Pastor Illegally seized

[ixtow]

imported post

It IS resisting arrest, if an arrest is being made... But if it's a false arrest, and probable cause is lacking... One can be perceived to be passively resisting if s/he is not even aware an arrest is in progress. If the target cannot even perceive of a reason they might be getting arrested..........

It pretty much depends on whether or not the judge used to be a cop.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

It IS resisting arrest, if an arrest is being made... But if it's a false arrest, and probable cause is lacking... One can be perceived to be passively resisting if s/he is not even aware an arrest is in progress. If the target cannot even perceive of a reason they might be getting arrested..........

It pretty much depends on whether or not the judge used to be a cop.

OK. Can you cite a case for me?

I'ma little concerned because, if true, it means I am now compelled to assist the bastards in violating my rights.

If not true, I want the option of being able to just sit there and say, "No. I am not going to help you violate my rights. I won't physically resist you or try to stop you; but I'll be damned if I'll actively help you."

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Police cannot just stop everyone driving down a road and search their cars. If the road crosses a border, sure, but this guy was not on a road that crossed the border. In fact, the road he was on was 60 miles north of the Mexican border.

The idea that these police think they can just randomly stop people so their dogs can give them probable cause is sickening. This is why I called them jack booted thugs. They were not behaving as American police, but like Nazi SS. And if the moniker fits... well then.... they're Jack Booted Thugs...

The one thing that really gets to me is everyone saying the pastor was asking for it... if our soldiers were doing the same thing to innocent Iraqis in Iraq... there would be afirestorm in the media and many even here would be calling our soldiers the bad guys... but here....the police were just doing their jobs?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

SNIP The one thing that really gets to me is everyone saying the pastor was asking for it...

Welcome to a country where basic rights have been un-educated from the people.

Where too many have bought in to the government's public relations machine.

 

[arentol]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

If the police SAY they have probable cause, it doesn't mean they do.

I had a similar incident nearly 10 years ago. Pulled over, accused of 'smelling like weed' (I don't even know what it looks like or smells like). Brought out a dog, it ignored the car and myself for half an hour. The screamed and yelled at the poor mutt the whole time. It finally did as told and pawed my passenger door and went 'passive.'

Then a search of my vehicle ensued. As I live in the country and park on the lawn (there is no driveway) I track in grass clippings all the time. I was cuffed and sat in the cruiser as they field tested a multitude of 'leefy, green substances' as cited in the report. Hours go by, my firearms are all removed, cleared and documented....

This whole time, the officers (yes, about a half-dozen of the toothless jackasses) not engaged in scraping dead grass off of every place they can find it, threaten me with "you better fess up, or we're taking you to jail!" to which I respond "So if a person confesses to a crime, you let them go? They didn't like that... They also hated how I repeatedly told them they were wasting their time. Gosh, how much does the pile of field tests cost the taxpayers?" I kid you not, they must have used over 100 of them.

In the end, they grudgingly give me back my guns and I'm on my way.

I told them "Thanks for cleaning my car up for me! I usually have to PAY the detailer, and there is only one of him!"

It was fun.

Man, I can't wait to get tazed!

They love to drag in the poor mutt and capitalize on that. But it fails on a simple argument. So maybe the dog really does smell weed or crack or whatever. Does it mean it's still there? Is it a used car? We don't know how long ago drugs were present, or if the current owner is in any way responsible. I've seen use of dog as automatic probable cause, fail on the 'freshness' aspect. It's also disassembled constructive possession concepts as well: guy sitting on bench at bus stop, baggie of white rocks on ground behind him. Are they his? Does he even have any idea they are there?

The dog game is not holding up like it used to, and with good cause.

You make my point exactly, thank you.

You did the right thing by complying, because you went free, and even if they had found something it would have been suppressed if you had a decent lawyer. If you had locked up your car and refuse to leave instead then you would have ended up like this pastor. Instead they wasted a lot of time and money when they didn't even have PC, and you could have sued the crap out of them individually under 1983.

 

[arentol]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Police cannot just stop everyone driving down a road and search their cars. If the road crosses a border, sure, but this guy was not on a road that crossed the border. In fact, the road he was on was 60 miles north of the Mexican border.

