Are we required to disclose a firearm at a suspicionless DHS internal checkpoint?
- Thread starter flybeech
- Start Date
- Status
The constatutionality of these types of stops has already been asked and answered by SCOTUS.... Just because you don't agree with the ruling doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Kind of like a little kid who gets mad and takes his toys and goes home in a huff.
Second, The implication that we have never read the Constitution, or Bill of Rights and that we don't know the law is an absurdity I take offence to... Sir, I have read the documents, and I keep up with current State, Regional, and Federal Court Rulings as do many of the people on this board.
You can yell and scream and get red in the face and jump up and down and wave your arms all you want....But, the same Bill of Rights that you are chastising us for not following also gives us the right to be able to disagree with you and voice that opinion. And Sir that is what makes that document so great.
Here is some info on different types of Checkpoint stops as ruled on by the courts I hope this helps educate you and anyone who does not know.
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.
Information-seeking checkpoints are an important tool for law enforcement. Witnesses may not realize that they have useful information.9 Ours is a mobile society; notifying drivers about crimes may be the only way to reach potential witnesses in some cases. However, agencies should diligently follow the Court's guidance during checkpoints (stops without individualized suspicion) to avoid converting a useful law enforcement tool into an unreasonable (and therefore unconstitutional) stop.
Second, The implication that we have never read the Constitution, or Bill of Rights and that we don't know the law is an absurdity I take offence to... Sir, I have read the documents, and I keep up with current State, Regional, and Federal Court Rulings as do many of the people on this board.
You can yell and scream and get red in the face and jump up and down and wave your arms all you want....But, the same Bill of Rights that you are chastising us for not following also gives us the right to be able to disagree with you and voice that opinion. And Sir that is what makes that document so great.
Here is some info on different types of Checkpoint stops as ruled on by the courts I hope this helps educate you and anyone who does not know.
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.
Information-seeking checkpoints are an important tool for law enforcement. Witnesses may not realize that they have useful information.9 Ours is a mobile society; notifying drivers about crimes may be the only way to reach potential witnesses in some cases. However, agencies should diligently follow the Court's guidance during checkpoints (stops without individualized suspicion) to avoid converting a useful law enforcement tool into an unreasonable (and therefore unconstitutional) stop.
Watch out Fatboy you just became one of the oppressors or one of the vast majority who know nothing of their rights without the wise enlightenment of people like flybeech - sheesh talk about elitism basically its his interpretation or the highway.
Dude, it's a Gadsen Flag, not tourniquet for your brain! Why should you be ashamed when no one here expressly supported the checkpoints? You came busting in the door spoiling for a fight and everyone says "slow down son" and you go off the tracks anyway. Get a grip dude!
It doesn't diminish your rights, but it does effect your credibility. Oh, and you aren't required to waive your 5th Amendment rights, because the officer's question never asks you to. If you'd loosen up the tinfoil a little when you read the BoR, your reading comprehension might improve!
The BP agent is a federal law enforcement officer with broad jurisdiction. She went through months of intense training at FLETC, which included constitutional law and she's backed up by the supreme court in the land. You on the other hand are backed up by Alex Jones fantasies, tin foil and thin air. Do you ever once hear the agent say "shall", "must" or make any demands? She attempted to elicit voluntary cooperation from some ignorant ass who made her day that much harder. He might have even gotten a little empathy had he not been so abrasive and standoffish. Expressing one's rights does not require one to be a horse's ass, but I doubt you'd understand that.
Before you go off on your BoR rants, you might want to review some supreme court decisions regarding the subject. The BP agent never violated anyone's 5th Amendment rights, so you're beating an imaginary horse that never existed.
Do you have a SDA permit? If you do, then you willingly surrendered your 2A right to a higher authority in exchange for a privilege. One of the caveats to that is that you MUST notify any LE officer whom you come into contact with in an official capacity, which includes a BP agent at a checkpoint. Therefore, feel free to hit that road and when the nice BP agent speaks to you through your cracked window, you SHALL notify them of your armed status and your SDA permit, that is if you want to retain that privilege and not be in violation of the law. Otherwise, move to Vermont, carry with impunity and without a permit, never leave that free state and leave us the hell alone!
People who perform these jobs should be ashamed of themselves. They are spitting on the graves of REAL heroes who bled and died so that we wouldn't have to put up with BS like this in our country. Suspicion-less checkpoints belong in police states and dictatorships; not in the Land of the Free.
Personally I am not in any way moved by the plight of someone who takes a job, the requirements of which involve violating my rights. And no, I'm not one of the types who think our rights can be given or taken away at the pleasure of the government or the Supreme Court; I happen to think they are natural and inalienable, the way those fellows who signed the Declaration of Independence thought. As for the people who lament how unpleasant it is to hold one of these jobs that involve violating people's rights, I say decent, freedom-loving people should MAKE that kind of job unpleasant for anyone who takes it. The Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders") doesn't hold any water with me. Sure the people who write tyrannical laws bear responsibility; but so do the people who are willing to enforce them. I think a lot more people should express their outrage when they are stopped at suspicion-less checkpoints like the one in the video, and the ones they do here in Oklahoma. Maybe it would cause some of those people working the checkpoints to re-think the justification for what they're doing; and maybe it would cause some of the higher-ups in the law enforcement agencies to quit doing this stuff for fear that it is causing anti-police sentiment to spread in society.
