Discuss

122 Responses to “Encounter with a New Mexico "internal border" checkpoint”

  1. SexBobOmb says:

    Is any part of this actually legal?  I really don’t know if it is…

    • waetherman says:

      Yes. As much as some would like to think otherwise, border control checkpoints that are not at the border are legal, and according to Wikipedia, there are several Supreme Court decisions that entitle them to stop motorists for brief questioning and pull them aside for more extensive questioning selectively at checkpoints.  
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints#cite_note-4 I can only see what is in the video, but to me it looks like this guy is failing to comply with a legal request by an immigration officer to submit to questioning, and they decided to select him to more extensive questioning in a different location as a result. He then fails to comply with that request and instead blocks the checkpoint. So whatever this fellow may think of the law, he’s on the wrong side of it.Civil disobedience has its place as a way to encourage dialog about what is legal and why. But those who participate in civil disobedience must realize they are breaking the law and be willing to suffer the consequences.

    • merreborn says:

      Apparently this guy was involved in another “internal border checkpoint” incident (I believe both incidents took place in spring 2009?  I’m not sure), in which he was tazed and bloodied.  He was charged with two counts, and found not guilty on both.

      http://sanderson1611.blogspot.com/2010/08/jury-returns-not-guilty-verdict-on-all.html

      At any rate, I believe that speaks in some way to the legality of these stops.

  2. meowmeowmoew3 says:

    Is there any reason this just got posted? It’s over 3 years old. 

    •  Because it’s still happening……

    • BuelahMan says:

       Yes. To teach the boot-licking sycophantic officer worshipers that they have rights still left in this country. Appreciate it.

    • Heh. And this guy is acting like he’s 3. “GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY CAR!”

      He’s sitting there with the window rolled up, giving the Border Patrol agents a hard time, and he’s wondering why he’s having a hard time with them. 

      Sheesh. I’m surprised they didn’t find an excuse to lay him across the hood and check him for weapons… vigorously.

      • EH says:

        Are you implying the police officers are homosexual?

      • thecommongood says:

        Maybe he was polite when he was pulled over.

        Without grounds to pull you over, I’d be annoyed too.

      • rattypilgrim says:

         Tom, Tom, Tom…you are not the herder you are one of the herd.

      • SedanChair says:

        You just love that power, huh. Pay a dom or something, and don’t go giving your worthless uninformed opinion on matters of civil liberties

      • cdh1971 says:

        Hmmm….my reply to you could go either way, and I reckon either would make sense. 

        I get what you’re saying, like if a person finds a very large, armed, deranged acting, crazy-looking, armed intruder on their porch, or patio (or just a large bear or asshole dog), they shouldn’t confront it unless properly defended, even though legally they’re in the right, shouldn’t stab at a beehive naked, and etcetera. I get the choosing your battles, the cost-benefit-ratio thing I really do.   

        However, the crazy fuck on your deck, the bees, or the southie back-breakers are not employed by our government. 

        Like others have mentioned, we don’t know what went on before the filming started. Also, these checkpoints are complete bullshit, and officials are not supposed to act like pissy, abusive, tin-plated, hitlers, and I’ve seen them act like this with much, much, less provocation. Like the bastard cop who tasered the ten-year-old kid for not complying with the order to wash his car. 

        Anyway Tom, I do get your point about provoking, can you kinda get mine?

    • Jake0748 says:

       Is there any reason It shouldn’t be posted?  Intrusive, abusive government bullshit is still news AFAIC.

  3. TacoChuck says:

    Good for this guy. More people need be willing to stand up for their rights.

    • m_a_s says:

      Yes, a great day for people to enforce their rights to not roll down their window!

      • TacoChuck says:

         If you watched the entire video and thought it was about if he rolled down his window or not, then I can understand you have other, more pressing problems to deal with.

        • m_a_s says:

          More pressing problems?  Like what?  Two sets of idiots arguing?  Both were acting within thier legal rights.
          @TacoChuck:  The officers do indeed have a legal right to make the requests they did.  Right or wrong, that’s just the way it is.

  4. Kl-0 says:

     I did not watch the video (its 27 minutes long for Pete’s sake), although I read the description.

