Got stopped at a check point....

The REAL ID law did NOT go into effect. It was stopped by state sovereignty stances by over 30 states that either enacted legislation not complying or with resolutions.

The federal govt had DHS deem all states "in compliance" with the REAL ID... So this way the states feel they win and the fed can sleep and try it again in the future. These checkpoints may not formally be called part of the program in those states but thats what the act called for.

DHS will try again in a few years to get the states to go along with it... Theyre complete scum// vigilance always
 
the constitution free zone doesnt exist anymore as far as I know.. If law enforcement wants to search your vehicle they must have a warrant or permission as per Judge Napolitano some months ago he said the SCOTUS had recently reached that decision.

do you have a link or something to back this up? i thought 100 miles inland from the borders was nazi, er, constitution free zone.
 
do you have a link or something to back this up? i thought 100 miles inland from the borders was nazi, er, constitution free zone.

The ACLU wanting donation to fight for the "cause" would like you to think so:

aclumap.jpg


Just know your rights and assert them.
 
Sorry Deborah but you are wrong. Read the links I posted.

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
 
I have my own thoughts on the issue, but they've been touched on by various members already.

What I find most interesting is that, instead of letting someone vent and applauding her for sticking to her guns while not being a total lunatic, some people choose to call her out on being a supporter of illegal searches/seizures. A lot of people who love to talk the talk would hopefully not act that way the moment they're pulled over or asked a question by someone with "authority". That's how people get into genuine trouble. Not everyone's out to get you. On the flipside, they aren't entitled to leap into your property and rummage.

How far are some of you willing to go to declare you're being "detained" against your will? There are states where it's a law that you must slow to 1/2 the speed limit or pull over a full lane if there's an emergency vehicle pulled over on the side of the road with its lights on. Is that unfairly detaining you? They've slowed you down!

Just an observation. I probably would have handled it similarly to Deb, though I am not a fan of checkpoints and just generally avoid them if I can see them coming.
 
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

Do you think the Founders would agree?

SCOTUS rules against the Constitution all the time. If that's your measure of whether something is legal or not then I assume you think the Patriot Act is ok, reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are acceptable, the Feds can force states to follow Federal law regardless of the 10th Amendment, etc.

Point is, your assertion that checkpoints, reasonable suspicion, and the 4th Amendment are not related is wrong. I don't care what SCOTUS has ruled.
 
Do you think the Founders would agree?

SCOTUS rules against the Constitution all the time. If that's your measure of whether something is legal or not then I assume you think the Patriot Act is ok, reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are acceptable, the Feds can force states to follow Federal law regardless of the 10th Amendment, etc.

Point is, your assertion that checkpoints, reasonable suspicion, and the 4th Amendment are not related is wrong. I don't care what SCOTUS has ruled.

I never asserted that checkpoints and the 4th were not related. I asserted that stops for brief questioning do not violate my 4th rights. SCOTUS agrees. I do not see anything in the 4th that says otherwise and I have even checked into the orginal intent.

Your opinion kind of reminds me of people who think the first amendment declares separation of church and state, even though it doesn't. And yes, the SCOTUS misinterprets the Constitution at times, but in the case of brief stop and questioning, I don't happen to think so. Yet, I do believe searchng my RV would have violated my 4th so I spoke up and apparently was right since they backed off.
 
I never asserted that checkpoints and the 4th were not related. I asserted that stops for brief questioning do not violate my 4th rights. SCOTUS agrees. I do not see anything in the 4th that says otherwise and I have even checked into the orginal intent.

"Papers please Ms. Deborah. We, the Federal government, don't need any reason to stop you. May we ask you some questions? There's only 12 million laws on the books and you may have broken one at some point in your life so we need to talk to you."

Is that really what you want? Supporting suspicionless checkpoints "for illegals" (yet they leave the border wide open) is the start. I must say Im surprised that you can't see the slippery slope in action here. Bottom line, there must be a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed for police to stop you in any fashion, whether on foot or in a vehicle. There's LOADS of case law supporting this. I don't particularly care what your opinion is of illegal immigrants or checkpoints supposedly for them.

