Am I Being Detained?

imported post

I would love it if they stopped people and required ID ON THE BORDER, but this is not on the border. I do want to see an end to illegal immigration and I think the only way to do that is to strengthen the borders. The borders are not being strengthened by pulling our agents away from said borders in order to harass and illegally detain/question US Citizens. Attack the problem at its source, THE BORDER!

imported post

Sure, I'm against illegal immigration. But, the government should not combat it by putting up checkpoints all across our country, detaining American citizens, and asking them if they are illegal aliens (which is exactly what they are doing when they ask, "What is your citizenship?"). That is where we are headed unless these checkpoints are nipped in the bud. And, yes, they are expanding.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

This is a prime example of why I am not a LEO because I would probablydragged his butt from the car and pulled a Rodney King on him. :what:It appears that the same ones that are praising this fellow for standing up for his rights are the ones that complain so much about illegal immigration. How is a LEO supposed to know if a person is an American citizen or not without at least asking. This article has nothing to do with this trhread but I'll bet he wishes someone had detained him before he crossed the border.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24943229/

Click to expand...

I do not complain about illegal immigration because the only real, working solution will require those of us who ARE Americans to carry proof of such, and provide it on demand.

As for your question, an LEO doesn't need to know if someone is an American citizen or not unless they are crossing our border or have a separate reason to demand their identification.

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

This is a prime example of why I am not a LEO because I would probablydragged his butt from the car and pulled a Rodney King on him. :what:It appears that the same ones that are praising this fellow for standing up for his rights are the ones that complain so much about illegal immigration. How is a LEO supposed to know if a person is an American citizen or not without at least asking. This article has nothing to do with this trhread but I'll bet he wishes someone had detained him before he crossed the border.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24943229/

Click to expand...

I do not complain about illegal immigration because the only real, working solution will require those of us who ARE Americans to carry proof of such, and provide it on demand.

As for your question, an LEO doesn't need to know if someone is an American citizen or not unless they are crossing our border or have a separate reason to demand their identification.

Click to expand...

So as long as an illegal alien does not cause a LEO to have reasonable supsicion that they are breaking a law they should be allowed to stay in the US.

imported post

ScottyT wrote:

I would love it if they stopped people and required ID ON THE BORDER, but this is not on the border.

Click to expand...

It would be nice if EVERYONE crossed at the designated points on the border. Sadly this is not the case. Anywhere one can walk or drive a vehicle across is where those we don't want in this country often cross. These checkpoints are a necessity unless we want to wall off the border similar to the one that existed along the "Iron Curtain" until the '90s. Couple several rows of barbed wire, electrified fences, a 5k "exclusion zone", guard towers, "shoot to kill orders", standing armies along the border, etc, and these checkpoints would probably be unnecessary.

In reality we want these------as long as WE aren't the ones being stopped.

imported post

In reality we want these------as long as WE aren't the ones being stopped.




No, I don't want these at all. I agree that the border needs to be sealed. Anyone who is not a citizen should not be allowed a job. Companies who hire them should be fined or closed. (By the way, the entire identity theft problem would go right out the window). As has beenshown time and again (Oklahoma is the latest example), illegals then go home or migrate to "Sanctuary" cities.

Just because the Federal government does not function in one of it's basic tasks (sealing the border) does not mean it then needs to establishunconstitutional check points, internal passports or "let me see your papers" goon squads.

This is the same logic for gun control. Because the government can't deal with Gang warfare and Drug dealers brought on and maintained by their "new" Constitutional authority to regulate and criminalize substances, they feel theneed to do something. So they establish a new authority to regulate firearms to "lessen gun violence".I take it you know that Bonnie and Clyde,Machine Gun Kelly and Prohibition drove the 1934 Gun Control Act. Each act after has been an extension of this authority, despite the 2nd Amendment. Open carry is just the latest battle to take back a freedom in a much larger war. Freedom, use it or lose it.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

thewise1 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

This is a prime example of why I am not a LEO because I would probablydragged his butt from the car and pulled a Rodney King on him. :what:It appears that the same ones that are praising this fellow for standing up for his rights are the ones that complain so much about illegal immigration. How is a LEO supposed to know if a person is an American citizen or not without at least asking. This article has nothing to do with this trhread but I'll bet he wishes someone had detained him before he crossed the border.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24943229/

Click to expand...

I do not complain about illegal immigration because the only real, working solution will require those of us who ARE Americans to carry proof of such, and provide it on demand.

As for your question, an LEO doesn't need to know if someone is an American citizen or not unless they are crossing our border or have a separate reason to demand their identification.

Click to expand...