    The youtube post quotes the 4th Amendment, what it doesn’t say is that the 4th Amendment has been interpreted as meaning border patrol check points are 1) ok, and 2) the requirement for stops are much lower than the already fairly low Terry Stop standard (in terms of degree of suspicion required). It often comes as a surprise to folks, but the Constitution is subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, and there are often meanings and rulings associated with the Constitution which may not be obvious from a plain reading of the text.

    See for instance:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte

    Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Border_search_exception

    If the gentleman feels that his Constitutional rights have been violated he is free to approach a civil rights attorney and discuss the possibility of filing a suit.

    He is also free to gripe on the internetz.

    To each his own.

    • TacoChuck says:

      He stopped. He read the law they gave him and he followed it. What he refused to do was be searched and interrogated for no reason which is required according to the law they gave him.

      Not kissing the boots of cops is not justification for unwarranted searches.

      They let him go at the end and he never complied with their unlawful requests. Do you really think if the cops were in the right they would have let him go?

      Stop apologizing for the degradation of our rights and freedoms in the US.

      • Cowicide says:

        Amen, Taco.  Amen.

      • bigdave323 says:

         True, dat. If they were right, those pigs would have used the jaws of life to pry him out of that car. Then he would be manhandled, probably tasered, charged with resisting arrest, and jailed pending hearing in a kangaroo court. YOU KNOW THAT!

        Good for him. I’d like to give him a good citizenship award. Fascists just wanna fasc.

    • travtastic says:

       Constitutional scholar is constitutional.

    • rattypilgrim says:

      How can the gentleman approach a civil rights lawyer if he is detained and not free to go his way?

  5. Pickleschlitz says:

    He probably didn’t roll down the window because the car was full of pot smoke

  6. $19428857 says:

    The driver who won’t roll down his window is “Pastor” Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church, an anti-gay hate group listed by the SPLC, who came to  prominence in 2009 for openly praying for President Obama’s death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithful_Word_Baptist_Church I’m not much of a fan of the police, but this guy is a gay bashing, race baiting, ignorant backward redneck douche nozzle, and frankly, I’m fine with the cops giving him a hard time. They deserve each other. Maybe they can swap Klan rally stories and tips for getting blood out of their hoods and robes. Fuck ‘em both.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      That sounds familiar. Wasn’t this on BB before?

    • TacoChuck says:

       Pathetic scum bag homophobic racists have rights in this country too. When you start picking and choosing who has rights based on if their speech is offensive or not it doesn’t end well.

      • GlyphGryph says:

        So you’re saying that even a man like that can manage to have the redeeming qualities expressed in this video? Huh. Whodathunk it.

        So if a scumbag like this can manage to be a decent citizen, what’s everyone else’s excuse?

      • $19428857 says:

         I would generally agree, but I’m willing to make an exception for this asshole. Just because I’m liberal doesn’t mean I can’t  want to kick someone in the ass for being a hateful shitheel ignoramus. This is why conservatives think liberals are all pussies, we don’t want to kick ass where it seems to be deserved. But I know, I know, the remedy for his kind of speech is more speech, which is why I’m telling you what an evil person he is.

    • Hegelian says:

      “and frankly, I’m fine with the cops giving him a hard time.”

      I’m not.

      Any rights you unilaterally surrender to law enforcement for arbitrary implementation can be used against you, too. The temporary sense of schadenfreude you get from watching cops violate the constitutional rights of a gay-hater will be paltry compared to the likely permanent loss of those rights for all of us. Shame on you for being so short sighted.

      • $19428857 says:

         Spare me your pious warnings. My heart will never bleed for the poor,poor put upon right wing zealot who despises me, my family, my friends. The Border Patrol agents are acting legally according to the Supreme Court, and he is being a deliberate asshole to them. I’ve been through the same sort of checkpoints, and even though I’m not thrilled with security theater regardless of the context, they are fairly painless if you don’t decide to act like he did. It is far more effective to work for changes in the law if we want to see this go away. Be involved in the political process, work to elect better politicians and keep up the pressure. Organize a demonstration. Steven Anderson does not have this remedy because he is a a complete militia-flavored anti-government zealot and using the political process is anathema to him as it would imply a legitimacy to the idea of government. So all he has is pissing in the wind by pissing off cops. And if he gets his skull creased doing so, no, I won’t feel too bad. There are better strategies, but he’d have to be a better person to avail himself to them

        • Hegelian says:

          Sorry, you lost me at “I’m fine with the cops giving him a hard time.”