Your opinion kind of reminds me of people who think the first amendment declares separation of church and state, even though it doesn't. And yes, the SCOTUS misinterprets the Constitution at times, but in the case of brief stop and questioning, I don't happen to think so. Yet, I do believe searchng my RV would have violated my 4th so I spoke up and apparently was right since they backed off.

Again, you can not be stopped, questioned, patted down, etc without a legal justification (reasonable suspicion or probable cause, in more advanced cases). It's just a plain fact. Otherwise, this is Nazi Germany. YOUR opinion of it doesn't mean shit, no offense intended. It's a well established legal principle, hence why it's come up before SCOTUS so many times in so many cases. I don't even know why I'm arguing this with you. The rules on Terry stops are quite clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Enjoy your checkpoints. I just pray your acceptance of the intrusion doesn't eventually bring them to my neck of the woods.
 
Devil, have you ever had to go through a check point? If so, please regale us with your successful stride right through the stop sign with BP agents standing there. Tell us how easy it all was for you, please? I'd really like to know.
 
Devil, have you ever had to go through a check point? If so, please regale us with your successful stride right through the stop sign with BP agents standing there. Tell us how easy it all was for you, please? I'd really like to know.

Nope, never encountered one. I hope and plan to keep it that way since I live in the United States of America where "Papers Please" without reasonable suspicion of a crime is illegal. What does my experiences have to do with anything? You said yourself that you APPROVE of the checkpoints. Truthfully, I wouldn't be giving you shit if you hadn't said that. I can certainly understand not blowing through a checkpoint for fear of the repercussions. That's very different than saying you approve of them.

What I can't understand is approving of them while still supporting 4th amendment rights. That's a logical contradiction to me.
 
Last edited:
Nope, never encountered one. I hope and plan to keep it that way since I live in the United States of America where "Papers Please" without reasonable suspicion of a crime is illegal. What does my experiences have to do with anything? You said yourself that you APPROVE of the checkpoints. Truthfully, I wouldn't be giving you shit if you hadn't said that. I can certainly understand not blowing through a checkpoint for fear of the repercussions. That's very different than saying you approve of them.

What I can't understand is approving of them while still supporting 4th amendment rights. That's a logical contradiction to me.

Have to say I'm in agreement w/ ya devil21. Seems Americans were more than willing to give up rights w/ regards to DUI check-points. Now everyone in my town is bitchin' because they have turned it into a revenue generator. I use this opportunity to point out what idiots they were to except the governments bullshit that it was to save the children. Mission creep. More intended than not..
 
Nope, never encountered one. I hope and plan to keep it that way since I live in the United States of America where "Papers Please" without reasonable suspicion of a crime is illegal. What does my experiences have to do with anything? You said yourself that you APPROVE of the checkpoints. Truthfully, I wouldn't be giving you shit if you hadn't said that. I can certainly understand not blowing through a checkpoint for fear of the repercussions. That's very different than saying you approve of them.

What I can't understand is approving of them while still supporting 4th amendment rights. That's a logical contradiction to me.

And there you have it. You are making a philosophical judgement about something that does not affect your life. You are critical of the way I handled myself in this situation based on my opinion of checkpoints at southern border states. You have never had to live with illegal immigration affecting your way of life the way I have. I don't like the BP checkpoints any more than you do, but I am OKAY with them for reasons already mentioned. I am NOT okay with unreasonable searches of my vehicle. I would NEVER be okay with checkpoints situated at every state border highway entrance and would fight against such a thing ever happening.

We don't have secure borders. Anyone can pretty much waltz in here. SOMETHING is needed to stem the flow. If it is beyond you to understand my position on this then we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
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.

No problem, but did you (DK) have your protective lead foil hat on?

SMILE: This thing can almost count the fillings in you teeth!
It can easily see the positions of all the pistons in the engine,
spot that gun hiden under the seat, find the illegal(s) in the
hidden compartment, and spot Beatrix Kiddo's drugged up
body bagged up in the trunk along with your shovel and
a flashlight, etc.!