So as long as an illegal alien does not cause a LEO to have reasonable supsicion that they are breaking a law they should be allowed to stay in the US.

Click to expand...

That is correct. To get rid of them would require mass violations of Constitutional rights for citizens. That is the price of freedom.

imported post

"So as long as an illegal alien does not cause a LEO to have reasonable supsicion that they are breaking a law they should be allowed to stay in the US."



Isn't every illegal alien breaking at least one law?


Bruce

imported post

bcp wrote:

"So as long as an illegal alien does not cause a LEO to have reasonable supsicion that they are breaking a law they should be allowed to stay in the US."



Isn't every illegal alien breaking at least one law?


Bruce

Click to expand...

Yes, but they must have reasonable suspicion that they are breaking that law.

As there are millions of Americans with brown skin, that is hardly reasonable suspicion; I think that speaking spanish would be more reasonable than skin color/facial features, but even that doesn't really stack up to enough in my opinion, as there is no legal requirement that citizens speak English and I would imagine that there are Americans who cannot anyway. Just look on Myspace :lol:

I'm kidding about the myspace thing but not the rest

imported post

" Yes, but they must have reasonable suspicion that they are breaking that law."

OK, I was thinking you meant a KNOWN illegal alien should be left alone if not breaking other laws.

Bruce

imported post

bcp wrote:

" Yes, but they must have reasonable suspicion that they are breaking that law."

OK, I was thinking you meant a KNOWN illegal alien should be left alone if not breaking other laws.

Bruce

Click to expand...

If they are a known illegal alien, the officer wouldn't need to ask them if they are a US Citizen, would he?

imported post

swillden wrote:

Okay, and when the next question is "Please show me your ID to prove it.", should he give in to that as well? Because that IS the next question. And should he be willing to do this multiple times per day, every day? At what point do you stop and say "NO! I am an AMERICAN and I have a RIGHT to travel about my own country without being tracked or hassled!".

Click to expand...

That's a very good question. You probably will get as many answers as people asked. I personally would draw the line at beingasked or requiredto prove anything, as at that point I am being unreasonably searched even if no one's frisked me. I am an American citizen.Itis lawful for an LEOto ask me whether I am as it is information potentially helpful to the officer in the scope of his/her lawful duties to investigate crime. If I choose to answer, it must be truthful as it is a crime to provide false identifying information including that of citizenship. Failure to provide identifying information is not resistance to an officer nor reasonable articulable suspicion of any other crime, however as it is a lawful question I would choose to answer it.

However, to ask me to prove it without any evidence or suspicionto the contraryis not lawful. I drive a late-model Subaru with Texas plates and current tags. There is no reasonable articulable suspicion that I am anything other than whatI say I am, and refusal to prove it does not constitute same. That's where the line is drawn IMHO. If I have to prove my citizenship,I will do so in court with a birth certificate and Social Security card, then watch as the judge calls the officer on the carpet for wasting the court's time, followed by the malicious prosecution lawsuit. Or, the officers will relieve me of my wallet (unreasonable search), run my driver's license, and figure out how much trouble they're in for arresting a U.S. citizen on suspicion of being in the U.S. illegally.

So, the conversation starts:

Officer: "Please state your country of citizenship."

Me: "United States, native citizen."

The officer then has two choices:

1: *looks at tags, plates* "Ok, go ahead".

2: "May I see proof of citizenship please?"

If the officer takes the first route, I drive away, my rights intact. If the officer takes the second route, my response is "What reasonable articulable suspicion do you have that I am nota U.S. citizen?" If there is no suspicion (and how can there be as the officer doesn't even know my name?), the officer is attempting an unreasonable search in the hope I will consent. I refuse to consent and at that point the conversation is over and the officer has additional decisions to make, resulting in a spectrum of possible outcomes ranging fromeither my going my merry way only slightly annoyed, to me living the rest of my life off a structured settlement against ICE.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

swillden wrote:

Okay, and when the next question is "Please show me your ID to prove it.", should he give in to that as well? Because that IS the next question. And should he be willing to do this multiple times per day, every day? At what point do you stop and say "NO! I am an AMERICAN and I have a RIGHT to travel about my own country without being tracked or hassled!".

Click to expand...

That's a very good question. You probably will get as many answers as people asked. I personally would draw the line at beingasked or requiredto prove anything, as at that point I am being unreasonably searched even if no one's frisked me. I am an American citizen.Itis lawful for an LEOto ask me whether I am as it is information potentially helpful to the officer in the scope of his/her lawful duties to investigate crime. If I choose to answer, it must be truthful as it is a crime to provide false identifying information including that of citizenship. Failure to provide identifying information is not resistance to an officer nor reasonable articulable suspicion of any other crime, however as it is a lawful question I would choose to answer it.

