The Engineer vs. the Border Patrol
slate.com
slate.com
At some point he decided to try to stand up for what he considered his rights in a similar way: not being combative, just not cooperating. He was thrown in jail for 3 days, then the charges were dropped.
He talked with lawyers and the ACLU. The ACLU were quite frank that they have limited resources, and so they have to prioritize cases that have the ideal defendant and political optics. If he fought it personally, the cost would start at five figures.
The folks doing this know there's a high barrier to holding them accountable and leverage it wantonly.
The worst thing about these "contempt of cop" style arrests is, despite the charges being dropped, once you're in the system's pipeline, if you mess up about any of the restrictions, paperwork, court appearances, etc, you become a criminal. It's easy to imagine a lot of folks might fall into that trap for innocent and mundane reasons.
The only way to fight it would be a heavily organized protest; enough people that they couldn't arrest everyone/would fill the jails.
The price of refusal can be very high, including being arrested, put in jail for a few days, or even being shot dead.
Unless you're rich or connected, the US can be a very cruel place.
This article is, after all, about a white guy who was arrested for not cooperating. And they clearly wanted to do worse given that they tried to get him fired.
As long as you're not in big trouble (some sort of felony, drugs or DUI), you'll generally get in less trouble for treating them nicely. Most of them have a bias that anyone who hates cops is up to no good and their experience will bear that out more often than not. It will get noted down that they were suspicious of factors X, Y and Z due to their training and experience.
That said, if you're part of some big crime, assert your right to remain silent by saying exactly that every time they question you until you have a lawyer. But really, if you're not into drugs or gangs or politics, that's pretty unlikely for a normal person.
And the checkpoints in the article? Just identify yourself and don't drink at all (call Lyft if you need one) and you'll be fine. Oh, and watch your speed when driving on the reservations. They make a lot of money on fines.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
These checkpoints are directly in violation of the supreme Court case Delaware v. Prouse.
It's probably not very obvious for most people that he did something wrong as soon as he refused to identify himself (though the cops appear to have made their own mistakes, as well).
To me this reminds me of my parents telling me about dealing with police checkpoints when they visited Poland before the fall of the Soviet Union.
I just wanted to make sure there's a clear answer here for people who are scared and just want to go through the checkpoint without getting into trouble. It's one thing if it's a voluntary protest to get oneself arrested in order to have standing to challenge the laws. It's another thing entirely if someone is scared because they just want to see the Sonoran desert and not the back seat of a police car.
The problem with the argument is that it leans political: I think people are interested in just allowing people across the border willy nilly, without having to be stopped by such checks.
Otherwise, the ACLU might be similarly up in arms over DD checks? Wouldn't that be the case?
I try to be pragmatic about it:
+ If there's a high occurrence of Drunk Driving, then cops can do spot checks, esp. on long weekends.
+ If there are 'escaped dangerous cons' on the run, well, spot checks in a specific zone makes sense.
+ If there is a specific problem with large numbers of people who are in the country illegally travelling through - then random checks are a reasonable and proportional response to that.
Constitutional? Legal? I have no clue. But unless it gets really out of hand I don't see how it's totalitarian.
FYI I was never stopped randomly in the 5 years I lived in the US, and I was stopped quite a few times in France by the local Gendarmes. Sometimes obviously for DD checks, but other times I had no idea why but I had to show my passport and visa.
> The ACLU welcomes today's Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the 4th Amendment's privacy protections by rejecting the proposition that states may routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without consent and without a warrant.
> We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-suprem...
From 1984:
> [...] the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop a new sobriety-checkpoint program in California. The ACLU says the program is a "substantial invasion of . . . fundamental constitutional rights."
> In its California brief, pending at the state Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the ACLU argues that if sobriety checkpoints are upheld "it will not be long before the police establish roadblocks and checkpoints for investigations of other sorts of serious crimes."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/a...
As a Canadian, I know we have legal DD stops and I'm thankful for them, as society went from a period of 'DD was normal' to 'not ok'. It took a while, it was a real social problem.
I guess we (Canadians?) just view public safety a little differently, it's usually a matter of 'what makes sense' not so much a thing about constitutionality. That said, our cops are way, way more low key than US cops.
I have no problem with being randomly pulled over for a reasonable reason by reasonable cops.
I guess it gets more complicated when a) cops abuse power b) the randomness is not random c) when there's an underlying political tension d) you can be charged with 'anything' almost ...
Anyone who wants closed borders, or at least harsher reactions to illegal immigration ought to be up in arms about money being wasted this way in that case- they could stop more people by investing their budgets in other ways.