Interesting 4th amendment aspects here (and with those
"nudish" body screenings at the airport).

It's a brave new world.

YouTube - Relocatable VACIS® Product
 
Last edited:
And there you have it. You are making a philosophical judgement about something that does not affect your life. You are critical of the way I handled myself in this situation based on my opinion of checkpoints at southern border states. You have never had to live with illegal immigration affecting your way of life the way I have. I don't like the BP checkpoints any more than you do, but I am OKAY with them for reasons already mentioned. I am NOT okay with unreasonable searches of my vehicle. I would NEVER be okay with checkpoints situated at every state border highway entrance and would fight against such a thing ever happening.

We don't have secure borders. Anyone can pretty much waltz in here. SOMETHING is needed to stem the flow. If it is beyond you to understand my position on this then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Never once did I say I have a problem with how you handled yourself. You did a fine job there. I said I have a problem with you APPROVING of the checkpoints themselves. And then trying to draw a distinction between 4th amendment rights and checkpoints for "illegals" as somehow being different. There is no difference. Checkpoints are checkpoints and they are illegal. You're supporting an illegal action because you hate illegals more than you hate checkpoints. Just callin a spade a spade. Cutting off your nose to spite your face...

What difference is there between them stopping you and stopping a busload of hispanics? It almost sounds like you also approve of profiling people based on their appearance too.

On a practical level, the checkpoints do nothing at all to stop illegal immigration. The "mules" and "coyotes" know where the checkpoints are. Instead, protect your 4th amendment right to not be stopped by police for no reason and instead advocate the dismantling of the welfare state. The welfare state is why they come here.
 
Last edited:
Never once did I say I have a problem with how you handled yourself. You did a fine job there. I said I have a problem with you APPROVING of the checkpoints themselves. And then trying to draw a distinction between 4th amendment rights and checkpoints for "illegals" as somehow being different. There is no difference. Checkpoints are checkpoints and they are illegal. You're supporting an illegal action because you hate illegals more than you hate checkpoints. Just callin a spade a spade. Cutting off your nose to spite your face...

What difference is there between them stopping you and stopping a busload of hispanics? It almost sounds like you also approve of profiling people based on their appearance too.

On a practical level, the checkpoints do nothing at all to stop illegal immigration. The "mules" and "coyotes" know where the checkpoints are. Instead, protect your 4th amendment right to not be stopped by police for no reason and instead advocate the dismantling of the welfare state. The welfare state is why they come here.


I agree with your side of the argument here devil21. Detainment despite what SCOTUS states is seizure as once stopped and requested for information rare is the bird that flies without rendering some (in their eyes) legitimate manner of information. This is seizure of ones person and extraction of information without evidence of a crime. This was what we were propagandized with as children to be the crimes of the Soviet Union and seen as reprehensible.

Going through a similar issue here with social services. Due to others not having stood up for their rights to freedom from irrational and unnecessary searches we are being grilled on us being dangerous and hiding something thus threatened into compliance based sheerly on a failure of willingness to allow an agency policy to supersede our rights to unlawful searches. Deborah may have skated through today, but next time might not be so lucky as it always depends on the discretion of the interviewer as to the lengths they will go.

We need to start taking our rights back as sovereign human beings not living like property of the state. Stop allowing fear to lower our standards and accept that sometimes bad things will happen but the worst is to lose one's freedom. This is why socialism/fascism is taking hold because we surrender ourselves for the good of protection from life's shortfalls. Very small leap of rationalism to accept border protection at the loss of right to privacy to the state and yet think mandatory healthcare shouldn't also be guaranteed to all with the same rights to privacy lost to verichip in the governments hands,imo.
 