However, to ask me to prove it without any evidence or suspicionto the contraryis not lawful. I drive a late-model Subaru with Texas plates and current tags. There is no reasonable articulable suspicion that I am anything other than whatI say I am, and refusal to prove it does not constitute same. That's where the line is drawn IMHO. If I have to prove my citizenship,I will do so in court with a birth certificate and Social Security card, then watch as the judge calls the officer on the carpet for wasting the court's time, followed by the malicious prosecution lawsuit. Or, the officers will relieve me of my wallet (unreasonable search), run my driver's license, and figure out how much trouble they're in for arresting a U.S. citizen on suspicion of being in the U.S. illegally.

So, the conversation starts:

Officer: "Please state your country of citizenship."

Me: "United States, native citizen."

The officer then has two choices:

1: *looks at tags, plates* "Ok, go ahead".

2: "May I see proof of citizenship please?"

If the officer takes the first route, I drive away, my rights intact. If the officer takes the second route, my response is "What reasonable articulable suspicion do you have that I am nota U.S. citizen?" If there is no suspicion (and how can there be as the officer doesn't even know my name?), the officer is attempting an unreasonable search in the hope I will consent. I refuse to consent and at that point the conversation is over and the officer has additional decisions to make, resulting in a spectrum of possible outcomes ranging fromeither my going my merry way only slightly annoyed, to me living the rest of my life off a structured settlement against ICE.

Click to expand...

Citation Please!!!

It may be illegal to lie to the police in the investigation of a crime that has ACTUALLY BEEN COMMITTED, but not if there has been no crime, and they are fishing to find "possible" or "potential" criminal activity. Until I see the actual LAW that say it's illegal to lie, I don't believe it.

Unless they are in actuality legally detaining me while investigating acriminal offense (actual or reasonably suspected), then I couldclaim to be Kubla Khan, and it's just me talking to "Joe Citizen" who happens to be wearing an LEO uniform.

imported post

If those bozo's stop me to ask me such a stupid question i am going to go off on all of them, and unless they can show me picture id and govt id that proves they are who they say they are then i am simply going to drive off.

After all the law states that all Law Enforcement officers MUST surender there ID and badge number appon request for varification purposes.

IF there is thing i will NOT stand for its idiot Govt people who know the law and diliberlirly break it because they think no one will hold them accountable for it. The first one of those monkeys who tries to grab my gun without my concent is getting a busted nose and arm.

Anyone want to see a INS agent cuffed to there own truck???????? If we dont make a stand we are as useless as those who keep there head in the sand.

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

If those bozo's stop me to ask me such a stupid question i am going to go off on all of them, and unless they can show me picture id and govt id that proves they are who they say they are then i am simply going to drive off.

After all the law states that all Law Enforcement officers MUST surender there ID and badge number appon request for varification purposes.

IF there is thing i will NOT stand for its idiot Govt people who know the law and diliberlirly break it because they think no one will hold them accountable for it. The first one of those monkeys who tries to grab my gun without my concent is getting a busted nose and arm.

Anyone want to see a INS agent cuffed to there own truck???????? If we dont make a stand we are as useless as those who keep there head in the sand.

Click to expand...

Can we get a cite on that law? Thanks!

imported post

jarhead1055 wrote:

After all the law states that all Law Enforcement officers MUST surender there ID and badge number appon request for varification purposes.

Click to expand...

Cite?

imported post

XD45PlusP wrote:

https://www.checkpointusa.org/DHS/video/BPRoadblock.wmv

This guy was great!! :lol:

Click to expand...

This should be required viewing in every school in America.

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

If I choose to answer, it must be truthful as it is a crime to provide false identifying information including that of citizenship.

Click to expand...

Citation Please!!!

It may be illegal to lie to the police in the investigation of a crime that has ACTUALLY BEEN COMMITTED, but not if there has been no crime, and they are fishing to find "possible" or "potential" criminal activity. Until I see the actual LAW that say it's illegal to lie, I don't believe it.

Unless they are in actuality legally detaining me while investigating acriminal offense (actual or reasonably suspected), then I couldclaim to be Kubla Khan, and it's just me talking to "Joe Citizen" who happens to be wearing an LEO uniform.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

TxPC 38.02:

§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence
address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully
arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a
false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the
peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal
offense.

Click to expand...

We have a few suspicionless checkpoints jointly done by the DPS/ICEalong our border too, and courts have held that intentionally givingfalse information about citizenshipqualifies as a false residence address. :quirkyWe can argue "lawfully detained", Terry v Ohio etc. all day. You can argue it with a DPS officer too, and he'll say "tell it to the judge". I personally do not consider an officer asking me aquestion for the purposes of their duties to be unreasonable.