I've always wondered about describing it as "contempt of cop." Isn't that the same as arguing that it should be a crime? If you go to court and flip off the judge, you could get a fine or even prison time because it undermines the criminal justice system.
Something like "police brutality" is one thing--getting arrested isn't a reason for the police to beat someone up--but I think "contempt of cop" is something in the wrong direction.
Ideally, it would be better if most people and most cops did not start every conversation being afraid of each other and expecting to fight. Then it would be easier to de-escalate the situation. And just for the record, yes, I've been on the wrong side of an angry cop. If you actively work to calm things down, you'll find that things go much better. It's funny that showing a little respect goes a long way. Apparently it really stands out these days for being rare.
> And just for the record, yes, I've been on the wrong side of an angry cop. If you actively work to calm things down, you'll find that things go much better. It's funny that showing a little respect goes a long way. Apparently it really stands out these days for being rare.
The problem with your anecdotal reasoning is very clearly, some people fully cooperate and are dead anyhow. Phillip Castillo was respectful and proactive in his interaction. Dead. Watch the Tamir Rice video footage. They literally drove up the curb, jumping out of the still moving police car, and immediately shot him. Poor kid didn't even have a chance to be "respectful" as you're demanding.
Yes, sometimes things go uncontrollably wrong. There are bad cops out there, but it's hardly the average case. Those incidents made the news for how bad they were, not how common they are.
There are hundreds of millions of people in the USA. There are millions of people interacting with the police in some capacity. How many incidents can you name?
It is only a matter of time before you'll sit down in a citizenship interview, and they'll have a print out of your social media posts and a bunch of questions about any that seem to criticize the government.
What you describe has been the case in the US since the early 2000s. The "matter of time" is about negative 15 years or so. People on HN often seem to think the government is insanely slow-moving and incompetent. While there are various snags, the whole system moves constantly and is staffed by many perfectly competent people who ask questions like "why aren't we checking the social media accounts of citizenship applicants to weed out the terrorists and commies?" and before too long, they are.
This kind of thing happens to residents who are trying to push for change in their country and accepting personal risks.
I should also add, I've been to dozens of countries and never experienced anything like this.
But you know, welcome to the land of the free!
FWIW, Global Entry for non-US citizens has made it so much better. You just whizz right through in about 30 seconds without having to deal with anyone apart from just give them a receipt from the machine.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/global-...
The UK has a similar program, Registered Traveller [1], which has a more exhaustive country list. Having an Australian passport, I often get curious looks when I use the smart gates, but I'm always able to go through (though I am always nervous it won't work and ill look like a silly foreigner for going I the wrong queue).
Learned today that in Mexico to be a citizen one must be Mexican National, 18 years of age, and have an "honest way of living".
When it comes to tourism, the US certainly has a PR problem at the moment. Among my (admittedly, incredibly privileged) group of friends, all have expressed reluctance to visit the US in the past couple of years.
They did do a thorough questioning when applying for the visa, but the border itself was pretty easy.
And once inside, people were overall very friendly.
Now I usually wear a belt with a carbon fiber buckle. Much less hassle!
As a Kickstarter backer, I paid somewhat less than their current prices for carbon fiber buckles. I also have a couple of their metal-buckle belts, and I definitely prefer the carbon fiber ones.
Before landing, we had to fill out more forms, including one that basically said "do you have ebola? Yes/No", which I found rather entertaining. After landing, we had to fill out even more forms, including whether we were bringing in any weapons, fireworks, satellite phones, that sort of thing. I'm probably forgetting a few more random forms I had to fill out, there were so many of them.
-America has the highest percentage of it's people locked up in jail
-People spend time in jail even though they are not convicted because they cannot post bail, which disproportionately punishes the the poor
-The laws are so complex, and so many, almost everyone breaks the law multiple times a month. Enforcement is highly subjective and at the whim of prosecutors and law enforcement officials
- This story
It takes a lot of work to ignore reality so thoroughly.
America seems to have done a good job indoctrinating the belief though, starting at a very young age.
Even press freedom, is arguably relatively poor: https://rsf.org/en/ranking
Objectively, US is 45th on the list, below Lithuania, Czech Republic, Trinidad, Jamaica and Namibia.
Not even top 20% in terms of press freedom! But if you ask most people, they would say US is #1 (or at least top 10) in the world.
Two clicks.
I think we can dismiss this one, sorry.