Never once did I say I have a problem with how you handled yourself. You did a fine job there. I said I have a problem with you APPROVING of the checkpoints themselves. And then trying to draw a distinction between 4th amendment rights and checkpoints for "illegals" as somehow being different. There is no difference. Checkpoints are checkpoints and they are illegal. You're supporting an illegal action because you hate illegals more than you hate checkpoints. Just callin a spade a spade. Cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Now wait a minute!!!! Don't you DARE accuse me of hating illegals!!! :mad: That is a bunch of crap and I'm sick and tired of people who have no legitimate argument pulling out the race card.



On a practical level, the checkpoints do nothing at all to stop illegal immigration. The "mules" and "coyotes" know where the checkpoints are. Instead, protect your 4th amendment right to not be stopped by police for no reason and instead advocate the dismantling of the welfare state. The welfare state is why they come here.

This speaks to your ignorance of illegal immigration and border security. You remind me of people who have no children advising and criticizing those who do on their parenting skills. You've already admitted you don't have to live with what we in the southwest have to endure so you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Before you go spouting off that checkpoints are useless you should do a little research into it - you'll find you're dead wrong.

As much as you'd like to make this a black and white issue, it isn't. Your puritanical philosophy on what violates my privacy is only that and nothing more. Whether you like it or not there are shades of gray where this is concerned. Fighting to shut down our socialistic programs is all well and good but that alone won't stop illegal immigration. For years as a young person, I worked in the restaurant business along side many illegals. I learned to speak spanish fluently and became friends with them. They didn't collect social services or entitlements of any kind. That is the case in many other fields as well such as construction, landscaping, ranching, farming, trucking, manufacturing, factory work and so on. They undercut the going labor rate and push Americans out of these jobs. Then they send their money back to Mexico to the tune of 30 billion dollars a year. Many are criminals who are running from the law in their own country and come here and commit crimes here, get caught and end up in our prison system.

This doesn't even include the discussion of enemy invasion. Do you have any concept of how easy it would be for the Chinese to invade us through Mexico? As it stands right now they have some 12 missles pointed right at the Cali coast. If they shot them off and simultaneously invaded from the south, which anyone can do now, we would be done for.

You can go ahead and live in your la-la land pretending like illegal immigration doesn't hurt our economy, and that an unsecured border doesn't put us at risk, but as for me - I'll live with the border check points for now until they secure our borders like they should. And, at the same time, I will continue to insist that they provide probable cause before they search me or my property.
 
Now wait a minute!!!! Don't you DARE accuse me of hating illegals!!! :mad: That is a bunch of crap and I'm sick and tired of people who have no legitimate argument pulling out the race card.

While I am also sick of this argument, he did not attempt it. Saying you hate illegals is saying you hate people busting into the country. He did not say that "YOU HATE *insert any nationality you want here*"

Saying you hate illegals is like saying you hate somebody who is breaking known laws. If I said you hate murderers (please tell me you do), what would you say in return?

I personally think border checks are completely different than any other *checkpoint*. Once you get on American soil, you are protected by the U.S. constitution, it does not matter if you are illegal or not. Yes, they can deport illegals, but no they cannot search your RV without probable cause.
 
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.
You should not have told him anything about your trip.


He asked how many were aboard, I told him 6.
I think he has the power to ask that question, but I still do not think you are required to answer (I could be mistaken on this part though)

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.
Again, you are not required to talk to them. They were not looking for fruit, they were asking questions to see if you would get nervous or slip up and say something that would lead them to believe you were hauling something other than fruit. That's why it's best to say nothing because even if you are completely innocent your body language or vocal language might could maybe be interpreted as you being guilty in the mind of the cop. Reasonable suspicion can lead to probable cause.




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.
When you start asking questions of them (they are not used to this) it puts them on the defensive and you can sometimes see an attitude shift. Throwing around some legal language (in the proper context) can show them you're not an idiot.


"Officer, do you have any reasonable suspicions?" or "Officer, what is your probable cause to search?" are questions that most traffickers will never ask the LEOs. It admits nothing when you ask, but it still conveys the fact that you understand the law and your rights.


The trick is to make them prove they have probable cause to search you because most of the time they don't, ESPECIALLY at a random and arbitrary check point.


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.
Exactly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top