          Suggesting that it is ok for cops to dispense with the constitution so long as you happen to dislike the victim is still offensive.

          • $19428857 says:

            I am not making a general argument about the constitution and rights against douche nozzles. By all means let’s defend the right of the teatarded, Bible-besotted hate mongers to be just what they are, and to give cops a hard time, too. But allow me my yummy delicious schadenfreude when it comes to Anderson.

          • acerplatanoides says:

            IMHO, schadenfreude is more passive. You advocated.

        • darladoon says:

          If the “border” patrol agents are acting “legally,” then why didn’t they detain him?

      • Russell says:

        If the police are detaining people based on an asshole quotient, they’ll be locking themselves up and throwing away the key. Not necessarily a bad thing.

    • pduggie says:

      I wonder if he’s one of those Soverign citizen “I have the right to Travel the country byways without interference dudes”.

      They always go on about how they have found teh secret words that enable them to escape police control. Maybe its true.

    • PeaceLove says:

      The guy set off all my gaydar bells. I bet his extreme hatered & fear of gays stems from some projected self-loathing.

      That said, it’s often the most damaged and flawed people who display the courage to stand up to excessive–and armed–authority. He has the angry tone of a petulant 12-year-old but at least he has the balls to remain resolute.

    • Dennis Smith says:

      The guy needs (another) beating, I have no doubt about that, however I’m sure this is not the way to go about it – at the cost of eroding the civil liberties or the public.

      He appears to deliberately antagonise these people doing their jobs regardless of how you think of them they are being told how to do their jobs, and he presents himself as a self made target for stopping, he clearly set this up with a camcorder to hand, knowing full well that random stops are sometimes just that and if you pass through enough times you will be stopped either at random, or just because you appear familiar to them. The tinted windows don’t help either. 

      I can’t knock the uniforms quite as much as they might appear to deserve, after all they are doing a job, and they are being reasonably polite about it, not threats or violence, or for that matter the only raised voice was his.

      Not taking sides in this matter, but it’s easy to jump up and berate the uniforms, but look at it from their side and the picture is very different to the one you initially see.

  7. Boundegar says:

    I wonder who Paul is.  How do you know this video is three years old, if this version was posted three months ago?  How do you know this is Pastor Steven Anderson?  What is an “internal border patrol?” Is it self-appointed militia or Homeland Security?

    Am I the only one who doesn’t get it?

  8. efergus3 says:

    Lest we forget: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –  Benjamin Franklin

  9. nixiebunny says:

    I encounter these regularly in Southern Arizona. I’m very very white. I roll down my window, and they wave me past with “Have a nice day.”  I’ve gotten the feeling that you’d have to be brown for them to take an interest in you, or do something dumb like not roll down your window.

  10. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Moderator note:  We do still have a policy against blaming the victim in a civil rights thread, thanks for asking.

    You are, however, also still welcome to revile him for his views, which would cheerfully strip the rights from people who don’t meet his approval.

  11. Kl-0 says:

    Hi Tacochuck, thanks for your message.

    I was just saying, in the spirit of free discourse, that in the United States the police don’t need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop and search you at border checkpoints.

    I then provided links to the relevant law / citations.

    I then discussed some remedies available to those who have been subject to illegal search and seizures

    I then also mentioned that the posted was free to bring a claim for violations of civil rights, or post angry messages, or both. All of which are fair and legal in the United States.

    I like to talk about this stuff, because
    a) I feel a lot of the common issues which arise in law enforcement are pretty widely misunderstood (for instance Miranda warnings, 6th Amendment right to counsel, 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures, etc), which is a danged shame because they are a big part of how the US works, and

    b) I’m a nerd about criminal law (and some other narrow Constitutional law issues), and enjoy thinking about Constitutional constraints on criminal law in general.

