Why Video Pays When Dealing with the Border Patrol

[VAPA]

Ladies and Gents,

I've read Reason's courageous account (and the many great comments to that account), and would like to share another story concerning suspicion less checkpoints removed from the border. This story is different in a few ways.

1) The driver/victim was a military officer who, like the Border Patrol agents, took an oath to support/defend/bear true faith and allegiance to, the United States Constitution.

2) The driver outfitted his vehicle with five different cameras after suffering abuse at the same checkpoint.

3) Quite differently, this driver was exceedingly cooperative and produced his military ID, driver's license, two passports, and stated his citizenship and was STILL detained for thirty-five minutes without cause (ie, even being cooperative will not save you from un-Constitutional abuse).

4) The Border Patrol contacted his military commander by phone during the incident, and then a very high ranking Border Patrol Chief sent a three page letter to that commander alleging the officer's conduct was unbecoming for an officer and committed libel against the military man.

5) The driver is filing a federal lawsuit against the Border Patrol.

This account, along with Reason's and many others, shows this is not a "one bad apple" incident. It also highlights just how important it is to keep cameras on you at all time, and to have footage stream to an internet secure place if possible (like qik.com).

The video footage and the letter (first released to the public a few days ago) are all posted here: Veterans Against Police Abuse (http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/TotheBorderPatrol.aspx)

[Reason]

I'm surprised the military officer had the balls to do that while active duty...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ah, but our most noble plebians among us would like to strengthen that power and see it increase. I have said time and time again those for the increasing militarization and State-noose tightening of the boogeyman immigration would shackle themselves in the process. Lest it turns out, I am indeed true! How unfortunate. Yet, they still not listen. More clamoring for coercive violent state power to tackle their perceived sleights and problems. Their eyes focusing on the trauma, not the cause. But, but, but welfare is too hard to dispose of they clamor. I have no need for shackles, and I will not approve of this indecency. It is good for those of us who stand up for our natural rights. Perhaps those among us who scream to give the State more power should re-think their 'solutions', or we might find ourselves caged with the military, border patrol, and police with guns pointing inward with no escape.

[LedHed]

Does anyone here disagree that we have an illegal immigration problem and that most of the human trafficking and drug smuggling happens on or near our border with Mexico?

Given the above situation, what reasonable alternatives would you propose to having checkpoints and random stops to check ID and verify legitimate business in order to at least attempt to cut down on these problems?

Maybe we should have the "honor system" and ask the human traffickers and drug smugglers to pretty please discontinue their activities. Yeah, that should do it, alright...

[TonySutton]

Del Rio Border Patrol Contact info

2300 Highway 90 East
Del Rio, Texas 78840
Phone: (830) 778-3000
Fax: (830) 778-3495

[VAPA]

Does anyone here disagree that we have an illegal immigration problem and that most of the human trafficking and drug smuggling happens on or near our border with Mexico?

Given the above situation, what reasonable alternatives would you propose to having checkpoints and random stops to check ID and verify legitimate business in order to at least attempt to cut down on these problems?

Maybe we should have the "honor system" and ask the human traffickers and drug smugglers to pretty please discontinue their activities. Yeah, that should do it, alright...

I don't disagree that we have a problem with illegal immigration and it happens ON the border. When an illegal is 100 miles from the border, at that point it's kind of like tracking down the stolen money of bank robbers instead of defending the bank (which makes much more sense to do). We only have so many banks, but we have lots of bankless country. We only have so much border, but we have lots of borderless country. It makes sense to monitor the point where the crime occurs, not track them down after the fact around the world.

We don't need to try to stop immigration with stops, and documents, and silly questions. That system is ridiculous. We need to see them cross the border illegally and then roll them up (ie, the Border Patrol). Not guess and fish later while harassing motorists. In my opinion.

Regardless of how best to enforce immigration law, this video isn't about that. It's about a Constitutional violation and regular crimes against the citizens of this country. If we can't figure that out, or we just don't care about run-of-the-mill-just-deal-with-it-dude violations of our civil liberties, then I say just let the illegal immigrants have this country. Because when we've lost our concern for our basic civil rights, then it's not worth defending anymore anyway. Thankfully enough of us are still concerned, but unfortunately we're a minority in my experience.

[LedHed]

I honestly don't have any idea why border checks are located where they are, since I wasn't part of the planning process on that one. If you feel these checks are unconstitutional, then why not use the process in place and let your representative challenge it in legislature or hire an attorney? The overwhelming majority of those who pass through these checkpoints have little or no problem with it, and they answer the simple questions and go on their way. In fairness to your position, I don't live where these checks are being done, so I have little reason to challenge them as you apparently do.

[Guitarzan]

Hey Ledhed, you regime apologist you...ever heard of civil disobedience?

[VAPA]

I honestly don't have any idea why border checks are located where they are, since I wasn't part of the planning process on that one. If you feel these checks are unconstitutional, then why not use the process in place and let your representative challenge it in legislature or hire an attorney? The overwhelming majority of those who pass through these checkpoints have little or no problem with it, and they answer the simple questions and go on their way. In fairness to your position, I don't live where these checks are being done, so I have little reason to challenge them as you apparently do.

