border, but if illegal immigration is the huge problem that many politicians have claimed it to be wouldn't the minor infringement on an individual's rights be justified?

It is a very slippery slope~

[Buzz_TinBalls]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Do Sobriety Checkpoints Violate The 4th Amendment?

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.


The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legali...eckpoints.html

that's not a slope. that's a cliff.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by RNR

It is a very slippery slope~

Agreed. I think it is slippery both ways. Taken to far and we're living in a police state. Not taken far enough and you have drunken illegal immigrants driving all over our nations highways.

[petegz28]

Didn't the Obama sue the state of AZ over fear of this exact thing happening?