I fully agree with this statement, the checkpoint is complete BS.

The idea that these police think they can just randomly stop people so their dogs can give them probable cause is sickening.

I agree with this as well. Don't get me wrong, I think what happened to the pastor right up to the point where he refused to let them search his car when they ORDERED him to is complete BS. He should never have been put in that situation in the first place. However, our beliefs don't change the fact that the checkpoint, and the requirement to obey the lawful orders of an LEO who claims he has PC, are all technically legal at this time.

The one thing that really gets to me is everyone saying the pastor was asking for it...

He was asking for it. He knew he had no legal basis for not getting out of his car and letting them search it. He knew the result was going to be them breaking into the car and attack him. He had about 30 seconds with the guy standing at his window with a hammer to realize that arguing wasn't doing any good and that he was going to be tazed and arrested anyway, but he refused to comply with an order that (some of) the officers believed was lawful.

if our soldiers were doing the same thing to innocent Iraqis in Iraq... there would be a firestorm in the media and many even here would be calling our soldiers the bad guys... but here....the police were just doing their jobs?

I agree. However, believe it or not, our soldiers in Iraq are held to a higher standard than the border patrol. I don't think the police were doing their jobs, at least not the ones that probably lied about the dogs reaction.



One other point... It appears to me the pastor was probably in his car when the dog was checking it out. This means the dog could have pawed at the trunk and he might not have seen it. Do I think this happened? No. But, the pastor probably couldn't be certain, and therefore he shouldn't have resisted on the basis that of the dogs actions. If the cops told the truth then the pastor clearly should have obeyed. If they lied, then there are camera's that would verify this later, and a fat lawsuit would have followed, AFTER the illegal search.

 

[ElectricTurtle]

imported post

arentol wrote:

SNIP. If they lied, then there are camera's that would verify this later, and a fat lawsuit would have followed, AFTER the illegal search.

Heh. Problem is that rule of law has been broken. The search, while clearly unconstitutional, is not illegal at least according to United States vs. Ickes and United States vs. Arnold. I'm glad he stood his ground. Maybe now after somebody has been beat to a pulp for doing nothing but refuse to move the Supreme Court will actually rule on one of these cases since the 4th and 9th Circuits have been rubber stamping these unconstitutional 'exemptions' from the 4th Amendment.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

ixtow wrote:

It IS resisting arrest, if an arrest is being made... But if it's a false arrest, and probable cause is lacking... One can be perceived to be passively resisting if s/he is not even aware an arrest is in progress. If the target cannot even perceive of a reason they might be getting arrested..........

It pretty much depends on whether or not the judge used to be a cop.

OK. Can you cite a case for me?

I'ma little concerned because, if true, it means I am now compelled to assist the bastards in violating my rights.

If not true, I want the option of being able to just sit there and say, "No. I am not going to help you violate my rights. I won't physically resist you or try to stop you; but I'll be damned if I'll actively help you."

Case? I'm talking about SOP. Taught in school by the Assistant SA.

Believe me, I don't agree with it. And it doesn't always fly in court. Like I said, it depends on whether or not the judge was a cop before he was a judge. Go sit in court and watch. If the judge used to be cop, simply asking an officer to repeat something you didn't understand is 'resisting'.... No reason to take my word for it, or any case I might cite. You can get it first-hand at any courthouse near you.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

arentol wrote:

He was asking for it. He knew he had no legal basis for not getting out of his car and letting them search it.

No legal basis? It's called the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This stop was not the result of a high speed chase, nor was this pastor fitting the description of an armed robbery suspect... the the whole idea of these police having anything resembling a right to ask him for anything and expect he must obey is laughable. They were 100% wrong. They violated his Constitutional rights because they are thugs... if they had been doing this lawfully, they'd have had a judge on standby to issue a warrant.

arentol wrote:

He knew the result was going to be them breaking into the car and attack him. He had about 30 seconds with the guy standing at his window with a hammer to realize that arguing wasn't doing any good and that he was going to be tazed and arrested anyway, but he refused to comply with an order that (some of) the officers believed was lawful.

First, he had no idea he was going to be tazed. Second, the man was standing up for his Constitutionally protected civil rights which these police completely ignored. Contrary to the programming that you've received, no one has to comply with police. I police officer must have probable cause BEFORE they stop you... not after.