The UK arrests reporters for reporting. This isn't just about libel (also much more problematic in the UK) or revealing sources. It's about plain old honest reporting of factual events that occur out in public. A reporter reports on people heading into a courthouse, and he gets sent to prison for 13 months. The court then orders that nobody can report on the reporter's arrest either. If not for non-UK web sites ignoring the order, it would be a secret arrest.
It's a long standing govt right in the UK.
The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
At [station], it is our responsibility to report and pursue the truth. We understand the truth is neither politically left nor right. Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility now more than ever. But we are human, and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair, please reach out through our [station] website by clicking on “Content Concerns.” We value your comments and we will respond back to you.
We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced, and factual. We consider it our honor and privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day. Thank you for watching, and we appreciate your feedback.
------
American free press is getting to choose which reporter presents that script to you
In which case, I'll fill in what you conveniently left out:-
* Tommy Robinson was arrested for contempt of court
* Tommy Robinson is still under a suspended sentence for a previous conviction of contempt of court
* The publication ban is because the judge is concerned that by continuing to report on the trial Tommy Robinson was apparently 'reporting' on (quotes mine), there's a risk of prejudicing it
* Tommy Robinson is not a reporter or a journalist - if he was, he'd be aware of the reasons why courts are not best pleased about someone filming the people coming and going
In short - man does thing, is convicted of doing a thing, is given a suspended sentence and told not to do the thing again, and is somehow surprised that the legal system takes a dim view of it. A more cynical person may say that Robinson has his own reasons for doing what he's doing that are particular to the people involved in the trial, but I'll leave that as an exercise for people to figure out with a Google search.
Here in the USA, our supreme court decided that the Westboro Baptist Church could protest by going uninvited to military funerals and holding signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS". That, plus dragging American flags on the ground, ensures that they won't get support from either side of the political spectrum in the USA. They still have their right to free speech. A "right" isn't a "right" if it is conditional on being inoffensive.
If I want to know what our military or TLAs are doing, I don't consult an American source. This isn't a conspiracy; it is simply the case that American media conglomerates have decided they make more money catering to the shallow. It's not a problem for thoughtful news consumers: there are lots of other places for news. Perhaps I am naive, but I don't think our courts are so far gone that they're going to let anyone shut out TI, AJ, RT, various independent journalists, etc. Even if the courts did go along with such an effort, it seems doomed to fail.
That isn't to say that journalists have nothing to complain about. Telling the truth isn't the way to succeed in this field, at this time.
re: this story, for example: nothing like this exists in states that are not on the southern border. From state to state there are huge differences in culture, demographics, and governance.
Are you sure about that? Pretty certain I've seen articles covering similar stories up in Montana and like.
[Edit]
Here's at least one that was easy to find offhand: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-montana-border-patrol-20...
But that's self-evidently not the case. Formal and informal discrimination massively limit participation, and quite often commercial success is rooted in an ability to dump externalities rather than create value.
Sure, the US isn't fair. In practice it is grossly unfair. But talk to anyone with, eg, a congenital disability and it is apparent that this isn't because the US is doing something wrong, it is because life is unfair.
The US is very free. Some people have to work orders of magnitude harder to excercise their freedom, but in freedom of speech and action the US compares well with, eg, the UK, China, Russia, Middle Eastern countries, etc, etc. There are a few very small nations (eg, Luxembourg, Sweden, New Zealand, etc), where the numbers are smaller and the results are arguably better. But recall that human communities are governed by absolute numbers (see Dunbar's number) and reflect that the US does pretty well for its size.
Basically, don't conflate freedom and fairness. The US has a lot of freedom, but freedom is a pretty basic idea, and exercising it is crazy hard for some people.
The US has just as many (maybe more) laws and regulations as anywhere else.
Edit: upsetting individuals and companies may be a bad idea too.
At the checkpoint the officers looked at me with disinterest (probably a combination of the dull routine and because I looked like a white US citizen). First they asked me if I was a US citizen and I said no, and suddenly they were looked far more interested. They asked to see my passport and informed me they'd need to search my vehicle and I was to open the trunk. I complied, opening the trunk and passing my passport to one officer while the other went to the rear of the vehicle to start a search. A few seconds later the officer with my passport notices something and urgently signals the other officer. At this point I was worried that my paperwork must not be in order and that I was in trouble. Once the other officer rejoins the first they briefly confer and then they hand me back my passport and apologize profusely for the inconvenience saying that they didn't realize that I was a diplomat before sending me on my way.