In addition:

§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
law; ...

Click to expand...

So it is against the law (specifically a Class B Misdemeanor) in Texas to go looking for trouble at a border checkpoint as you are intentionally attempting to hinder a peace officer in his duties. The CheckPointUSA guy, if he tries those tactics in Texas, could well find himself in jail for 6 months and out $2,000 in fines.

Anyway, I'll answer the question. If I am then required to prove it, the officer has crossed the line; I refuse to consent to an unlawful search and seizure, and the request for ID counts as unlawful search and seizure because the officer has no RAS that I am anything other than whoand what I sayI am.

imported post

ScottyT wrote:

I would love it if they stopped people and required ID ON THE BORDER, but this is not on the border. I do want to see an end to illegal immigration and I think the only way to do that is to strengthen the borders. The borders are not being strengthened by pulling our agents away from said borders in order to harass and illegally detain/question US Citizens. Attack the problem at its source, THE BORDER!

Click to expand...

The border isn't the source of the problem, though.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants enter the country legally, with a tourist, student or other visa, then stay. So you have to catch the illegal immigrants after they've not only crossed the border, but been inside the country for several weeks or months.

Even if you chose to stop issuing visas to residents of Latin American countries (and ignoring the serious negative economic impacts of that decision), there's also the fact that we have thousands of miles of borders, land and sea -- actually closing the borders is extremely difficult, especially without deploying East German-style border security (which was hugely expensive and only had to cover a much smaller distance, not to mention inhumane).

So, if you really want to catch illegal immigrants, the simplest and most cost-effective way to do it is to establish hundreds of roving checkpoints inside the country and stop everyone, making them prove their citizenship. That's one of the biggest reasons I think we're better off loosening immigration laws rather than cracking down -- because the endgame of the crackdown is going to seriously damage our civil rights. The War on Immigration will gut our freedoms in ways that will make the War on Drugs and the War on Terror look trivial.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

Liko81 wrote:

If I choose to answer, it must be truthful as it is a crime to provide false identifying information including that of citizenship.

Click to expand...

Citation Please!!!

It may be illegal to lie to the police in the investigation of a crime that has ACTUALLY BEEN COMMITTED, but not if there has been no crime, and they are fishing to find "possible" or "potential" criminal activity. Until I see the actual LAW that say it's illegal to lie, I don't believe it.

Unless they are in actuality legally detaining me while investigating acriminal offense (actual or reasonably suspected), then I couldclaim to be Kubla Khan, and it's just me talking to "Joe Citizen" who happens to be wearing an LEO uniform.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

TxPC 38.02:

§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence
address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully
arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a
false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the
peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal
offense.

Click to expand...

We have a few suspicionless checkpoints jointly done by the DPS/ICEalong our border too, and courts have held that intentionally givingfalse information about citizenshipqualifies as a false residence address. :quirkyWe can argue "lawfully detained", Terry v Ohio etc. all day. You can argue it with a DPS officer too, and he'll say "tell it to the judge". I personally do not consider an officer asking me aquestion for the purposes of their duties to be unreasonable.

In addition:

§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
law; ...

Click to expand...

So it is against the law (specifically a Class B Misdemeanor) in Texas to go looking for trouble at a border checkpoint as you are intentionally attempting to hinder a peace officer in his duties. The CheckPointUSA guy, if he tries those tactics in Texas, could well find himself in jail for 6 months and out $2,000 in fines.

Anyway, I'll answer the question. If I am then required to prove it, the officer has crossed the line; I refuse to consent to an unlawful search and seizure, and the request for ID counts as unlawful search and seizure because the officer has no RAS that I am anything other than whoand what I sayI am.

Click to expand...

I would argue and be willing to argue in court that

a) The checkpoint USA guy was merely traveling back and forth to and from Tucson, AZ. There is no law against free travel, so just because he hits the roadblock a lot doesn't mean he's intentionally harassing them.
b) There is no reason to believe that I am NOT a United States citizen, and thus I should not be required to answer the question as there is no reason to detain me and question me. There needs to be a suspicion of a crime before they detain someone, and merely cruising down the road does not constitute reasonable suspicion in my book - and I'd be willing to wager the same for many judges, as they are mostly fair people.
c) So they are welcome to ask it, and I may or may not answer it depending on the situation, but they cannot force the issue. They know it, too, or they would have given him a lot more trouble.
d) lawfully arrested and lawfully detained seem like they may have different definitions, I'm not sure, but I would definitely argue the legality of the detainment as I go about my peaceable travel.