    So, there is my explanation, please accept my apologies if my comment upset you.

    • acerplatanoides says:

      You lost me at ‘border checkpoints’. This wasn’t at one of those. Could you recognize the house of cards the rest of your point, through no agenda of my own, could reasonably seem to be?

      • Kl-0 says:

         I just watched the video. Those are border patrol agents, that is a fixed border check point, as is common along and near the border of the United States in Mexico.

        Border check points do not have to be actually physically on the border, they can be near the border. Some have suggested 100 miles. I actually am not sure what the rule is in terms for proximity to the border. I am pretty sure it is not 100 miles from any airport though, I think for airports it has to be at the airport, but it has been a while since I read about this stuff, so I am out on a limb on this particular issue.

         You certainly do not have to take my word for it, and I have no skin in this game one way or the other, just type in “4th Amendment” into the Wikipedia and look at border search. Or, for the more pop-culture inclined, find any number of articles about the stop in West Texas where Will Nelson, Fiona Apple, Snoop Dog, and others have famously gotten caught with contraband by border patrol agents. This check point is also not physically on the border, but rather it sits on I-10.

        Again, fixed border check points have been held by the Supreme Court to not violate the 4th Amendment.

        What the police cannot due is engage in a more intrusive search (such as body cavity) without a higher level suspicion of wrong doing. Border check points, and to a lesser extent, administrative searches (such as in airports, and drunk driving check points) are some of the few places in American society where police do not need at least some suspicion based upon articulable facts that a crime has occurred or is imminent to stop and search you. The police cannot even pull you over while driving (except for traffic check points) without grounds for a Terry stop (although most traffic stops occur because of probable cause that a crime has been committed, but this is a whole can of worms).

        To talk a little bit about non-border traffic checkpoints, they have been upheld in some instances (random drunk driving tests, and seeking information about a recent traffic accident), but have been thrown out in other instances, where they were set up to detect general crime as being a violation of the 4th Amendment.

        To talk a little bit about why the federal border patrol agents did not arrest him if he wasn’t doing something wrong. I have no idea, but under my understanding of the law, they absolutely could have arrested him.

        None of these are my rules. I am not opining one way or the other on the advisability or desirability of these rules.

        • acerplatanoides says:

           I’m asking not about the rules you’re applying, but where you’re looking to apply them.

          border patrol : apples :: police : oranges.

          • Kl-0 says:

             yea! I totally agree, or well, maybe oranges and tangerines is a better metaphor. So (tacochuck), normally at border check points the rules I’ve been talking about apply (officers free to search without individualized suspicion).
            There is no question this is true.

             There is another rule (I know… there are a lot of rules) that border agents doing random car traffic stops for immigration purposes, are not allowed to search without Probable cause on Terry grounds. I’ve only ever seen it applied to traffic stops (ie. getting pulled over), and never at the stations, but I clearly do not know all of the ends and outs of the border patrol.

            I dunno, maybe this station had some sort of orders that they weren’t a full border station, but could only check for immigration status (like the fruit stops I mentioned a second ago), presumably because they were too far away from the border, and so could only conduct basic immigration / sight checks in which they stop people to determine their citizenship,  I was assuming it was one of the for real border stations (such as the Willie Nelson one on I-10 in West Texas, or any number of others) when I initially posted, and before I had watched it.

            So, anyway, if you feel awesome, here is an article (in “police chief magazine” of all things) that breaks down the non border types of stops

            http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=234&issue_id=32004

            Here is another article that I just grabbed off the internet that is normally used by folks studying for the bar, that breaks down the rules for border searches and near border searches.

            Sorry for the long posts. Again, probably not the best forum for these types of discussions.

            http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro05.htm

          • TacoChuck says:

            I will take a look, thank you.

        • hugh crawford says:

          Its been at least a hundred miles from the border jurisdiction for 40 years as far as I can remember.

