Border Patrol Check Point Outside El Paso

[boba]

Not intended as a dig at LEO or other. Can we at least agree that as an American, I have the right to say no to a warrantless search of my home, car, etc? Or is that too much?

PS. I am well educated, earn a good living, and can read...the Constitution.

That's the problem. You're educated and understand plain English. You believe the Constitution says what it does.

On the other hand, the enemies of the Constitution, foreign and especially domestic, don't care what the Constitution says. They only care what they can get away with, by twisting the words of the founding fathers and obfuscating the issue with FUD.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

[paulhailes]

Not intended as a dig at LEO or other. Can we at least agree that as an American, I have the right to say no to a warrantless search of my home, car, etc? Or is that too much?

PS. I am well educated, earn a good living, and can read...the Constitution.

That's the problem. You're educated and understand plain English. You believe the Constitution says what it does.

On the other hand, the enemies of the Constitution, foreign and especially domestic, don't care what the Constitution says. They only care what they can get away with, by twisting the words of the founding fathers and obfuscating the issue with FUD.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

I must be misunderstanding what you are saying, are you saying that LEOs are "enemies of the Constitution?"

[boba]

I'm saying people who act against the rights enumerated in the Constitution are enemies of the Constitution.

I'm saying nothing about their day jobs because it's irrelevant.

[srothstein]

Why couldn't the same thing be done with a vehicle that is done with a house?

The basic difference is that the car is moveable and the SCOTUS has looked at it differently. To stop a person from traveling (i.e. driving his car somewhere) constitutes a seizure and this also requires probable cause. If they have that much probable cause, the logic of the courts is to allow the search anyway to minimize the interruption time of the car owner when he is innocent and the PC turns out to be wrong. While the seizure of the house is also a seizure, it doesn't rise to the same level of interruption because they don't stop the person's movement. You can leave the scene if you want to and continue about your daily business. If you were just lounging at home, then this is less of an interruption, as the court sees it. A side note is that the court may see seizure of this type of a business as more of an interruption than a home, event though they generally allow more police latitude with businesses.

The 4th Amendment does not forbid searches without a warrant. It forbids unreasonable searches without a warrant. SCOTUS has ruled that this means a search is unreasonable without a warrant unless some other factors are present. The most common is exigent circumstances. While backing off slightly from the concept in recent rulings, SCOTUS had said in the past that a car was prima facie exigent circumstances because of the mobility of it. It was easy to get the evidence out of the jurisdiction or destroy it.

I have some questions on what the Border Patrol did, and the whole concept of the flexible border that allows for checkpoints away from the border itself. But from what I read of the original post, the BP acting in accordance with the current state of the law and court rulings as I understand them.

And, to answer one other question, the dog may have been trained only for marijuana or may have been trained to respond differently for different classes of drugs. This is much harder training, but it can be done. Some dogs alert by barking, some alert by scratching and digging, and some alert by sitting back and taking some position. It depends on the training and the dog's personality it displayed when it was being trained.

[sjfcontrol]

Thanks for the explanation, Steve -- It just seemed to me that a vehicle isn't normally much more moveable than a house once you remove the people from it.

[speedsix]

...only things I find to question about the encounter is 1) did they really ask you if you had any illegals in your vehicle and 2) I see no need for them to handle/clear your handgun and leave it unloaded...unless they ran the serial number...I'm not comfortable around cops handling weapons they haven't been trained on...seen too many mess up doing it...but they do have the right...

Yes they did but it seemed more like automated speech. Just once when i rolled up to the first agent. It was obvious there wasnt in my vehicle but they didn't repeatedly ask about it like they did about marijuana. One bp agent said " You know weed is illegal here in Texas. It's not like California where you can get a RX. You cant bring that stuff into Texas. Do you smoke it? "

...the guy seems fixated on MJ...or you need to change cologne

[speedsix]

Other than wasting my time not too bad.

and completely violating your 4th Amendment rights.

Shame this is going on but glad to hear they were at least polite; I am sure the Nazi's were at first as well.

This is rediculous. Read up on search and siezure case law before comparing BP agents that get shot at from Mexican cartels to Nazis. This comparison is uneducated, baseless, and unnecessary. I'd go on to explain why the search was legal, but I don't think it would matter much.

and also have to marvel at the bow wave of constitutional experts on this forum of late.

...they write it down...some don't bother to read it...GIGO...

[srothstein]

Thanks for the explanation, Steve -- It just seemed to me that a vehicle isn't normally much more moveable than a house once you remove the people from it.

