More Border Patrol Harassment at Internal Immigration Checkpoints

Update: 17FEB2011 - YouTube has once again removed the video for unknown reasons. Most likely because Border Patrol agents don't like being held accountable in a public forum. We'll see what we can do to remedy that situation...

Update: 17DEC2010 - Looks like the video has been reposted. I've updated the embedded link accordingly.

[Update: 25OCT2010 - Looks like Youtube & the Border Patrol are busy censoring videos again. The videographer reported Youtube banned the video depicted in this blog entry without explanation. A similar incident occurred to 3 of my videos a while back. See here for details.]

The checkpoint depicted in the video above is the interim checkpoint located near kilometer post 45 on I-19 in Southern Arizona and championed by Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona’s 8th District. Like so many other Border Patrol checkpoint encounters, the video above documents harassment of the traveling public by agents who take advantage of their limited authority in an attempt to intimidate individuals into waiving their fundamental rights.

The videographer from above has been featured on this blog before. For background information, see:

As can be seen in the video above, the driver affirmatively states his citizenship when first entering the checkpoint. Not satisfied with merely ascertaining citizenship, the agent asks the driver to pop the trunk so he can search inside. The driver exercises his rights by refusing the search which prompts the agent to ask him who he works for. The driver rightfully refuses to answer the question (which has nothing to do with a determination of immigration status anyway) which results in the agent referring the driver to secondary inspection.

The driver asks if he’s being detained and the agent says no but refuses to allow him to go on his way. This of course means the driver is in fact being detained which means the agent lied to the driver creating an unsafe situation for all parties concerned.

The extended detention is also illegal according to the U.S. Supreme Court which has clearly stated over the years that any further detention or searching at internal immigration checkpoints after the initial immigration question must be premised on consent or probable cause:

“…We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search….And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -‘[A]ny further detention…must be based on consent or probable cause.’U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte

This ruling is probably one of the reasons why Border Patrol agents lie at these checkpoints when someone asks them whether or not they’re being detained after being directed to secondary inspection. The agent wants to be able to claim on a report or in court that he verbally told the individual he wasn’t being detained which would tend to create the illusion that the driver voluntarily agreed to an extended detention by moving to secondary of his own free will. Further questioning of the agent by the driver reveals the lie however when the agent makes it clear he’s not free to leave when explicitly asked.

Some folks will claim the Supreme Court allows agents to divert any vehicle to secondary for any reason per U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte. What they fail to recognize is that the court only authorized such referrals absent consent or probable cause when the traffic is too heavy to make immigration queries of everyone stopped at primary. In this case, the agent asked the driver his citizenship status at primary and only diverted the driver to secondary when the individual refused the trunk search. A refusal that is perfectly legal in the absence of consent or probable cause:

“The defendants arrested at the San Clemente checkpoint suggest that its operation involves a significant extra element of intrusiveness in that only a small percentage of cars are referred to the secondary inspection area, thereby “stigmatizing” those diverted and reducing the assurances provided by equal treatment of all motorists. We think defendants overstate the consequences. 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.”

My appreciation goes out to the driver for his willingness to put himself in harms way by asserting his rights on American soil and exposing Border Patrol attempts to coerce individuals into allowing searches and extended detentions absent informed consent or probable cause.

These abuses will continue until a critical mass of individuals refuse to allow themselves to be bullied by federal agents who should be serving and protecting us as opposed to attempting to dominate and control us.

Regarding this point, I thought the following email I received a while back would be appropriate here:

“Ok, I am employed by the Department of Defense, broad I know, and as such I am an Antiterrorism and Enforcement Specialist. I’m sure you can piece together the course and scope of my duties, lol!

A few years back, I was assigned to assist in the training of Customs and Border Protection officers at key checkpoints here in the states. I don’t mean on the border I mean actually checkpoints IN THE STATES, along state highways and roadways in the south specifically Arizona, you can look it up yourself also.

I was to assist them in what extra steps and techniques that can and may be used to ascertain the motives, citizenship, destination, and point of origin of individuals crossing the checkpoint. Also, how to affect a search, how to obtain probable cause, and how to detain individuals lawfully.

Now, I was teaching by the rule of LAW not some whacked out interpretation of it, so it was a very simple instruction on how to properly do your damn job. Some of the CBP officers were telling me stories of how they affected arrests, tricked people into allowing illegal searches and seizures, using intimidation tactics to affect compliance with unlawful directions.

Now after hearing these atrocious activities were happening to more than likely law abiding citizens, I contacted their section supervisor and informed him of the issues I had with their activities and also concerns of moral turpitude. He advised that he will discuss the concerns with them and handle the situation as that is absolutely NOT SOP (standard operating procedure).

I contacted my supervisor and advised him of the situation and very, very soon like 12 hours later I was reassigned back to my own unit. I was reprimanded for basically pointing out how illegal their practices were. I was informed that that’s how they have been operating and they have had fantastic results, I asked about the innocents who get caught in the crossfire, and I will NEVER forget his reply; “What innocents?” So there is an example of how some, not all, operate within the federal government. Scary damn world is it not, my friend?”

Scary damn world indeed.

2 thoughts on “More Border Patrol Harassment at Internal Immigration Checkpoints”

Leave a Reply