          I grew up in the California central valley on a farm and the guys that worked there who were legal and had their papers and knew that everyone nearby had papers or was white ( disclaimer, that would be me) would have fun with the border patrol as they drove past by one of them just starting running as they drove past and while they were making their u-turn in traffic , and driving a quarter mile around an irrigation carnal they would pull off their long sleeve shirt and sit down wearing their t-shirt and watch the ensuing keystone kops entertainment .
          The border patrol would fall for it over and over, I could never figure out if they were that stupid or that there was some sort of quota for driving down dirt roads at 60 mph every month.

    • TacoChuck says:

      You didn’t upset me.

      If you watch the whole video, you will see where the cops give him a card that explains the law for the checkpoints, he reads it out loud and it says they can stop him, but to search him or his car they need some suspicion that he has violated an immigration law.

      He then states they have no reason to suspect him of violating the law. They say “yes we do” and he says for what and they say “I don’t know” and after a few moments say they suspect him of interfering with a federal investigation, which is total BS and they know it. That is why they let him go, because he was right, they had no reason to suspect him of violating the law and hence no reason to search him or his car.

      I am not a lawyer or even a constitutional hobbyist, but according to their own document they gave the guy, they had no right to search him, unless one considers someone trying to exercise their rights suspicious.

  12. Greg P. says:

    Ummmm, couldn’t BB perhaps find a better poster child for civil rights than a scumbag homophobic nutjob? Surely there must be some inspiring (and more recent) video of resistance to the man that could make the front page from someone whose views are not quite so horrific. At least, it would behoove BB to make it clear this gentleman’s history in the post instead of waiting for the comments to bring it out.

    • acerplatanoides says:

      BoingBoing made a poster? I want it.

      But seriously, I live up the hill from John Adams’ old house. You know him as our second president. Around here it’s also remembered that he was the defense attourney for the soldiers who committed the Boston massacre. See how that went. Justice was served in the American way, by a founding father, despite the defendants being douches and foriegners.

      When human rights depend on whose definition of human we use….

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Replicate his actions, record and upload. Voilà – new poster child.

      • Greg P. says:

        Nice, very flip of you sir. Are you suggesting the only people currently challenging these checkpoints are nutjobs? 

        This whole thing makes me very uneasy. This courageous militia member gets a pass (from both the Border Patrol and BB) while surely a brown skinned person pulling the same stunt gets pulled from the car and arrested. Can’t BB publicize a case that shows the impact of internal checkpoints on the people most affected by it instead of some douche who can pull the white privilege card at any time?

        Also, I continue to assert that some due diligence on Mr Anderson’s background in the post is not uncalled for. When the ACLU defended the right of the Nazi party to march through Skokie, everyone knew what they were getting. The ACLU took a principled stand (which I support), and it was principled precisely because they knew they would take a lot of heat for defending a bunch of assholes, not some heroic little guy sticking it to the man. This video was posted without any context about the individual involved and that seems sloppy to say the least.

    • Judas Peckerwood says:

      Yes, we should definitely find better poster children for our civil liberties. Start by throwing out the Miranda, Gideon and Roe decisions — nothing but a bunch of criminals and ingrates!

    • TacoChuck says:

       Unfortunately, it is often just this sort of disgusting scum bag that make the test cases for our rights.

      Now, not in this particular case was his ignorance on other issues on display, but obviously the guy has some sense of what his rights should be, knows how to keep his cool, stay focused and had a camera at the ready and rolling, all probably due to his experience in previous incidents with people and police.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Unfortunately, it is often just this sort of disgusting scum bag that make the test cases for our rights.

        Citizens of Pleasantville rarely make change in the world. If it weren’t for some of the loudest, most obnoxious drag queens whom you could ever hope never to be stuck in a small space with, we wouldn’t have the gay rights that we now.

        We should all hoist a glass to the troublemakers of the world. Although in this guy’s case, I might crack his head open with it after I’ve toasted him.

        • ericmonse says:

          in this guy’s case, I might crack his head open with it after I’ve toasted him.

          Implying you would get physically violent on this guy without provocation is a terrible way to make a point about civil liberties.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Thank you, Captain Literal.

          • wysinwyg says:

             On the other hand, this guy probably thinks Ant should be summarily executed.  Hopefully that offends you more than breaking something over someone’s head.

