The Shotgun Blog
« Twenty Questions on Obama Care | Main | Anti-HST movement is featured on Roadkill Radio tonight »
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
May we see your papers? -- Merchandise edition.
After watching Terry Brassi of CheckpointUSA.org stand up for his fourth and fifth amendment rights, I just knew I wanted a t-shirt with the words "Am I being detained, officer?" -- "Am I free to go?" on it. So I designed one for myself.
If you like it, you can buy it too, right here. (disclosure: there is a 10% commission Zazzle pays me, for which I will be donating 100% of all proceeds to liberty-based causes.)
Posted by Mike Brock on August 18, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
After watching Terry Brassi of CheckpointUSA.org stand up for his fourth and fifth amendment rights....
Posted by Mike Brock on August 18, 2009
In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte the US Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that internal United States Border Patrol checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-18 9:08:17 PM
In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte the US Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that internal United States Border Patrol checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
That is correct. However, that very case only ruled that citizens must stop. And that border patrol may only search vehicles if they have a reasonable suspicion to believe that the person in question is an illegal immigrant.
They also clarified that the stop may only be for a reasonable amount of time, as to ascertain if there is any reason to believe the person is an illegal immigrant.
Nowhere did the Supreme Court say that citizens were obliged to give up their fourth and fifth amendment rights. And that's all the words on this t-shirt are standing up for.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-18 9:11:34 PM
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte did not authorize arbitrary search or detention.
We should also note that the Supreme Court said that the stops were only permissible along routes within 100 mi with the border that actually "nexus" with the border.
Many of the stops are now on highways which have no nexus with the border, but rather, run parallel with the border (up to 70 miles away).
Terry Brassi actually was arrested for refusing to cooperate at such a stop that did not nexus the border, and was charged. However, he challenged the legality of the arrest and won--demonstrating, in that case, the Border Patrol was breaking the law.
But they're continuing to break the law, in contravention of the limits set out in that ruling.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-18 9:16:48 PM
But they're continuing to break the law, in contravention of the limits set out in that ruling.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-18 9:16:48 PM
Which they will continue to do until people get fighting mad about it.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-18 9:51:15 PM
You people act as if your Border Patrol was out to get you. You dont know how good you got it. When you can afford to have stupid remarks printed on a t-shirt, then you have too much time on your hands and you turn against your own. I hope nothing ever comes across that checkpoint that harms you or your family.Go spend your time fighting for the real issues and let those guys do their job of protecting you. Typical american..... Just step out of your country (and I dont mean to Mexico)for a few days and you will come back grateful of your border agents. In my country, people like you would be linched (not by the government, but by the people). Youre probably some liberal from California.
Posted by: X-MAN | 2009-08-19 6:57:50 AM
"You dont know how good you got it."
That's right, who are we to complain, since the rest of the world has is so bad...
"do their job of protecting you. "
How does detaining innocent people and tasering people stading up for their rights protect me?
"Youre probably some liberal from California."
I beleive that most of the participants on this site are Canadian, with a conservative or libertarian view.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-19 7:42:35 AM
In my country, people like you would be linched (not by the government, but by the people). Youre probably some liberal from California.
Posted by: X-MAN | 2009-08-19 6:57:50 AM
Oh Look! Another statist Nazi speaks.
Comparing the US or Canada to each other or to other nations is very...VERY small minded.
That's called "rationalizing". And in this case
it would be rationalizing away our rights.
No Thanks X-Man.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-19 9:55:45 AM
And that border patrol may only search vehicles if they have a reasonable suspicion to believe that the person in question is an illegal immigrant.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-18 9:11:34 PM
Incorrect. The Court determined that, "the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens."
Do you understand what the word "absence" means?
I would suggest that interpretation of the US Constitution should be left to legal scholars not computer coders.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-19 10:41:10 AM
And of course just because they "say" its law it must be "just and moral" right?
WRONG! Time for new legislators.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-19 12:31:42 PM
Incorrect. The Court determined that, "the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens."
... along with a plethora of clarifications on the meaning and extent to which that is permitted.
The court also said that:
"Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy.".
The court conveyed no authority to check for drugs or illegal aliens in the trunk, which is exactly what we've seen some of these checkpoints doing.
Also, in that same ruling:
We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search. -- Justice Powell in U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte
Nowhere in the ruling did the court rule that your fifth amendment or fourth amendment rights are void at USBP stops. And further, the judges make clear that the stops are only for the "sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status".
Given the fact that the fifth amendment privilege to not answer cannot be used against you in order to justify suspicion, I don't see what point you're making.
Perhaps you should read the whole ruling more carefully. And do you know what "consent or probable cause" means?
I won't leave it up to you to frame:
Consent, usually an abbreviation of the full legal term Informed consent means: "a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and future consequences of an action." -- Wikipedia
and...
Probable cause is is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[1] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[2]" -- Wikipedia
Nice cherry-picking job, though.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-19 12:41:29 PM
And of course just because they "say" its law it must be "just and moral" right?
WRONG! Time for new legislators.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-19 12:31:42 PM
I made no pronouncement whether the Supreme Court's decision was "just and moral" but merely that almost 35 years ago the the Supreme Court ruled that stops at Border Patrol internal checkpoints "in the absence of any individualized suspicion" had been found to be legal. If you take issue with the ruling that's your prerogative.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-19 12:52:06 PM
If you take issue with the ruling that's your prerogative.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-19 12:52:06 PM
I do.
And thank you.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-19 2:14:24 PM
Nice cherry-picking job, though.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-19 12:41:29 PM
Hardly. The link will allow anyone to read the opinion of the Supreme Court for United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Justice POWELL in delivering the majority opinion was clear that in this case Border Patrol checkpoints were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. I'll take the word of Justice Powell concerning constitution interpretation over those of a computer coder.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-19 6:18:30 PM
The Stig,
I think you're arguing against a straw man, buddy. I never said the checkpoints were deemed illegal. I've acknowledged, from the beginning, that the courts have allowed them. But only to stop and question. Not to search without cause.
And when the courts say they can stop and engage in "limited" questioning (which is what Justice Powell) say, he is not saying you're required to answer.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-19 7:18:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.