Originally Posted by katzgar (Post 11970866)

the amoubt of ignorance in this quote is huge, dont even know where to start.

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 11962101)

Bottom line if you are a US citizen those checkpoints are unconstitutional and you can refuse to answer any questions or be subject to unlawful detainment, for right or wrong. There was a youtube video of someone going through and basically telling them to sod off.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11963407)

My personal problem with checkpoints is that you could put checkpoints on any given road on the face of the planet and question people and turn up all kinds of illegal activity.

Why focus on the border with Mexico? Why not the border between say, California and Oregon?

Border Patrol is effectively limited to operating within 100 miles of the border (expedited removal zone), which means 90% of the State of Florida but 0% of Utah.

Why not just have ICE set up checkpoints on I-15 in Utah? Why do they have to go through all the hassle of waiting for an immigration court to issue a removal order?

Very slippery slope.

The one that really blew my mind was the BP checkpoint north of Tombstone, I didn't see a single vehicle with Mexican plates waiting in line. Totally pointless. It was all tourists.

And I've been through "mobile" checkpoints near the Canadian border, equally pointless, but then they justify it by saying that so and so had an ounce of marijuana in his RV or something equally stupid.

Which is in fact what they do at Coutts as well, "we caught a guy with a revolver in his RV who was going to Alaska". Wow. I feel much safer.

Hopefully the UK will vote to "remain" in the EU because if it leaves, there is no chance of N America ever doing away with all it's crazy border bullshit.

Originally Posted by dc koop (Post 11973856)

There is a checkpoint on the Oregon-California border operated by the California Department of Agriculture. You cannot bring fruit or vegetables into California from another State.

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 11974239)

You bet if there was a checkpoint on the Ontario/Quebec border checking for "illegal" booze people would be upset. Even the Canadian charter guarantees free movement between the whole country and that would be inhibiting it. The American constitution guarantees the same thing.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11974289)

The California Court of Appeals has found that agricultural checkpoints are constitutional: PEOPLE v. DICKINSON 104 Cal.App.3d 505

Just because you think that something should be unconstitutional doesn't mean that it is. You ought to learn more about US law prior to offering your guidance as to what is or isn't constitutional.

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 11974299)

That case is a perfect example of what is unconstitutional about them. Fine, i'll concede that a plain view search is acceptable. But the law says that you need a warrant to search the whole vehicle. So if the officer asks me to open my trunk I can say "no, you need a warrant to do that".

Originally Posted by dc koop (Post 11973851)

T...The drivers are asked the license number of their cars and they've caught car thieves this way...

Originally Posted by Bob (Post 11974353)

I'd be screwed. I can never remember my plate. It's a crap combo of number and letters that don't roll off the tongue. I can remember the old plate and the one we had when we lived in Maine though :o

Originally Posted by Bob (Post 11974353)

I'd be screwed. I can never remember my plate. It's a crap combo of number and letters that don't roll off the tongue. ....

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11974332)

Canadians on the internet don't get to decide what is constitutional or unconstitutional. That job is left to higher-level American courts.

If you want to say that you wish that these things were unconstitutional, then that's one thing ..... But your representations of what actually is unconstitutional are completely wrong and you should stop saying it.

The courts have ruled that these checkpoints don't violate the Fourth Amendment. It is highly unlikely that these cases will ever be overturned, so no amount of hope or internet vigor is likely to change this.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11974332)

Canadians on the internet don't get to decide what is constitutional or unconstitutional. That job is left to higher-level American courts.

If you want to say that you wish that these things were unconstitutional, then that's one thing (and I would agree with you.) But your representations of what actually is unconstitutional are completely wrong and you should stop saying it.

The courts have ruled that these checkpoints don't violate the Fourth Amendment. It is highly unlikely that these cases will ever be overturned, so no amount of hope or internet vigor is likely to change this.

Originally Posted by Gozit (Post 11974441)

The checkpoints don't. Asking me to open my trunk does.

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 11974406)

Mrs P might have a tougher time reciting the registration number of whichever vehicle she is driving. :unsure:

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11974490)

If the stop produces probable cause for a search, then a search can be conducted.