The kicker is that I wasn't a diplomat, merely a bureaucrat on an official trip to the US and any "diplomatic immunity" I had was the thinnest kind of intergovernmental courtesy.
At first this story was funny to me as the time I accidentally wielded diplomatic immunity. However, more recently I find it less amusing as instead I consider it a tale about how the changing assumptions of the officers significantly affected the nature of the interaction and how different the interaction could have been if their assumptions had been less favorable.
I'm not American, so I have no stake in defending the US border patrol, but this is what I'd expect border patrol anywhere in the world to do. Their entire job function is to prevent illegal entry, toll violations etc.
By your own account you were in possession of a valid passport clearly indicating that you're working in an official capacity for a foreign state. Why would border patrol anywhere in the world continue to detain you at that point?
Is there some illegal immigration problem in any country on Earth stemming from people in possession of official government passports indicating that they work for their respective states that I'm unaware of? How is this not as clear of a signal as anything short of the agent personally recognizing you as a foreign ambassador that you should be sent on your way?
I didn't like that the officers only decided to search my vehicle after they knew I wasn't a US citizen and then abandoned the search once they saw my visa but I don't think that these decisions exceeded the discretion that the offices are authorized to use during a stop.
I also didn't like that the officers made me uncomfortable and nervous during the stop but again I don't think the officers were acting inappropriately. It's on me that even with my government background I get nervous interacting with officials in situations like this.
I guess if anything my complaint is that I would prefer that border patrol checkpoints only stop people who are in the process of crossing a border rather than random highway checkpoints (in this case I was probably an hour away from the border) and if you are stopping people without reasonable suspicion or probable cause I'd prefer that the same stop procedures be applied to everyone.
To me, one of the key elements of the story is this: getting from Yuma, AZ to Las Vegas, NV does not involve crossing an international border. So this level of harassment a few hours drive from an actual border seems a bit uncalled for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Watts_%28author%29
"In December 2009, Watts was detained at the US/Canada border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) performing a reportedly random search of the rental vehicle he was driving."
Note BTW that he was at the time leaving USA after having crossed over from Canada with no incident.
"...According to Watts, he was assaulted, punched in the face, pepper-sprayed and thrown in jail for the night."
"...Watts blogged about his sentence saying that because of how the law was written, his asking: "What is the problem?" was enough to convict him of non-compliance."
More generally, I don't think government agents should ever be able to detain and question people in public places without reasonable individualized suspicion based on evidence. To whatever extent the law fails to prohibit such actions, it should be changed.
The ruling accepts that illegal border crossings DO occur and that therefor Border Patrol need jurisdiction to stop and question people within a reasonable distance from the border in areas where illegal border crossings occur.
A less penetrable border would be the cleanest solution here.
It further allowed CPB officers to "refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop" (Terry stop). This is not a suspicionless search, but it's a much lower level of suspicion than is required for a search under other circumstances.
Federal regulations allow CPB to operate within 100 miles of the border. That doesn't necessarily mean it's legal to operate a checkpoint anywhere in that zone, but the restrictions on where they can be placed are pretty vague.
I'm certainly never going to claim that CBP doesn't push its authority, or even abuse it outright. I assume they somewhat routinely do that. Patrick Leahy got pulled over 125 miles from a border a few years ago (that had to have been fun to watch).
I'm just saying that there's a mythology about the "100 mile wide Constitution-free zone" which is not useful or productive and deserves to be punctured whenever it's brought up. A lot of what people believe CBP can do by dint of being within 50 miles of a border would, if it occurred, in fact be unlawful, and should be challenged on those terms. Not in a Wesley Snipesian idiosyncratic "originalist" sense of the word unlawful, but straight-up normal-lawyer bring-a-case unlawful.
If you're a passenger, then it's reasonable to refuse to produce ID, but if you're the driver then I don't know how you can argue that you don't need to.
A Terry stop is about reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, based on evidence, but not sufficient evidence for an arrest. A person can be detained temporarily in order to alleviate that suspicion and searched for weapons for the officer's safety. In some jurisdictions, a person who has been detained can be required to identify themself, but I don't believe any court has held that involves producing government-issued ID.
Under normal circumstances, a person cannot be stopped just to check that they have a valid driver's license. A driver can argue that they don't need to produce ID because there was no valid reason for the stop. There have been some exceptions carved out for checkpoints of various types, and I think all of them are legally problematic and morally unjustifiable.
There are also issues of jurisdiction. I'm not sure if immigration agents have jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws.
They absolutely can. They just don't because it's a waste of time since the hit rate would be so low.