I think we're having a miscommunication here for some reason. I am not here saying those checkpoint stops are un-Constitutional. I am here showing a crime being committed at the checkpoint stop (a Constitutional crime in this instance). The Supreme Court has ruled these checkpoints are Constitutional IF they follow certain rules (limited to a brief determination of immigration status). If they begin dressing down citizens for their favorite color, it's a violation. If they are not brief, it's a violation. While you bring up an interesting conversation (did the SCOTUS get it right allowing these checkpoints at all), that is not what I'm arguing. I'm showing an example of a violation at the checkpoint, caught on tape, which will allow the driver to win his lawsuit because he had cameras. I'm recommending to others they do the same, because you may be on the fence today and wishing you would have had a camera tomorrow should you find your knowledge of the law (Reason) or your cooperation (the military officer) fails to get you the treatment you think you deserve from the government.

As to the process to let a representative know, there are many of us who go straight to the people to let them know, instead of going to their elected reps. The internet is a great way to do this, I'm sure you'd agree. And the more people who arm themselves with cameras just in case, the better the word will get out, and then perhaps people will demand their rights be respected by the government.

Or not.

[fisharmor]

I love the fact that this BBS thanks me for deducting reputation from a user.

[hazek]

I wouldn't reply to LedHed. He is a self proclaim troll.

He himself posted that he is here trying to stir things up only for his own amusement, so please, do not fuel it!

[speciallyblend]

I honestly don't have any idea why border checks are located where they are, since I wasn't part of the planning process on that one. If you feel these checks are unconstitutional, then why not use the process in place and let your representative challenge it in legislature or hire an attorney? The overwhelming majority of those who pass through these checkpoints have little or no problem with it, and they answer the simple questions and go on their way. In fairness to your position, I don't live where these checks are being done, so I have little reason to challenge them as you apparently do.

I have found the best way to avoid these insane checkpoints is to simply avoid the states completely. I am sure it does wonders on their state economy! I can bet i am not the only one that avoids states,towns and cities who seem to enjoy making these insane checkpoints!!

[Bern]

5) The driver is filing a federal lawsuit against the Border Patrol.


http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj195/ribby47/Motivational%20Posters/airplane_goodluck.jpg

[VAPA]

I have found the best way to avoid these insane checkpoints is to simply avoid the states completely. I am sure it does wonders on their state economy! I can bet i am not the only one that avoids states,towns and cities who seem to enjoy making these insane checkpoints!!

You're talking about avoiding a ton of states... http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

It might do something to punish the state economies, but it's a federal issue. Even state communities (and their local law enforcement) who want to resist having these checkpoints built in their states, are having a tough time keeping them out. Washington State has been doing some good stuff, but from what I hear the Feds keep pouring in "funding" in exchange for a few more inches. Here is a town hall meeting in Jefferson County, Washington between Border Patrol, local law enforcement, and activists concerned with the erection of these checkpoints (notice how local law enforcement sticks up for states' rights as they should): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eJQ1IzS6FE

[LibForestPaul]

I honestly don't have any idea why border checks are located where they are, since I wasn't part of the planning process on that one. If you feel these checks are unconstitutional, then why not use the process in place and let your representative challenge it in legislature or hire an attorney? The overwhelming majority of those who pass through these checkpoints have little or no problem with it, and they answer the simple questions and go on their way. In fairness to your position, I don't live where these checks are being done, so I have little reason to challenge them as you apparently do.

Why do I have to submit to your violence?

[VAPA]

Here is some really interesting stuff from the Border Patrol's own official Inspector's Field Manual. The BP tried to keep this from being released, but eventually a lawyer got it through FOIA. VERY interesting read as it's actually a bit more restrictive than even the case law. You can read the manual in PDF format here: Border Patrol Inspector's Field Manual (2008) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.checkpointusa.org%2FDHS%2Fdo cs%2FCBPIFMFeb2008.pdf&rct=j&q=checkpointusa%20inspector%27s%20field%20&ei=kxJKTf_vBISKlweTrclB&usg=AFQjCNEDZSpxTXbGKvZcCHwUm5aY9EE4ew&cad=rja)


"18.6(E) Checkpoints:


The Border Patrol conducts two types of inland traffic-checking operations: checkpoints and roving patrols. Border Patrol agents can make routine vehicle stops without any suspicion to inquire into citizenship and immigration status at a reasonably located permanent or temporary checkpoint provided the checkpoint is used for the purpose of determining citizenship of those who pass through it, and not for the general search for those persons or the vehicle. Inquiries must be brief and limited to the immigration status of the occupants of the vehicle. The only permissible search is a “plain view” inspection to ascertain whether there are any concealed illegal aliens."

- Customs & Border Protection, Inspector's Field Manual (2008)


"18.7(B) Reasonable Suspicion:

Before an inspector may constitutionally detain a person (non-entry related case), the inspector must have reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is illegally in the United States. This higher degree of suspicion arises generally in questioning persons encountered in and around the port who are awaiting persons referred to secondary. This suspicion is based on questioning of alienage alone and also involves specific articulable facts, such as particular characteristics or circumstances which the inspector can describe in words."

- Customs & Border Protection, Inspector's Field Manual (2008)

And this is particularly interesting in light of this military officer's video. Apparently if he was entering the country (and not just driving on a highway in the USA), he would not be required to show a passport to enter the country and is exempted. And that's assuming he was a non-citizen military enlisted man, not an officer who must be a citizen.

"Chapter 11 - [Persons Exempt From Immigration Inspection When Entering the United States]:

Alien members of the U.S. military and NATO forces from member nations signatory to Article III of the Status of Forces Agreement entering under official orders are exempt the controls of the INA, pursuant to 8 CFR 235.1(c), including the requirement to present a passport and visa [See also section 284 of the INA.]. Such persons returning to the U.S. after a temporary trip are also eligible for this exemption without presenting any official orders."

- Customs & Border Protection, Inspector's Field Manual (2008)