Because who doesn't enjoy 85 and chemmie getting e-hostile with each other?
- Thread starter brahmanknight
- Start date
I can't tell if that's a border crossing or a checkpoint. If it's a crossing, the agents have the right to search any car for any reason. At a checkpoint, they can ask for a dog. It's not the same as a traffic stop and they don't have the same responsibilities as the police, i.e. the police can't extend a traffic stop beyond the normal to wait for a dog.
IMO, she failed to follow a lawful order and got combative and got teased for it. She probably didn't need to be tased but I can't tell you what these agents have seen occur from very similar situations. I guess the question is, what the hell was she trying to prove? IMO, she wasn't right and her misreading of the situation caused a stressful and dangerous situation. But, she made the papers and idiot journalists are going to make her a hero while misrepresenting the facts and the law, so all is well, right?
IMO, she failed to follow a lawful order and got combative and got teased for it. She probably didn't need to be tased but I can't tell you what these agents have seen occur from very similar situations. I guess the question is, what the hell was she trying to prove? IMO, she wasn't right and her misreading of the situation caused a stressful and dangerous situation. But, she made the papers and idiot journalists are going to make her a hero while misrepresenting the facts and the law, so all is well, right?
Am I the only one laughing at the screaming and crying? This bitch had it comin' and the lead-up was just fantastic.
Oh, and the border patrol officers are racist.
Oh, and the border patrol officers are racist.
Yes and no. DHS interprets the law regarding border crossings to include checkpoints up to 100 miles from any international border. There are few cases contesting that reading and the authority is split, iirc. However, unlike true international border stations, they still have to have a reason to detain US citizens at those interior checkpoints, i.e. reasonable suspicion. Here, the female officer attempted to articulate reasonable suspicion, but I doubt the facts she cited would meet the standard. Nevertheless, two weeks ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that a 8 minute detention to summon a K-9 unit was an unreasonable seizure in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments. The video claims she had been detained over 20 minutes and the officers do not dispute that. You would think that if you are going to do a checkpoint to look for smuggling, you would have a K-9 available. This is something you handle at the operational briefing stage, unless you are really just out there for show or to hassle a discreet portion of the population. It also probably why she was held for 8 hours, then released without being interrogated, charged ... or issued an apology.
From her voice and speech pattern, she's clearly under some type of mental strain/anxiety, even before the episode becomes confrontational. Even a layperson can listen to the tape and reach a conclusion that she was anticipating the encounter escalating to arrest. For those reasons, I say meh. Call it a draw. The cops had nothing and they got nothing. She didnt have a beef until she escalated the situation, then disobeyed lawful orders. She had it coming, but will still get a small check.
Last edited:
Thank you Huffy for the response. Understanding that the Court ruled on traffic stops, isn't everyone subject to search for any reason at border crossings? It is my understanding that Border Patrol has a bit more leeway due to their duty than normal police officers. Agree with your thoughts about provisioning a K-9 unit, but we have no idea what the logistics at this crossing are. Maybe they borrow from the sheriff at this not so normal crossing and can't have one on site every day.
You are quite correct that DHS/CBP does not need a warrant to search you or your baggage at an international border crossing. You are constitutionally protected from unreasonable searches. The courts have determined repeatedly that submitting to a summary search when entering the country is reasonable, even if you are a citizen. So if you are at an international border crossing designated in the federal register, it is game on for the cops. However, the cops can extend that search into the unreasonable realm -- holding you for 12 hours, naked, in a cell, while peppering you with questions and denying you the right to counsel, etc. That was a former girlfriends case. Im convinced to this day it was just two young under supervised guys that just wanted to film her naked and get off knowing they could get away with it.
DHS/CBP has interpreted the law on their own to include checkpoints up to 100 miles from the border. The courts have generally said Hell No!, but a few have found them reasonable under certain conditions.
The problem was that the local yokels were getting their buddies in ICE to set up border crossing roadblocks so they could detain everyone/anyone they wanted to without a warrant, just like at recognized international borders. The courts ruled that was unreasonable. You can't just set up a checkpoint, invite ICE, call it an ICE roadblock and stop everyone that looks brown or looks like they are coming from a farm or bar. So, they can do the international border checkpoints (I call them re-check points) up to 100 miles inland, but they can't detain US citizens except upon reasonable suspicion. So they can't have a sign out on US-1 that says, everybody pull over, which they did back in the 80s. And if they do a checkpoint, it has to roughly meet the same constitutional protection standards for US citizens as a DUI checkpoint detention, i.e. reasonable suspicion. Non-resident aliens are fair game for the most part.