In a court decision about roadblocks, the judge wrote that "Stopping drivers at checkpoints to determine if they are committing a crime, have committed a crime, or have even witnessed a crime, runs counter to the principles of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Amendment was designed not merely to protect against official intrusions whose social utility was less as measured by some ‘balancing test’ than its intrusion on individual privacy; it was designed in addition to grant the individual a zone of privacy whose protections could only be breached where the ‘reasonable’ requirements of the probable cause standard were met. Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials - perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens may be tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a true balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of ‘the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

arentol wrote:

I don't think the police were doing their jobs, at least not the ones that probably lied about the dogs reaction.


One other point... It appears to me the pastor was probably in his car when the dog was checking it out. This means the dog could have pawed at the trunk and he might not have seen it. Do I think this happened? No.

It does not matter ifthe dog sniffed somethingor not. They had no probable cause to stop him in the first place. The roadblock was unconstitutional and therefore he had no reason to comply with their illegal search in any way. If we just give in to the thugs who decide they're above the Constitution... we will lose our Constitutional Rights.

arentol wrote:

But, the pastor probably couldn't be certain, and therefore he shouldn't have resisted on the basis that of the dogs actions. If the cops told the truth then the pastor clearly should have obeyed. If they lied, then there are camera's that would verify this later, and a fat lawsuit would have followed, AFTER the illegal search.

If he had given in... and this had gone to court, we likely would have never heard about this. The unconstitutionality of these roadblocks would be hidden from the people and this stuff would continue unabated. People are going to have to suffer for freedom. And the thugs enforcing unconstitutional law are going to have to be prosecuted and hopefully jailed.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

arentol wrote:

ixtow wrote:

If the police SAY they have probable cause, it doesn't mean they do.

I had a similar incident nearly 10 years ago. Pulled over, accused of 'smelling like weed' (I don't even know what it looks like or smells like). Brought out a dog, it ignored the car and myself for half an hour. The screamed and yelled at the poor mutt the whole time. It finally did as told and pawed my passenger door and went 'passive.'

Then a search of my vehicle ensued. As I live in the country and park on the lawn (there is no driveway) I track in grass clippings all the time. I was cuffed and sat in the cruiser as they field tested a multitude of 'leefy, green substances' as cited in the report. Hours go by, my firearms are all removed, cleared and documented....

This whole time, the officers (yes, about a half-dozen of the toothless jackasses) not engaged in scraping dead grass off of every place they can find it, threaten me with "you better fess up, or we're taking you to jail!" to which I respond "So if a person confesses to a crime, you let them go? They didn't like that... They also hated how I repeatedly told them they were wasting their time. Gosh, how much does the pile of field tests cost the taxpayers?" I kid you not, they must have used over 100 of them.

In the end, they grudgingly give me back my guns and I'm on my way.

I told them "Thanks for cleaning my car up for me! I usually have to PAY the detailer, and there is only one of him!"

It was fun.

Man, I can't wait to get tazed!

They love to drag in the poor mutt and capitalize on that. But it fails on a simple argument. So maybe the dog really does smell weed or crack or whatever. Does it mean it's still there? Is it a used car? We don't know how long ago drugs were present, or if the current owner is in any way responsible. I've seen use of dog as automatic probable cause, fail on the 'freshness' aspect. It's also disassembled constructive possession concepts as well: guy sitting on bench at bus stop, baggie of white rocks on ground behind him. Are they his? Does he even have any idea they are there?

The dog game is not holding up like it used to, and with good cause.

You make my point exactly, thank you.

You did the right thing by complying, because you went free, and even if they had found something it would have been suppressed if you had a decent lawyer. If you had locked up your car and refuse to leave instead then you would have ended up like this pastor. Instead they wasted a lot of time and money when they didn't even have PC, and you could have sued the crap out of them individually under 1983.

But what good did my complying do to change SOP for the better?

Nothing, in fact, I may have solidified their perceived power to do as they will. I didn't end up in the media. Nobody knows be myself, the officers, and anyone who reads this board.

What good is it?

I'm embarrassed to have done it. I'd rather be tazed and have the $!&# beaten out of me. At least that might get someone's attention, and possibility of action.

