Got stopped at a check point....

Deborah K

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
17,997
...while traveling from Texas to Cali. They wanted to board our RV and when they realized I wasn't going to let them, they backed off. That is the first time that has ever happened to me and I have lived in the southwest my entire life in all four border states.
 
They thought you might have had illegals, guns, or drugs inside. Unfortunately we are all supposedly guilty now. Glad to hear you left without too many problems.
 
It was my turn to drive, we were heading back into Cali, I greeted him and he greeted back and asked where we were coming from. I told him we were coming back from a family reunion in Texas. He asked how many were aboard, I told him 6. He then asked, "Do you mind if we come on board?" I gave him a most irritated look and said "Why?" He said, we need to check for vegetation coming from other states. I told him I had fruit left over from the trip but that I had bought it in Cali. He asked if it had stickers on it and I said yes. He then asked if he could see a piece, so Mark went and got one and I handed it to him through the window. He saw the sticker from Washington State and said, "It's from Washington, very good, welcome back". He smiled, handed the fruit back and we went on our way.

All the while the dogs were sniffing around the RV. :rolleyes:

Mark and I had discussed in advance how we would handle ourselves if we were forced to the side for an inspection. We decided if push came to shove, we would let them on after trying these tactics first:

1. If they claim their dogs smelled something, we would accuse them of lying, and/or accuse their dog of incompetence, and threaten the agents personally with law suits if they continued with the search and found nothing.

2. We would assert our 4th amendment rights and if they used the patriot act we would argue that the patriot act violated the Constitution and if they pursued the search we would sue, and call our Congressman.

Granted, none of those tactics would probably work but obviously they knew they couldn't come on board without probable cause, because they backed off when I demanded to know why.

I guess the most important thing to do is to ask why they want to search.
 
Mark and I had discussed in advance how we would handle ourselves if we were forced to the side for an inspection. We decided if push came to shove, we would let them on after trying these tactics first:
2. We would assert our 4th amendment rights and if they used the patriot act we would argue that the patriot act violated the Constitution and if they pursued the search we would sue, and call our Congressman.
I guess the most important thing to do is to ask why they want to search.

That's the problem, most people would just let police in anyways, even if illegal.

Instead of calling your Congressman, call the media.
They will probably have a better effect anyways.
 
You were in a Constitution-free zone. If the gentleman knew of this, you would not have been in a good position if you were making the 4th Amendment argument.
 

I like this, and will put it in my arsenal of tactics, but I would never use this a first resort because it's too aggressive and may cause me more problems than I would like. My two year old grandson and pregnant daughter were with us, as well as my 86 year old mother in law.

That just wasn't the hill I wanted to die on.

See I'm more inclined to try to win over the cops and military to our side than I am to treat them like they are the enemy and that is because I know a lot of them. I don't see them the same way a lot of people on this forum do, although I understand there is a serious rogue element. I and my husband and family have discussed this in detail and have accepted that a fight may be inevitable some day. But we will react according to the circumstance.
 
DeborahK - No disrespect, I know of your accomplishments for liberty....

That being said, if I'm not mistaken, you have defended these unconstitutional checkpoints in the past because of the "illegal" problem.

You've defended the affront on our liberty that are checkpoints. Now, you have a problem with being asked to search ? This is an example of what Ron Paul says; you either have liberty or you don't, there is no "part" of liberty.

When you erase your first line in the sand, expect to erase your second.
 
DeborahK - No disrespect, I know of your accomplishments for liberty....

That being said, if I'm not mistaken, you have defended these unconstitutional checkpoints in the past because of the "illegal" problem.

You've defended the affront on our liberty that are checkpoints. Now, you have a problem with being asked to search ? This is an example of what Ron Paul says; you either have liberty or you don't, there is no "part" of liberty.

When you erase your first line in the sand, expect to erase your second.

You are entitled to your opinion. Everyone will have to make their own choices when faced with situations such as this. Just because I am okay with check points to control human trafficking does not mean I am okay with being searched without probable cause.
 
You are entitled to your opinion. Everyone will have to make their own choices when faced with situations such as this. Just because I am okay with check points to control human trafficking does not mean I am okay with being searched without probable cause.

What exactly is the difference?
 
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that because I am against human trafficking and am a proponant of border patrol that somehow that means I have to give up my 4th amendment rights?

Let me ask you a question. Are you for or against profiling? And I'm not talking about racial profiling per say, I'm talking about criminal profiling, the collection of data based on criminal activity and the kinds of people who commit it. Say for example serial killers, or.....hijackers...etc. How would you expect law enforcement to go about preventing or catching these types of criminals? By violating everyone's rights? Or by profiling.
 
Last edited:
I think that his point is that a checkpoint is a search without probable cause.

Regardless of them checking you for papers or drugs.
 
I think that his point is that a checkpoint is a search without probable cause.

Regardless of them checking you for papers or drugs.

I don't see how a checkpoint in and of itself is a "search without probable cause" unless they do a physical search. I have always been waved through. This was a total odyssey for me.

The pdf that was posted earlier by slothman states:

UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U. S. 543 (1976)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Page 428 U. S. 566
In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth
Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant. [Footnote 19] The principal protection of Fourth
 
Last edited:
I think you handled it exactly right, Deb. Going right to turning the blowtorch on and lighting up the cop is just going to make them get all ants-in-the-pants and feel the need to assert their authority.

While you couldn't fault someone for being a dick, just being calm and nice about it is probably the best. Even if they came back, "well we need to search your car", I'd just calmly reply, "No. I am sorry but I am not allowing that." and give them a sincere smile. You can initiate a calm-standoff with a smiley face just as easily as a scorn. If you said, "It is nothing against you or your trying to keep us safe officer, but as an American with a strong belief in civil rights, I hope you can understand that on principle, I am not going to submit to a search."
 
I think that his point is that a checkpoint is a search without probable cause.

Regardless of them checking you for papers or drugs.

I don't see how a checkpoint in and of itself is a "search without probable cause" unless they do a physical search. I have always been waved through. This was a total odyssey for me.

The pdf that was posted earlier by slothman states:

UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U. S. 543 (1976)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Page 428 U. S. 566
In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth
Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant. [Footnote 19] The principal protection of Fourth

If I have a question, I search for the answer.

In my opinion "questioning", no matter how brief, is searching without probably cause.

They shouldn't be questioning me for answers (searching for info when it comes to me) for driving down a road.

If I was crossing a border I would understand the holdup.

Just my two cents... <3
 
I have always been waved through. This was a total odyssey for me.


I got pulled over for the second time in my life last night. I was furious cause I was driving perfectly..

Then the cop came up to the window and said, "did you know you're license plate illuminaters are out?"


Touche.


Needless to say he let me go after a quick flashlight test on the eyes :rolleyes: I'd just smoked some fat bong loads, but he actually complimented me on how well I did on the test. Good to know. Must have thought I had allergies or something with those red eyes ;)


Anyway I've seen people driving at night without license plate lights before and it looks really shady.
 
Back
Top