imported post
Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
If I'm stopped at a checkpoint... and I'm not crossing a border... I will not submit to a search. I will not give them my name or my ID and I will get every civil rights law firm to make sure that every single officer who was at that stop has their lives made total hell... we will publish their names and home addresses so they can be harassed by tens of thousands of Americans... they can see the pitchforks and torches outside their homes and they can fear for their families lives much like the AIG executives did when they received bonuses from the bailout money. Oh, and we'll sue the DHS for millions of dollars for violating American citizens civil liberties.
That would be suitable for those thugs.
How will you go about "not submitting to a search" when so ordered (again, not ASKED) by an LEO? Will you pull out your gun and shoot him? Will you resist in the manner the man in the article used, arguing like an idiot then getting arrested, tased, and beaten? By magically teleporting lawyers from every civil rights organization in the US to the location so they can start processing the lawsuit before the officers even get a chance to break your window (which is what your statement implies)?
You seem to be confusing two ENTIRELY different situations. There is the IMMEDIATE situation of being ordered to leave your car so it can be searched, and the FOLLOW-UP situation of suing every individual officer involved into the ground for 1983 violations. In the IMMEDIATE situation you are legally compelled to follow the officers orders that would be lawful if they did have probable cause. Failure to follow a lawful order is obstruction of justice, and the order is only not lawful if there is no probable cause. However, since IN THE MOMENT you can not be 100% certain there is no probable cause, you put yourself in additional legal jeopardy by failing to obey the order.
Remember, if you do something because you are ORDERED then no consent is given or implied. So the officer can't later argue that you gave permission for the search, and so if turns out there was no probable cause you can still sue for the illegal search.
Again, I say the pastor was an idiot. He obstructed justice and resisted arrest, putting himself in legal jeopardy, without improving his legal situation in regards to the illegal search in ANY WAY. Indeed, he may have lost the basis for a complaint or lawsuit for illegal search entirely, and he may also have lost the chance to suppress any evidence found in his vehicle.
Things I believe:
That their was no lawful probable cause to search the pastors vehicle or detain him for an hour before arresting him.
That border patrol check points more than 1 mile from the border are complete BS and should be illegal. The pastor never should have been pulled over in the first place.
That the above belief is irrelevant at this time because the check points are technically considered legal and so we all have to deal with them.
That if the dog in this case really did not indicate a problem (which seems very likely since no contraband was found) that the DHS officers involved should be brought up on criminal and civil charges for EVERYTHING illegal that followed.
That the DPS personnel (apparently the ones that arrested him in the videos) acted in good faith based on what DHS told them, and should not be penalized for their actions. As far as they knew they were simply dealing with a person who was obstructing justice and resisting arrest and they did what was necessary to affect the arrest of a man locked in his car and refusing to follow what they believed to be lawful orders.
That the pastor was ultimately just looking for publicity and fame.
That neither the DHS or the pastor are entirely in the right in this case.
Also, calling them "jack booted thugs" diminishes your argument. It shows a strong bias and a complete lack of objectivity in your argument and indicates you arguing from a point of emotion and malice rather than from logic and understanding of the facts.