I guess it depends on your perspective. Would you rather be safe and hide under a rock? Or take a few stripes and have hope to change the world for the better?

Hope and Change, on the business end of a knight stick... I'll take that over the "Hope and Change" that got elected. For the prior exposes 2 fundamental wrongs.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

arentol wrote:

ixtow wrote:

If the police SAY they have probable cause, it doesn't mean they do.

I had a similar incident nearly 10 years ago. Pulled over, accused of 'smelling like weed' (I don't even know what it looks like or smells like). Brought out a dog, it ignored the car and myself for half an hour. The screamed and yelled at the poor mutt the whole time. It finally did as told and pawed my passenger door and went 'passive.'

Then a search of my vehicle ensued. As I live in the country and park on the lawn (there is no driveway) I track in grass clippings all the time. I was cuffed and sat in the cruiser as they field tested a multitude of 'leefy, green substances' as cited in the report. Hours go by, my firearms are all removed, cleared and documented....

This whole time, the officers (yes, about a half-dozen of the toothless jackasses) not engaged in scraping dead grass off of every place they can find it, threaten me with "you better fess up, or we're taking you to jail!" to which I respond "So if a person confesses to a crime, you let them go? They didn't like that... They also hated how I repeatedly told them they were wasting their time. Gosh, how much does the pile of field tests cost the taxpayers?" I kid you not, they must have used over 100 of them.

In the end, they grudgingly give me back my guns and I'm on my way.

I told them "Thanks for cleaning my car up for me! I usually have to PAY the detailer, and there is only one of him!"

It was fun.

Man, I can't wait to get tazed!

They love to drag in the poor mutt and capitalize on that. But it fails on a simple argument. So maybe the dog really does smell weed or crack or whatever. Does it mean it's still there? Is it a used car? We don't know how long ago drugs were present, or if the current owner is in any way responsible. I've seen use of dog as automatic probable cause, fail on the 'freshness' aspect. It's also disassembled constructive possession concepts as well: guy sitting on bench at bus stop, baggie of white rocks on ground behind him. Are they his? Does he even have any idea they are there?

The dog game is not holding up like it used to, and with good cause.

You make my point exactly, thank you.

You did the right thing by complying, because you went free, and even if they had found something it would have been suppressed if you had a decent lawyer. If you had locked up your car and refuse to leave instead then you would have ended up like this pastor. Instead they wasted a lot of time and money when they didn't even have PC, and you could have sued the crap out of them individually under 1983.

But what good did my complying do to change SOP for the better?

Nothing, in fact, I may have solidified their perceived power to do as they will. I didn't end up in the media. Nobody knows be myself, the officers, and anyone who reads this board.

What good is it?

I'm embarrassed to have done it. I'd rather be tazed and have the $!&# beaten out of me. At least that might get someone's attention, and possibility of action.

I guess it depends on your perspective. Would you rather be safe and hide under a rock? Or take a few stripes and have hope to change the world for the better?

Hope and Change, on the business end of a knight stick... I'll take that over the "Hope and Change" that got elected. For the prior exposes 2 fundamental wrongs.

+1000

 

[Marco]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I'ma little concerned because, if true, it means I am now compelled to assist the bastards in violating my rights.

The Court of Appeals of VA has held that obstruction of justice does not occur when a person fails to cooperate fully with an officer or when the person's conduct merely renders the officer's task more difficult but doesn't impede or prevent the officer from performing that task.
[suP]
Ruckman v. Com., 28 Va. App. 428, 429, 505 S.E.2d 388, 389 (1998).

http://www.romingerlegal.com/va_caselaw/virginia/2802972.html
[/suP]

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

I'ma little concerned because, if true, it means I am now compelled to assist the bastards in violating my rights.

The Court of Appeals of VA has held that obstruction of justice does not occur when a person fails to cooperate fully with an officer or when the person's conduct merely renders the officer's task more difficult but doesn't impede or prevent the officer from performing that task.
[sup]
Ruckman v. Com., 28 Va. App. 428, 429, 505 S.E.2d 388, 389 (1998).

http://www.romingerlegal.com/va_caselaw/virginia/2802972.html
[/sup]

Unfortunately, this did not happen in VA.