One of the things I do is human trafficking defense. Sounds unsavory, but they are generally people who are accused of things they didnt do by non-citizens looking for a quick payday before they go back home. Even with the protections above, it still gets abused. I had a case where a local sheriff's office was getting pressure from a local farmworkers organization to do spot checks on the highway for trafficking. So they set up a roadblock about a quarter mile from my guys farm on a major FL highway, they invited ICE and called it a DUI checkpoint. The problem was one of the local tea party types sat across the road and filmed the whole thing. They only stopped cars that turned onto the highway from the access road to my guys farm. And then they only stopped vans or buses that were carrying more than 4 or 5 people. All the drivers stopped had brown skin. No white drivers, even with multiple passengers, and no single occupant cars were stopped. No other cars traveling on the same road in the same direction were stopped. A few cars, at the beginning of the operation, when traffic was light, were stopped in the other direction. That got thrown out for obvious reasons. I enjoyed carefully wording my questions at deposition to force the head of the farmworkers organization, who had people at the checkpoint, that they would have objected to the police action if they were not the ones who requested it.
As for the K-9 issue, the cops are required to publish a checkpoint plan. One of the reasons for that is to force them to deal with logistics problems like you are describing. If the problems aren't solved, the plan is per se unreasonable and/or the checkpoint should not occur. Im guessing these guys were told to throw the checkpoint together, they are understaffed, and ignored the procedures that are there to protect the public. That's on them, not on us. So she, you, or me, shouldn't have to wait at roadside just because the cops didnt think to bring a dog or decided to put the checkpoint in a place where a dog couldn't be made available.
I hope this helps.
DHS/CBP has interpreted the law on their own to include checkpoints up to 100 miles from the border. The courts have generally said Hell No!, but a few have found them reasonable under certain conditions.
The problem was that the local yokels were getting their buddies in ICE to set up border crossing roadblocks so they could detain everyone/anyone they wanted to without a warrant, just like at recognized international borders. The courts ruled that was unreasonable. You can't just set up a checkpoint, invite ICE, call it an ICE roadblock and stop everyone that looks brown or looks like they are coming from a farm or bar. So, they can do the international border checkpoints (I call them re-check points) up to 100 miles inland, but they can't detain US citizens except upon reasonable suspicion. So they can't have a sign out on US-1 that says, everybody pull over, which they did back in the 80s. And if they do a checkpoint, it has to roughly meet the same constitutional protection standards for US citizens as a DUI checkpoint detention, i.e. reasonable suspicion. Non-resident aliens are fair game for the most part.
One of the things I do is human trafficking defense. Sounds unsavory, but they are generally people who are accused of things they didnt do by non-citizens looking for a quick payday before they go back home. Even with the protections above, it still gets abused. I had a case where a local sheriff's office was getting pressure from a local farmworkers organization to do spot checks on the highway for trafficking. So they set up a roadblock about a quarter mile from my guys farm on a major FL highway, they invited ICE and called it a DUI checkpoint. The problem was one of the local tea party types sat across the road and filmed the whole thing. They only stopped cars that turned onto the highway from the access road to my guys farm. And then they only stopped vans or buses that were carrying more than 4 or 5 people. All the drivers stopped had brown skin. No white drivers, even with multiple passengers, and no single occupant cars were stopped. No other cars traveling on the same road in the same direction were stopped. A few cars, at the beginning of the operation, when traffic was light, were stopped in the other direction. That got thrown out for obvious reasons. I enjoyed carefully wording my questions at deposition to force the head of the farmworkers organization, who had people at the checkpoint, that they would have objected to the police action if they were not the ones who requested it.
As for the K-9 issue, the cops are required to publish a checkpoint plan. One of the reasons for that is to force them to deal with logistics problems like you are describing. If the problems aren't solved, the plan is per se unreasonable and/or the checkpoint should not occur. Im guessing these guys were told to throw the checkpoint together, they are understaffed, and ignored the procedures that are there to protect the public. That's on them, not on us. So she, you, or me, shouldn't have to wait at roadside just because the cops didnt think to bring a dog or decided to put the checkpoint in a place where a dog couldn't be made available.
I hope this helps.
Last edited:
I think most of the proposed legislation is being pushed by people that don't understand the ramifications of what they are proposing or fail to consider the external costs of their own actions. In their minds, they begin with the premise of that human trafficking is a special issue that requires special rules and tools to combat. Because there are so few reported cases of it, there is a rush to judgment on anyone accused of it, and the broad wording of the laws, including the JVTA, often nets persons who are not part of the class of persons the laws are designed to punish. Concurrently, the increased awareness campaigns, almost hysteria, in some cases, makes a fair trial impossible. Laws like JVTA that expand monetary recovery for victims often do not take into account the need to provide mechanisms to weed out unfounded claims and prevent fraud. The activists don't want to hear that and no politician is going to go public in opposition to human trafficking. So that leverage leads to some unjust and outright fraudulent results. Personally, I don't mind, it's helping pay my bills. But at a certain point, when you see cases where a woman is the only person who does the hiring at a small company, she personally interviews everyone that works on the farm, they are in compliance with all federal and state laws, and a group of people file a federal law suit out of the blue by a law school clinic up north claiming they were held overnight for two weeks in chains, made to work at gunpoint, then not paid for the labor. The HR person has never seen them in her life, law enforcement and the Justice Department investigate the claims and call them unfounded. The Federal wage and hour guys look into it and stop just short of calling it fraud, "the accounts of the witnesses appear to vary and (deleted) is obviously self-interested" but my guy loses 50% of the harvest proceeds the following season to make it go away. When I try to subpoena the workers for a related investigation, I get a notarized statement from the head of the human rights clinic that the "victims" left the country (within days of payment) and have no plans to return. Yeah, right.