And you thought you were not as smart as a SCOTUS justice. That is where they are moving to, based on one of the more recent rulings. The ruling last year (IIRC) was to deny the right to search the car based on an arrest of the driver once the driver was secured in the police car. They reasoned that if the driver was already secured, there was no reason to do the frisk of the car for officer safety since the car could not hurt them. They said that the search incident to arrest was only good for evidence of the offense being arrested for. If you thought there was evidence of something else, you could wait and get a warrant. It was one of those perfect cases that showed the lack of logic in the way some previous rulings could be twisted. The case was one of those were the subject was suspected of other things and when they saw him driving, the police decided to arrest him for driving on a suspended license. He got into his driveway and about 20 feet out of the car when he was arrested and the police tried to use a search incident to arrest to search the car. SCOTUS said no.

[speedsix]

...a car parked on property...I agree...but when an arrest is made on the street(i.e. traffic stop), the car can legally be towed and impounded...and often MUST be to protect it...and upon impoundment, it's been found legal to INVENTORY the contents...and contraband found incidental to the inventory is admissable in court...been that way since days of yore...

[steveincowtown]

Can we at least agree that as an American, I have the right to say no to a warrantless search of my home, car, etc?

No - we cannot agree. Read up on the legal concepts of exigent circumstances and probable case to find why. The YouTube legal experts offer legal advice that is worth what it costs.

I get the probale cause with the dog but what eminent threat exsist to BP agents away from the border that required the immediate execution of a warrantless search?

Anyone who chooses to open up their car or home to search is welcome to do so. I will not.

If PC exists, a car may be searched without warrant. The exigent circumstance is that it is moveable.

If a SW is to be obtained for the residence, the (case) law permits a protective sweep to empty and secure the house, and everyone sits outside while an officer obtains the warrant. Evidence observed during the sweep is admissible into the SW and used to build PC.

...took the weekend off to enjoy what is left of one of our vanishing Texas Lakes.

Gigag04- Even though I don't agree 100%, that is a very concise explanation. Looking back at it, I guess the trouble I have is what right does a BP agent have to stop someone who is not at the border? I come through customs 10ish times per year, and I don't have any issues with what they do at our airports ad borders, I get that it is necessary there. However I do feel that if we do not restrict their authority to these defined areas, they will (like everything else in Government) continue to expand and grow unchecked.

Also, I notice many of the replies have reference SCOTUS says this, or SCOTUS says that. IMHO, We have a great constitution and a mediocre Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that it turns out the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean what is says (which is what I believe they have done to the 4th), will we just rely on their judgments then to?

[gigag04]

I can understand disagreeing with them, however, as of late, they have actually strengthened 4A protection with cases like AZ v Gant in 2009.

[OldCurlyWolf]

I can understand disagreeing with them, however, as of late, they have actually strengthened 4A protection with cases like AZ v Gant in 2009.

Now we need more. It has been shredded in many ways in the last 40 years. It sure is hard to find the correct balance between protecting citizens and not hamstringing LE.

[Oldgringo]

...I guess the trouble I have is what right does a BP agent have to stop someone who is not at the border?

If you have a problem with the reach of the BP, you'll really get your knickers in a knot if you ever experience the authority of a Fire Chief or a Game Warden. BTW, IANAL

[jocat54]

...I guess the trouble I have is what right does a BP agent have to stop someone who is not at the border?

If you have a problem with the reach of the BP, you'll really get your knickers in a knot if you ever experience the authority of a Fire Chief or a Game Warden. BTW, IANAL

Not sure about the Fire Chief but a Game Warden has ALOT of authority, I'm guessing more than most any other LEO.

[VMI77]

...what right does a BP agent have to stop someone who is not at the border? I come through customs 10ish times per year, and I don't have any issues with what they do at our airports ad borders, I get that it is necessary there. However I do feel that if we do not restrict their authority to these defined areas, they will (like everything else in Government) continue to expand and grow unchecked.

Also, I notice many of the replies have reference SCOTUS says this, or SCOTUS says that. IMHO, We have a great constitution and a mediocre Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that it turns out the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean what is says (which is what I believe they have done to the 4th), will we just rely on their judgments then to?

I agree. I haven't crossed any national borders, I'm going from my parents home to my home, both in the State of Texas, and in a free country I don't expect to be stopped at a police checkpoint. I guess I'm just too old and paid too much attention in class when I was a youngster. They used to teach us that things like internal checkpoints were hallmarks of police states; so when I get stopped at an internal checkpoint almost 100 miles from the border it brings back what I was taught in public school. When the checkpoint is this far from the Mexican border the "border control" stuff is just a pretext for general all around searches. Lately on 77 they even have batteries of cameras on both sides of the lanes heading south. And when you put it all in context --virtually open borders with millions of illegal aliens in the country, maybe even 20 million; and Big Sis making up excuses to keep them here, it's hard to take the purported intent of these checkpoints seriously.

What I don't agree with is your high regard for the SC? (note: sarcasm). Over the last century the court interpreted the 10th Amendment out of existence --which is why we have an out of control government. It has been slowly eroding the rest of the Constitution away with a brief respite for the 2nd Amendment. And we all know that the 2nd will be under fierce attack again as soon as the libs can put another collectivist on the court.