And my commentary isn't much help either, as it relates to the severely corrupt and run amok system in FL... 'round here, you can be convicted of 'resisting arrest' if the DMV makes a typo in your address, and the cops use that address to come find you on a warrant... Watched that happen in Miami.

 

[NightOwl]

imported post

For anyone interested, here's another youtuber who has posted quite a few border checkpoint videos. They turn out better, but I notice that he picked up and posted a copy of the pastor's incident as well. http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?blend=2&ob=1

 

[Johnny_B]

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

For anyone interested, here's another youtuber who has posted quite a few border checkpoint videos. They turn out better, but I notice that he picked up and posted a copy of the pastor's incident as well. http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?blend=2&ob=1

You know, after watching this guys videos, I can understand why that happened to the pastor now and don't feel a bit sorry for him. If the pastor acted in anyway like this guy he pretty much PUT HIMSELF into the situation.

In one of the videos he pulls up, BP says "Afternoon sir, are you a U.S. citizen?"
as he's pulling up he says "Officer xxx is walking up to me..." "Officer xxx is standing over there..."

After the question "Am I being detained officer xx??"

I mean frick, even if it's a checkpoint out in the middle of no where the guy goes on for 7 minutes "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!?!" how hard is it to really just say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen." "Have a nice day"

I understand "fighting for your rights" but that's just getting to extreme, I'm not going to submit to searches and the like, but I'll have the decency enough to say "Yeah, I'm a citizen" and be done with it, because other cars just zipped through after answering a quick question, but the guy in the videos above ASKS for it every time.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Johnny_B wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

For anyone interested, here's another youtuber who has posted quite a few border checkpoint videos. They turn out better, but I notice that he picked up and posted a copy of the pastor's incident as well. http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?blend=2&ob=1

You know, after watching this guys videos, I can understand why that happened to the pastor now and don't feel a bit sorry for him. If the pastor acted in anyway like this guy he pretty much PUT HIMSELF into the situation.

In one of the videos he pulls up, BP says "Afternoon sir, are you a U.S. citizen?"
as he's pulling up he says "Officer xxx is walking up to me..." "Officer xxx is standing over there..."

After the question "Am I being detained officer xx??"

I mean frick, even if it's a checkpoint out in the middle of no where the guy goes on for 7 minutes "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!?!" how hard is it to really just say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen." "Have a nice day"

I understand "fighting for your rights" but that's just getting to extreme, I'm not going to submit to searches and the like, but I'll have the decency enough to say "Yeah, I'm a citizen" and be done with it, because other cars just zipped through after answering a quick question, but the guy in the videos above ASKS for it every time.

Sorry, but you are 10000% wrong. Give them an inch... they take a mile. We're talking about 4th Amendment rights and no matter what our illegal government says... they do not have the right to stop us or ask for identification... the pastor did not have to answer and what they did after was a violation of his Constitutional rights.... we fight, we push back... and if they force us, we resist with equal force. It may come to that. It may come to citizens rising up against this ever increasingly Fascist government and knock it down a few pegs.

But never just give in to illegitimate activities or they'll just increase in scope and in number.

 

[GWbiker]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Johnny_B wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

For anyone interested, here's another youtuber who has posted quite a few border checkpoint videos. They turn out better, but I notice that he picked up and posted a copy of the pastor's incident as well. http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?blend=2&ob=1

You know, after watching this guys videos, I can understand why that happened to the pastor now and don't feel a bit sorry for him. If the pastor acted in anyway like this guy he pretty much PUT HIMSELF into the situation.

In one of the videos he pulls up, BP says "Afternoon sir, are you a U.S. citizen?"
as he's pulling up he says "Officer xxx is walking up to me..." "Officer xxx is standing over there..."

After the question "Am I being detained officer xx??"

I mean frick, even if it's a checkpoint out in the middle of no where the guy goes on for 7 minutes "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!?!" how hard is it to really just say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen." "Have a nice day"

I understand "fighting for your rights" but that's just getting to extreme, I'm not going to submit to searches and the like, but I'll have the decency enough to say "Yeah, I'm a citizen" and be done with it, because other cars just zipped through after answering a quick question, but the guy in the videos above ASKS for it every time.

