The SCOTUS made an exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures in 1976, allowing internal checkpoints (not on the border) and the seizure of Americans absent any suspicion of any crime. In their decision they told us it would be okay though, because the checkpoint seizures would be brief, limited to asking about immigration status, and any further detention would require our consent or probable cause. They told us the principal protection of our Fourth Amendment would be the limited scope of the stop.
And then an Air Force pilot brought suit after he was detained for thirty-four minutes at an internal checkpoint despite there being no suspicion of a crime, despite him answering all questions asked of him, and despite him providing a military ID and a driver's license and providing two passports. The agent ignored his offer of a passport and the agents called his commanding officer in the military during the detention. All was caught on camera.
Still, the former prosecutor in Del Rio, Texas (a court created to handle all the Border Patrol immigration issues on the border town) turned District Court judge dismissed the suit prior to discovery. The Air Force officer appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals where two judges ruled that he was "unusually uncooperative" despite answering every question and providing more identification than most people carry with them. One judge dissented powerfully.
The suit was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States which created these suspicionless internal checkpoints and assured us they would be minimally intrusive and the scope of the stop would protect our Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court, however, declined to hear the case.
The Air Force officer responded on his blog: http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2016/03/upholding-our-constiutional-rights-too.html
Video and all documentation and links to media coverage of the suit: http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/BorderPatrolAppeal.aspx
And then an Air Force pilot brought suit after he was detained for thirty-four minutes at an internal checkpoint despite there being no suspicion of a crime, despite him answering all questions asked of him, and despite him providing a military ID and a driver's license and providing two passports. The agent ignored his offer of a passport and the agents called his commanding officer in the military during the detention. All was caught on camera.
Still, the former prosecutor in Del Rio, Texas (a court created to handle all the Border Patrol immigration issues on the border town) turned District Court judge dismissed the suit prior to discovery. The Air Force officer appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals where two judges ruled that he was "unusually uncooperative" despite answering every question and providing more identification than most people carry with them. One judge dissented powerfully.
The suit was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States which created these suspicionless internal checkpoints and assured us they would be minimally intrusive and the scope of the stop would protect our Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court, however, declined to hear the case.
The Air Force officer responded on his blog: http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2016/03/upholding-our-constiutional-rights-too.html
Video and all documentation and links to media coverage of the suit: http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/BorderPatrolAppeal.aspx