  13. Mike says:

    Is there some assertion here that a police checkpoint is illegal?  Can the police not set up a checkpoint?  They can do it for drunk driving enforcement.

    My impression is that this is a man with a chip on his shoulder looking for a fight.  The comments suggest that he’s also a homophobic bigot.   And look at this… it is apparently quite legal to have such a checkpoint in New Mexico.   Well, what do you know?  He’s just an a**hole looking for a fight.

    Here’s a summary of checkpoint laws in 50 states: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

    • acerplatanoides says:

       Were these police? Eh? What was that?

    • acerplatanoides says:

      “He’s just an a**hole looking for a fight.”

      They still have rights. So do you, which is good. Because you seem to be one too. Nice chip.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Is there some assertion here that a police checkpoint is illegal? Can the police not set up a checkpoint? They can do it for drunk driving enforcement.

      Yes, there’s an assertion that it’s unconstitutional and that Supreme Court decisions allowing it are wrong, evil and bad. It wouldn’t be the first time that the Supreme Court has opened its collective mouth and had a turd pop out.

      • Kl-0 says:

         There is a difference, for purposes of the 4th amendment, between a police check point, and a federal / border patrol immigration / border check point.
        There are also other types of administrative check points which have been found to be valid, most notably having your car checked for fruit when you enter California (I’m not sure if they still do that or not actually).

        Again, I would direct the BB crowd the wikipedia entry for the 4th Amendment, which does a pretty decent job of breaking this stuff down.

        • Mike says:

          I think the point here is that, in general, the government is free to monitor the highways.  It can put cameras on them, for various purposes.  It can set up check points for various reasonable purposes (catching drunks, checking for produce, forcing truckers to weigh in, etc. etc.)   

          The idea that you should be able to drive down the highway unobserved and unquestioned is just silly.  Not in a civilized society, a society that cares for all its members and cares about justice, as well as safety, ecological balance, etc.

          Yes, you should be free from harassment.  That’s one reason that a group of 4 or 5 officers at a checkpoint might be preferable to a lone ranger out on the highway.   Having lots of video cameras around to record such encounters is also a good thing.  

          Are these police officers versus Federals?  I suppose there is a point to argue there, but it is a minor one.   

          And of course there should be due respect for your personal privacy.  But that doesn’t mean you have a right to never be stopped, never observed or never questioned.  THAT kind of thinking is popular in extremist circles in the Southwest, I’m sure, but it is nor particularly reasonable.   

          And what makes the video above so obviously nutters is that this guy is already pissed off and confrontational from the start. If you are determined to have a bad day, you can always find what you are looking for.

          • Judas Peckerwood says:

            “Yes, you should be free from harassment.  That’s one reason that a group of 4 or 5 officers at a checkpoint might be preferable to a lone ranger out on the highway.” (See King, Rodney)

            “Having lots of video cameras around to record such encounters is also a good thing.” (Ibid.)

    • Kl-0 says:

       Hey Mike,
      That link actually raises kind of a cool point. So, I have been talking about Constitutional constraints against search and seizure a lot (the 4th Amendment), but if you look at that site you listed, it mentions that a lot of states forbid check points under the state constitution. Something that is really cool about the federalist system is that states are free to provide *more* protections than are provided by the federal Constitution.

      Also, sort of interesting, any state law or constitution banning border check point / immigration stops would not apply to the federal government,  as it would be pre-empted by federal law
      (ie. despite the fact that Texas may not allow sobriety checkpoints, they could not effectively outlaw the border patrol).

      ok, sorry for all the posts, i’ll let it go now.

    • GlyphGryph says:

      If you watched the video, he says he understands the checkpoints are legal – but that, legally, all he’s required to do is stop. He stopped (If he thought they were illegal, he probably wouldn’t have done that).

      However, the law requires actual suspicion of an actual crime in order to search your vehicle or person in these situations – despite him acting like a dick, they had no actual suspicion of any actual crime, and admit as much. So their attempt to search him was NOT legal, and that was the bit he was arguing against.

  14. kmoser says:

    And just for good measure they try to talk him out of filming them as he’s leaving. Niiiiice!