"except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment"
In a Jan. 28, 2008, letter to university president Robert Shelton, local Border Patrol union president Ed Tuffly stated, “We will be aggressively pursuing action against Mr. Bressi and/or the University on behalf of our agents for the internet postings which Bressi has undertaken using video obtained while he was acting as a University employee. If it is determined that the [Arizona] law does not apply to Federal law enforcement officers, we will lobby for an amendment to the State law to ensure that we are protected.”
And lacking the threat of punishment, the thugs will just move on to the next profitable harassment scheme that hasn't yet been cracked down on. Given that we've all been victims of this same pattern for decades, all I can really wonder is are those newfangled assassination markets ready yet? Kickstarter for justice seems to be the only way we'll be able to get it.
The checkpoints are legitimately annoying, though. Most people simply identify themselves and pass through peacefully--the Supreme Court has already decided that you must identify yourself. If you want your right to remain silent, you have to actually say that, oddly enough. Granted, it's clear that he wanted to be arrested for civil disobedience, just mentioning that for anyone who prefers to go on their way.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Monthan_Air_Forc...
I've been stopped at one of these checkpoints in California and had my vehicle searched. I'm just glad that I didn't have any cannabis in my car because they promptly informed me that even though it was legal in the state, the checkpoints are federal - so you could be in hot water.
There are some real top to bottom jerks around with badges, and with those folks, knowing your rights is effectively meaningless.
I was kind of frazzled after I told them I had a medical marijuana recommendation and they told me it was illegal federally. I didn't even know I was at a border control checkpoint at first, I took a wrong turn about 50 miles away from the border in San Diego county. They said they weren't looking for weed, but obviously they can and will lie as needed.
my reasoning at the time (panicked) was that there was a small chance I might have had cannabis in the car. There was a dog alerting to the car, and I assumed it meant they'd end up searching it even without my consent. I believed them when they said they weren't looking for weed, but I also believed that if I denied consent to search and they searched anyway, if they found weed they were more likely charge me, as opposed to just letting me go if I cooperated and all they found was weed. So that was my flawed logic. I know it's always best not to consent, but I kind of panicked and gave consent anyway.
Turns out the dog was alerting to my legal prescription medication.
When the Constitution was written, there weren't cars. You walked or rode a horse. There were no licenses or insurance, there were no DUIs. There was no legal requirement to prove that you were legally entitled to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.
These stops seem to largely depend on our relationship with driving cars. The necessary evil of DUI checkpoints is obviously a crutch they're leaning on heavily.
At a minimum, self-driving cars will force them to work a bit harder to scheme up clever legal interpretations allowing them to continue operating.
The police will end up with the same remote access to cars as they have to phones.
WA doesn't have them (against the constitution), and it gets along just fine. In fact with the NHTSA's own data Washington's ratio of traffic fatalities attributed to alcohol is closely inline with states that do have checkpoints. [1]
The evidence simply doesn't show that DUI checkpoints are necessary or effective.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8124...
I see the current enforcement of our immigration laws fueling a parental crisis similar to what we currently see in black communities, the bill will be due in a decade or two.
My perspective might be different because I grew up in the Eastern Bloc, where the winning strategy was always complying while hiding contraband and bribing officials. No amount of anyone fighting for any rights ever had any effect, what happened in the end is that the economy collapsed and things had to change at the top forcibly. If you want to fight because of some personal sense of honour, of course you should do that. But from an everyday practical game-theory perspective, the winning strategy for both the game and the meta-game is to comply with whatever the cop wants to see.
Like Willie Nelson. https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-best-little-checkp...
I find reading articles like these makes me question too many things but I don't know how really to process it. Outside of hitting the up vote button, there isn't much I can do to contribute to improving this or most situations.
Instead of having a secure border line, where we enforce immigration law, and legitimately ask everyone to identify themselves, we have this giant zone extending well into the country where people are presumed to be crossing the border. If we simply physically controlled the line itself, this zone would not be necessary, and the conflict between enforcing immigration law and the fourth amendment would go away.
Without attempting to ignite a flame war here, I'll just say it would not surprise me at all if this fellow was a Trump supporter nor would it surprise me if he were not.
What I have noticed over my 34 voting years is an extremely well coordinated effort by every major media source to distract the electorate from these types of issues.
For example, a quick search on Bing/news finds hits on the referenced Slate article and an article on Reason which illustrates my point. But the only other references I get hits for are local news sources.
GDPR, the new productivity booster.