Border Patrol
Jun 14th 2016 | 5:28 pm
#32
Banned
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,035
From: california
Re: Border Patrol
At Christmas time, New Years, Thanksgiving our local police set up DUI checkpoints. The drivers are asked the license number of their cars and they've caught car thieves this way. They don't ask for driver license or registration, just a glance inside the car and a wave on. I guess they have ways of knowing if someone has been on the sauce or not
Jun 14th 2016 | 5:40 pm
#33
Banned
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,035
From: california
Re: Border Patrol
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.
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.
It's a known fact that some illegals. are smuggled across the border in the trunks of cars. They told me to pop the trunk lid of my car when I was stopped at the checkpoint near Tombstone.
Naturally when crossing into Canada the first thing they ask about is firearms
Jun 15th 2016 | 12:35 am
#34
Heading for Poppyland
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,526
From: North Norfolk and northern New York State
Re: Border Patrol
I'll be in El Paso next week, so I could visit the Border Patrol Museum!
Jun 15th 2016 | 1:53 am
#35
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,966
From: SW Ontario, Canada / Gozo, Malta
Re: Border Patrol
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.
Jun 15th 2016 | 2:37 am
#36
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,186
From: USA! USA!
Re: Border Patrol
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.
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.
Jun 15th 2016 | 2:48 am
#37
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,966
From: SW Ontario, Canada / Gozo, Malta
Re: Border Patrol
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.
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.
Jun 15th 2016 | 3:05 am
#38
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,186
From: USA! USA!
Re: Border Patrol
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".
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.
Jun 15th 2016 | 3:23 am
#39
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 92,279
From: MA, USA
Re: Border Patrol
Jun 15th 2016 | 3:36 am
#40
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,456
From: Portlandia Metro
Re: Border Patrol
Me too, I have to use my VIN number more than my license plate. When it goes in for a service, insurance etc everyone wants the VIN
Jun 15th 2016 | 3:59 am
#41
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,356
From: Dixie, ex UK
Re: Border Patrol
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.
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.
Last edited by Pulaski; Jun 15th 2016 at 4:02 am.
Jun 15th 2016 | 4:27 am
#42
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,966
From: SW Ontario, Canada / Gozo, Malta
Re: Border Patrol
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.
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.
Jun 15th 2016 | 5:08 am
#43
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,186
From: USA! USA!
Re: Border Patrol
If the stop produces probable cause for a search, then a search can be conducted.
So you're wrong again. It would be nice if you would stop using this thread to misinform the audience, who may unfortunately not know any better and get themselves into trouble based upon your guidance.
So you're wrong again. It would be nice if you would stop using this thread to misinform the audience, who may unfortunately not know any better and get themselves into trouble based upon your guidance.
Jun 15th 2016 | 5:19 am
#44
Conditional Resident
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 184
From: IL
Re: Border Patrol
