Holding Border Patrol Accountable

[Kowalski]

Holding Border Patrol Accountable: Terry Bressi on Recording his 300+ Checkpoint Interactions

Link:

This was a very good interview, I really liked it.

Also, know what your rights are when you are stopped at a checkpoint:

Link: http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/my-rights-at-checkpoints/

If you think these types of checkpoints are okay, you might be one of the following....

[spartan max2]

lol the masochist made me laugh

[Skep B]

Whys this guy having so many check point interractions?

[Kowalski]

Whys this guy having so many check point interractions?

Watch the video. It's not long, and he explains why.

[Skep B]

I'm at work, the computer doesn't have a speaker set up.

.....yeah it's weird I dunno.

[Not So Common Sense]

The only three things you should during a confrontation with a law enforcement officer:

1: I am going to remain silent.

2: Am I free to go/Am I being detained?

3: I do not consent to a search.

http://www.policecrimes.com/knowrights.html

The rule of law is no longer to keep citizens safe it is now geared towards keeping citizens in control.

Authoritarianism is not pretending anymore to be a real alternative to democracy, but we can see many more authoritarian practices and styles being smuggled into democratic governments.

-Ivan Krastev

[Skep B]

3: I do not consent to a search.

I've always wondered about this, could that be seen as probable cause if the cop was having a sh*tty day and really wanted to be inconvenient for you?

[Bavarian Raven]

I've always wondered about this, could that be seen as probable cause if the cop was having a sh*tty day and really wanted to be inconvenient for you?

Not giving consent to a search is not probably cause or at least that's what I've been told by my friends studying law (in Canada anyways lol)

[Not So Common Sense]

I've always wondered about this, could that be seen as probable cause if the cop was having a sh*tty day and really wanted to be inconvenient for you?

Not probable cause but they will either get a warrant or a K-9 to enable them to search. They are your rights, use them or lose them.

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don’t give up the fight.

-Bob Marley

[Skep B]

Yeah,im not taking life advice from Bob Marley.

So, you can refuse to let them search, so they go get a warrant or call in a K-9 unit to come look your stuff over. And if they deem it worthwhile they'll then search.

Or, you can allow them to search.

That seems counterproductive.

[Kowalski]

Yeah,im not taking life advice from Bob Marley.

So, you can refuse to let them search, so they go get a warrant or call in a K-9 unit to come look your stuff over. And if they deem it worthwhile they'll then search.

Or, you can allow them to search.

That seems counterproductive.

Not allowing them to search your car, is not probable cause.

Probable cause is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant for arrest. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, probable cause requires facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has committed a crime.

Common examples of probable cause include the sight or smell of contraband in plain view or plain smell, or an admission of guilt for a specific crime. The presentation of any of these facts would allow an officer to perform a search and make an arrest.

Be aware that minor traffic violations (e.g. speeding, broken tail-light, or expired registration) are not considered probable cause.

What probable cause means to you

While there are certain situations where police need a warrant to search you or your property — during a traffic stop, police only need probable cause to legally search your vehicle.

The major exception to the probable cause requirement for vehicle searches is consent. Most vehicle searches don’t occur because police have probable cause. They occur because people get tricked or intimidated into consenting to search requests.

Consenting to a search request automatically makes the search legal in the eyes of the law. And the 4th Amendment doesn’t require officers to tell you about your right to refuse. So if you’re pulled over, don’t try to figure out whether or not the officer has probable cause to legally search you. You always have the right to refuse search requests by stating, “Officer, I don’t consent to any searches.” Repeat, if necessary.

If you refuse consent but the officer searches you anyway and finds illegal items, your lawyer can file a motion to suppress — or throw out — the evidence in court. If the judge agrees that the officer’s search violated the 4th Amendment’s probable cause requirements, she’ll grant the motion. Unless the prosecution has other evidence, your charges would be dismissed.

Link: http://www.flexyourr...probable-cause/

Edited November 19, 2013 by Kowalski

[green_dude777]

Yeah,im not taking life advice from Bob Marley.

So, you can refuse to let them search, so they go get a warrant or call in a K-9 unit to come look your stuff over. And if they deem it worthwhile they'll then search.

Or, you can allow them to search.

That seems counterproductive.

So you just rather cede a right?

[The Silver Thong]

As soon as they call in a k9 unit your screwed as no matter what the dog indicates, the officer will always find a hit if true or not.

[Dark_Grey]

Yeah,im not taking life advice from Bob Marley.

So, you can refuse to let them search, so they go get a warrant or call in a K-9 unit to come look your stuff over. And if they deem it worthwhile they'll then search.

Or, you can allow them to search.

That seems counterproductive.

Say it anyways even if you don't have anything to hide. Make them earn a day's wage. You are under no obligation to let them do it, but they will make you feel like you are.

[green_dude777]

As soon as they call in a k9 unit your screwed as no matter what the dog indicates, the officer will always find a hit if true or not.

This is true... it's well known that those dogs have a ridiculous false positive hit rate. https://www.google.com/#q=rates+of+false+positives+by+drug+dogs

Still, I'll make them earn it.

[Yamato]

The only three things you should during a confrontation with a law enforcement officer:

1: I am going to remain silent.

2: Am I free to go/Am I being detained?

3: I do not consent to a search.

http://www.policecri...knowrights.html

The rule of law is no longer to keep citizens safe it is now geared towards keeping citizens in control.

Authoritarianism is not pretending anymore to be a real alternative to democracy, but we can see many more authoritarian practices and styles being smuggled into democratic governments.

-Ivan Krastev

As part of remaining silent it's useful to say stuff like "You can talk to my lawyer in a few days from now." You can also read your own Miranda rights back to the officer. "I have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that?" is good.

[Yamato]

As soon as they call in a k9 unit your screwed as no matter what the dog indicates, the officer will always find a hit if true or not.

Is there data available on this?

[Yamato]

I've always wondered about this, could that be seen as probable cause if the cop was having a sh*tty day and really wanted to be inconvenient for you?

It doesn't look good on his daily report writing up excuses for messing around with people making things inconvenient for them.

People who follow the laws and have nothing to hide are the first people who should challenge govt power on the lines that power crosses.

The bottom line here is that we will never know the true limits of our rights, if those limits aren't tested. I cannot fathom why people have so much problem with accepting more aggressive behavior that accomplishes that.

[green_dude777]

It doesn't look good on his daily report writing up excuses for messing around with people making things inconvenient for them.

People who follow the laws and have nothing to hide are the first people who should challenge govt power on the lines that power crosses.

The bottom line here is that we will never know the true limits of our rights, if those limits aren't tested. I cannot fathom why people have so much problem with accepting more aggressive behavior that accomplishes that.

I agree, and just want to answer that last line for you; comfort. If someone is comfortable enough, they won't do anything to jeopardize that comfort. Even if it means lacking integrity and/or ethics.