I won't get too technical with it, but there are laws on the books that make corporations pay for human trafficking damages, even if the corporation had no knowledge of the alleged infraction and took reasonable steps to prevent any labor law violations. In other words, the law is written for people to file junk lawsuits, force small settlements, generate headlines, and move on. Its a "victim" industry in some cases. There are pockets of the farm worker community that know about this and will be taking advantage of it soon. One of the few places left where ICE can stop you and ask for proof of citizenship is a federal courthouse if you are there as a litigant. Congress and the President want to change that. If it does change, these lawsuits will go up dramatically. So will your food costs.
Then there is the case I worked for almost free, and after expenses I definitely lost money out of pocket on it. A lady owns an African hair braiding shop. One day, three Vietnamese girls come into the shop and ask about renting booths to do nails, massage, and other stuff. She tells them the prices are the same regardless of what services they offer, just like the other people that rent chairs from her braiding hair. They say fine. She produces her standard independent contractor agreement, checks the girls state licenses, verifies they have paid business taxes, even has them fill out I-9's, even though she didnt have to under the applicable law. Makes them get liability insurance. Everything documented and above board. Single mother of three. Lives out in Apoka in an area Im pretty sure none of us would choose to live in. She rents the salon from a guy up in Michigan. This lady does not have deep pockets. Crap, she barely has any pockets. So anyway, a couple of months go by and the girls don't make as much money as thought they would make. They tell my girl that either she will make up the difference or "it could be bad." She tells them in reply that they will be paying the next month in advance like every other person who rents a chair from her for the last 15 years or they can get out. They leave. No discussion. No negotiation. They clear everything out and leave. 6 or 7 months go by, process server shows up and gives her a lawsuit alleging that she paid to have the girls transported from Vietnam, made them live in the back of the store, didnt pay them, etc. Asked for more than $20 million. Veiled threats about getting the press involved and her losing business from the bad publicity. We settled for $5000 a piece. The money was wired to a trust account for the other side, but Im betting the girls didnt see any of that money, the lawyer and the people that put them up to it took it all.
Im seeing this a lot. It is going to get worse. It isn't going to solve a very small, very difficult, and very important problem -- the few thousand people a year that are smuggled into this country and don't get what they bargained for.
I won't get too technical with it, but there are laws on the books that make corporations pay for human trafficking damages, even if the corporation had no knowledge of the alleged infraction and took reasonable steps to prevent any labor law violations. In other words, the law is written for people to file junk lawsuits, force small settlements, generate headlines, and move on. Its a "victim" industry in some cases. There are pockets of the farm worker community that know about this and will be taking advantage of it soon. One of the few places left where ICE can stop you and ask for proof of citizenship is a federal courthouse if you are there as a litigant. Congress and the President want to change that. If it does change, these lawsuits will go up dramatically. So will your food costs.
Then there is the case I worked for almost free, and after expenses I definitely lost money out of pocket on it. A lady owns an African hair braiding shop. One day, three Vietnamese girls come into the shop and ask about renting booths to do nails, massage, and other stuff. She tells them the prices are the same regardless of what services they offer, just like the other people that rent chairs from her braiding hair. They say fine. She produces her standard independent contractor agreement, checks the girls state licenses, verifies they have paid business taxes, even has them fill out I-9's, even though she didnt have to under the applicable law. Makes them get liability insurance. Everything documented and above board. Single mother of three. Lives out in Apoka in an area Im pretty sure none of us would choose to live in. She rents the salon from a guy up in Michigan. This lady does not have deep pockets. Crap, she barely has any pockets. So anyway, a couple of months go by and the girls don't make as much money as thought they would make. They tell my girl that either she will make up the difference or "it could be bad." She tells them in reply that they will be paying the next month in advance like every other person who rents a chair from her for the last 15 years or they can get out. They leave. No discussion. No negotiation. They clear everything out and leave. 6 or 7 months go by, process server shows up and gives her a lawsuit alleging that she paid to have the girls transported from Vietnam, made them live in the back of the store, didnt pay them, etc. Asked for more than $20 million. Veiled threats about getting the press involved and her losing business from the bad publicity. We settled for $5000 a piece. The money was wired to a trust account for the other side, but Im betting the girls didnt see any of that money, the lawyer and the people that put them up to it took it all.
Im seeing this a lot. It is going to get worse. It isn't going to solve a very small, very difficult, and very important problem -- the few thousand people a year that are smuggled into this country and don't get what they bargained for.
