Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

mtbinva wrote:Have to be honest, I believe this video CLEARLY shows my rights, and the violations. If there is no RS, I will be polite, but I will not be subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Just my $0.02.

dorminWS wrote:

mtbinva wrote:Have to be honest, I believe this video CLEARLY shows my rights, and the violations. If there is no RS, I will be polite, but I will not be subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Just my $0.02.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

how are we to police our borders if we can't stop non-citizens from crossing it?

In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Earl Warren recognized that police officers need discretion to perform their investigative
duties. 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Since Terry, this discretion has been judicially broadened, giving police wide latitude to ful-
fill their functions. In some circumstances, however, police abuse this discretion, and we must remind law enforcement
that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because in this case, we find the police
disregarded the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, we reverse.

allingeneral wrote:

dorminWS wrote:

mtbinva wrote:Have to be honest, I believe this video CLEARLY shows my rights, and the violations. If there is no RS, I will be polite, but I will not be subjected to an illegal search and seizure. Just my $0.02.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

how are we to police our borders if we can't stop non-citizens from crossing it?

Part of the problem is that this is not a border checkpoint - these are checkpoints that are 30 miles from the border. Where does it stop? Will we soon see a DHS "citizenship checkpoint" on I-95 North of Richmond?

I think the video makes a great point - being that DHS cannot detain you without reasonable suspicion, as defined by Terry.

I just happened to read this today, as it was posted in the VGOF Facebook group
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Pu ... 5084.P.pdf

It's an interesting read regarding the limits of reasonable suspicion as governed by the 4th Amendment and Terry v. Ohio. Here's a lead-in:

In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Earl Warren recognized that police officers need discretion to perform their investigative
duties. 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Since Terry, this discretion has been judicially broadened, giving police wide latitude to ful-
fill their functions. In some circumstances, however, police abuse this discretion, and we must remind law enforcement
that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because in this case, we find the police
disregarded the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, we reverse.

allingeneral wrote: Part of the problem is that this is not a border checkpoint - these are checkpoints that are 30 miles from the border. Where does it stop? Will we soon see a DHS "citizenship checkpoint" on I-95 North of Richmond?

DaRoller wrote:

allingeneral wrote: Part of the problem is that this is not a border checkpoint - these are checkpoints that are 30 miles from the border. Where does it stop? Will we soon see a DHS "citizenship checkpoint" on I-95 North of Richmond?

Completely possible. The government claims anything within 100 miles of the border is fair game: 2/3 of the population lives in that zone.

Border Patrol Checkpoints
The Court analyzed a permanent immigration checkpoint 66 miles north of the Mexican border.4 A uniformed agent visually screened all northbound vehicles, directing some to a secondary checkpoint to answer questions about citizenship and immigration status for three to five minutes. The Court considered that the extremely important national policy limiting immigration could only be served by interior checkpoints, because the vast border cannot be controlled effectively. Further, this interest outweighs the checkpoint's minimal intrusion on driver privacy. The agent's plain-view visual inspection was not a search. Even if a driver were stopped, he only answered a question or two and produced a citizenship document. Consequently, the checkpoint was constitutionally valid.

Driver's License Checkpoints
The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard prohibits officers from randomly stopping vehicles to check driver's licenses and registration.5 In Delaware v. Prouse, a patrolman stopped a vehicle without reasonable suspicion to check the driver's license and registration. He seized marijuana in plain view. Addressing the stop's constitutionality, the Court noted that the public interest in ensuing that motorists are licensed and cars are registered justified the checkpoint's slight intrusion on motorists. In Prouse, however, the officer had unbridled discretion regarding which cars to stop, making the checkpoint unconstitutional. By contrast, license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.

Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoint stops without individualized suspicion are constitutional.6 Considering a checkpoint program to detect drunk drivers, the Court noted that each stop lasted approximately 25 seconds. Officers directed any driver who showed signs of insobriety to the side and administered field tests; intoxicated drivers were arrested. The Court held that the magnitude of the government's interest in eradicating the increasing problem of drunken driving outweighed the slight intrusion the stop imposed on all motorists.

General Crime Control Checkpoints
Vehicle checkpoints for general crime control are constitutionally unreasonable.7 At an Indianapolis checkpoint to detect unlawful drugs, each driver was briefly stopped and asked to produce a driver's license and registration. The officer looked for any signs of impairment and conducted a plain view examination of the car. A narcotics detection dog walked around the outside of each vehicle. Each stop was conducted in the same manner and lasted five minutes or less. The Court concluded that a roadblock to check for narcotics was an investigation for general criminal activity. The Court noted:

We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized ever present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.

Informational Checkpoints
Illinois v. Lidster asks, Are information-seeking checkpoints constitutional?8 The Court answered Yes, concluding that the substantial interest in solving a serious crime outweighed the minor intrusion the stop imposed on motorists. Applying the balancing test, the Court noted that the government's interest in solving a deadly hit-and-run accident is a grave public concern, and the checkpoint's purpose was not general crime control but investigation of a specific, particular crime. The checkpoint was narrowly tailored to advance the government interest (same location as the crime, about one week after the crime, and at approximately the same time of day). Finally, stops were extremely brief, systematic, and limited in scope to a request for information. There is no Fourth Amendment prohibition on officers simply asking citizens in a public place for voluntary cooperation in providing information. Rejecting the argument that allowing information stops would result in a proliferation of checkpoints, the Court pointed to the limitations of police resources and community intolerance of traffic interferences as inherently limiting forces.
Although the Fourth Amendment permits information-seeking checkpoints, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure still applies to the procedures used:
•The crime about which information is sought must be serious.

•Checkpoints must be narrowly tailored (location, time of day, and duration) to the investigative purpose.

•All checkpoint stops must be brief and systematic; arbitrary stops are unconstitutional.

•Officers may not stop vehicles to conduct generalized interrogation.

grumpyMSG wrote:14 minutes of people refusing to say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen" within 30 miles of the border, most of which appeared to be at one of the fixed checkpoints. They are trolling for trouble, looking to be insulted or offended. In each case the camera was already rolling when they rolled up to the checkpoint. They get no sympathy from me, you want to act like a jerk, you deserved to be treated like one.

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.[1]

The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.[2]
However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or 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 [as opposed to permanent checkpoints]." 428 U.S. 543, 567 (1976).

Reverenddel wrote:Vehicles, and the privileges of driving give the LEO's a greater scope according to the courts (IE: Transporting goods, Chimmel wing-span searches, DUI stops without probably causes, etc.)

But if one of these punks jump up while I'm WALKING, without probably cause, or detain me without suspicion? I'm gonna change my name to "Sue", and find the nastiest lawyer on the planet.

You know, I don't hate LEO's, or chide them for the job they've volunteered to do... but don't be an abusive azzhat... it's just bad for business.

Reverenddel wrote:Vehicles, and the privileges of driving give the LEO's a greater scope according to the courts (IE: Transporting goods, Chimmel wing-span searches, DUI stops without probably causes, etc.)

But if one of these punks jump up while I'm WALKING, without probably cause, or detain me without suspicion? I'm gonna change my name to "Sue", and find the nastiest lawyer on the planet.

You know, I don't hate LEO's, or chide them for the job they've volunteered to do... but don't be an abusive azzhat... it's just bad for business.

Reverenddel wrote:Vehicles, and the privileges of driving give the LEO's a greater scope according to the courts (IE: Transporting goods, Chimmel wing-span searches, DUI stops without probably causes, etc.)