I for one will let anyone who stops me at one of these things know exactly how I feel about it. It may just be part of their job, and it may even be a part they don't like very much... but it is part of MY job as a responsible citizen to speak out against outrageous violations of my liberty. If you disagree with something but you don't speak out, you have no grounds to be upset about it... you are as much a part of the problem as the people who perpetrate these violations.
OK, lawyer hat back on... as for the legal issue, yes, in Oklahoma the law says that you are supposed to tell any law enforcement officer that you are armed any time you come in contact with one, if you are carrying pursuant to a concealed carry license. This would apply to any law enforcement officer, whether local, state, or federal; and it would apply to any kind of contact, including contact at one of these checkpoints.
Personally I am not in any way moved by the plight of someone who takes a job, the requirements of which involve violating my rights. And no, I'm not one of the types who think our rights can be given or taken away at the pleasure of the government or the Supreme Court; I happen to think they are natural and inalienable, the way those fellows who signed the Declaration of Independence thought. As for the people who lament how unpleasant it is to hold one of these jobs that involve violating people's rights, I say decent, freedom-loving people should MAKE that kind of job unpleasant for anyone who takes it. The Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders") doesn't hold any water with me. Sure the people who write tyrannical laws bear responsibility; but so do the people who are willing to enforce them. I think a lot more people should express their outrage when they are stopped at suspicion-less checkpoints like the one in the video, and the ones they do here in Oklahoma. Maybe it would cause some of those people working the checkpoints to re-think the justification for what they're doing; and maybe it would cause some of the higher-ups in the law enforcement agencies to quit doing this stuff for fear that it is causing anti-police sentiment to spread in society.
I for one will let anyone who stops me at one of these things know exactly how I feel about it. It may just be part of their job, and it may even be a part they don't like very much... but it is part of MY job as a responsible citizen to speak out against outrageous violations of my liberty. If you disagree with something but you don't speak out, you have no grounds to be upset about it... you are as much a part of the problem as the people who perpetrate these violations.
OK, lawyer hat back on... as for the legal issue, yes, in Oklahoma the law says that you are supposed to tell any law enforcement officer that you are armed any time you come in contact with one, if you are carrying pursuant to a concealed carry license. This would apply to any law enforcement officer, whether local, state, or federal; and it would apply to any kind of contact, including contact at one of these checkpoints.
So you don't believe anyone should work for the Border Patrol and that our borders should be self regulating. That's what I read out of your statement.
Thanks Rifleman. I appreciate your response. I will dutifully inform the Federal border patrol the next time I need to go to the Constitution-free zone 100 miles inside our borders, as well as DHS's VIPR checkpoints that are being expanded across the nation, that I have been granted the 'privilege' to exercise my 2nd Amendment right.
Yes, I've become one of those dreaded Paulies who want to push back every time the Constitution is spat upon. This is no longer the country I grew up in. I cannot hide my 'tin foil hat'.
For those who feel safer and support the Department of Homeland security's operation of internal suspicionless checkpoints, with dogs sniffing at our cars without probable cause, detaining us in long lines and questioning us about where we are coming from and where we are going, when all we want to be on our way, TSA's airport checkpoints that force us to submit ourselves and our children to radiation scans that record our naked bodies and/or the groping hands of the gloved TSA agent, the Patriot Act, which suspends the 4th Amendment and allows the government to search our homes and tap our conversations without a warrant, the NDAA granting the President the ultimate authority to order the arrest without warrant, indefinite detainment anywhere in the world for life without charge, torture and assassination of ANY American citizen, the coming Enemy Expatriation Act, which grants the government the power to strip the citizenship of ANY American who has been merely suspected of being guilty of crime of 'belligerence' against the government, SOPA/PIPA, which grants the government the power and authority to censor the internet and monitor what we read, write and think, The Real ID, which will be here next January, that will have our most personal information, biometrics, banking information and no tellin' what else broadcast on an RFID and/or microchip, as well as a whole host of central powers I never dreamed of 30+ years ago, I hope all these things make you feel safer from terrorists. I just happen to have a different idea of who the real terrorists are.
I would like to apologize to those who read my rants and respect the feelings of ranking members that the Federal government only has our best interest at heart and the good people of the DHS, TSA, Border Patrol and all the other agencies that have come into existence, are here to protect us from terrorists and keep us safe. I understand that most Americans appreciate the feelings of safety when they board an airplane, drive the highways, use the internet or the telephone, that Big Sis is just doing her part to ensure our safety. From now on, I will do my best to withhold my disparaging remarks that suggest we now live in a police state, because the majority believes safety is far more important than liberty.
This.
- Status
Similar threads