Sorry, but you are 10000% wrong. Give them an inch... they take a mile. We're talking about 4th Amendment rights and no matter what our illegal government says... they do not have the right to stop us or ask for identification... the pastor did not have to answer and what they did after was a violation of his Constitutional rights.... we fight, we push back... and if they force us, we resist with equal force. It may come to that. It may come to citizens rising up against this ever increasingly Fascist government and knock it down a few pegs.

But never just give in to illegitimate activities or they'll just increase in scope and in number.

You bought any hand guns from a FFL dealer lately and did you complete a Brady Background check form? Did you refuse to reveal that you're an United States citizen?

 

[ixtow]

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Johnny_B wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

For anyone interested, here's another youtuber who has posted quite a few border checkpoint videos. They turn out better, but I notice that he picked up and posted a copy of the pastor's incident as well. http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?blend=2&ob=1

You know, after watching this guys videos, I can understand why that happened to the pastor now and don't feel a bit sorry for him. If the pastor acted in anyway like this guy he pretty much PUT HIMSELF into the situation.

In one of the videos he pulls up, BP says "Afternoon sir, are you a U.S. citizen?"
as he's pulling up he says "Officer xxx is walking up to me..." "Officer xxx is standing over there..."

After the question "Am I being detained officer xx??"

I mean frick, even if it's a checkpoint out in the middle of no where the guy goes on for 7 minutes "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!?!" how hard is it to really just say "Yes, I am a U.S. citizen." "Have a nice day"

I understand "fighting for your rights" but that's just getting to extreme, I'm not going to submit to searches and the like, but I'll have the decency enough to say "Yeah, I'm a citizen" and be done with it, because other cars just zipped through after answering a quick question, but the guy in the videos above ASKS for it every time.

Sorry, but you are 10000% wrong. Give them an inch... they take a mile. We're talking about 4th Amendment rights and no matter what our illegal government says... they do not have the right to stop us or ask for identification... the pastor did not have to answer and what they did after was a violation of his Constitutional rights.... we fight, we push back... and if they force us, we resist with equal force. It may come to that. It may come to citizens rising up against this ever increasingly Fascist government and knock it down a few pegs.

But never just give in to illegitimate activities or they'll just increase in scope and in number.

You bought any hand guns from a FFL dealer lately and did you complete a Brady Background check form? Did you refuse to reveal that you're an United States citizen?

We get the point, but that doesn't make it acceptable. It only proves he's right. The Brady Background Check is a drastic increase in the scope and frequency of exactly this...

Just because you're used to a violation, and it is well embedded, does not justify it.

 

[LaVere]

imported post

After the search and or arrest. Did they find a body in the truck or Dope?

 

[arentol]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

If he had given in... and this had gone to court, we likely would have never heard about this. The unconstitutionality of these roadblocks would be hidden from the people and this stuff would continue unabated. People are going to have to suffer for freedom. And the thugs enforcing unconstitutional law are going to have to be prosecuted and hopefully jailed.

What exactly did hearing this accomplish? From what I see on YouTube most people think he is an idiot. So this polarized more people against him than it did for him. Yeah, it raised the issue, but not in a POSITIVE manner.

It would be much better if he had made a few rational protests, gotten his concerns on record, then gotten out of the car and let them perform the illegal search. Then he could have put it on YouTube, come off as intelligent and thoughtful, and moved public opinion in our direction instead of away from it.

He could also have sued and maybe won, possibly getting the roadblocks shut down in the process. There is no chance of that now because his behavior on video will keep the case from going that far.

Personally I would much rather have not heard of this incident now when it really doesn't matter at all if in exchange I could hear about it 5 years from now as the case that shut down internal border patrol checkpoints.

Also, if you really think any LEOs are going to be prosecuted over this..... You are totally out of touch with how thing work. The guys own video will exonerate most of the LEOs. The only ones at risk at all are the ones that were in charge of the dog, and even they will likely avoid prosecution. As for your crazy idea that the constitutionality of the roadblock will play into such things at all in a prosecution of the LEOs. That only kicks in if the pastor is prosecuted. However, the prosecutors will probably realize this and probably not even end up seeing the case through, or will do everthing in their power to make sure he can't find a legal reason to bring up the constitutionality on appeal.