  15. I wonder if this would have gone differently if he didn’t have a camera. I just watched the video. Those are border patrol agents, that is a fixed border check point, as is common along and near the border of the United States in Mexico.

  16. Lord Humongous says:

    Good for the protagonist of this video.  Although I suspect that he is in a rush to vote for Paul Ryan.

  17. Nick Gaspar says:

    OT: there was an article on this site a few months ago about Philip Dick. In it the author shared a cartoon/short comic that was about PKD leaving a theater after seeing Bladerunner. It was really amazing and artistic. Im trying to find it but cant seem to. Does anyone know where i can get it?

  18. peregrinus says:

    Border controls allowed within 100 miles of the border??  Why, here in England, you can never be more than 70 miles from the sea.  That would be fantastic for the control zonks.

    • Missy Pants says:

      We drove through New Mexico last January, lovely land, however we passed through at least 8 of these while in the state, and despite being Canadian, and having Canadian plates and driving a large camper van, when they saw we were white they usually waved us through and never once looked inside the van, and once called out from the guard house “American?” – because it was cold and he didn’t want to step outside. (I thought we were hosed that time, dude was pissed he had to come outside.)

      • dioptase says:

        Wait until they get bored and start naming random nationalities.  “Are you all Russian citizens?”  “Are you a Japanese Citizen?”  It really throws you if, like me, you’ve been through them dozens if not hundreds of times.  You are just about to yell your automatic “Yes” when what they said registers.

        Passengers get bored with it too.  My brother and I enjoyed hiding under a blanket in the back as our mom drove through the checkpoints.  For bonus points, we’d speak in spanish.  Mom was not happy.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      The Border Patrol in Liechtenstein could set up checkpoints deep into France, Germany and Switzerland.

      • peregrinus says:

        Imagine the upset of the Azores’ Border Wonks representatives at the Border Enforcement Enablement Federation International Entities meet.

        ‘Hey!  Change the rules to 100 miles from the nearest border to our borders!  We’re feeling a little exposed here!’

        Micronesia would get skin in that game.  Could have fun with the Spratly Islands.  Hell – isn’t Russia within 100 miles of Alaska?!  What an opportunity!!

  19. soybeans says:

    I’ve been through plenty of these in California and Arizona, most notably on the way in and out of Slab City. These guys aren’t TSA rentacops, they’re real actual border patrol officers with actual police power. They’re looking for drug smugglers and illegal aliens, and it’s within their lawful powers to do so. There’s also agricultural inspection stations at state borders. They too have the lawful right to inspect your vehicle and make you throw out your produce.

    Obviously it helps to be middle aged, white, and driving a late model vehicle in decent condition; or if not, at least look respectable. Not saying their screening criteria are spotlessly fair, just saying tidy yourself up a little and don’t be a douche when they stop you.

    They’re there because we as voters decided that the war on drugs is A-OK fine and dandy, and that we don’t want to give foreign guest workers a legal way to come here and work. And terrorists, don’t forget the terrorists. And out of state produce. They are there because we allowed it, and they could just as easily be gone if we’d just get off our asses and vote for people who will shut this crap down.

  20. IronEdithKidd says:

    I find it quite interesting that I’ve not seen any of these checkpoints in person.  I live about 40 miles from Canada.  Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that these checkpoints aren’t all about harassing the scary brown people?

  21. nico_forgot says:

    This guy is not a champion of the people. He, like the first officer, is part of the problem. He demands answers and then refuses to cooperate. He lacks understanding of the law and common courtesy: beginning in an antagonistic fashion. Don’t lick boots but don’t be a jerk to those in the boots, either.

  22. Richard Lord says:

    He was required to stop, they had the authority to ask questions. Lets make this perfectly clear to all you sheeple. HE was NOT required to answer the questions. HE had a right to remain silent. They had NO right to continue to detain him  once he made it clear he was not ceding his rights. They have the authority to stop him and engage him in a consensual conversation. The moment they kept him detained after he demanded them to let him go the Jack booted thugs broke the law. If they were not able to get probable cause or even a articulate suspicion that a crime was committed they had NO authority to continue to detain him and IF they did they would not have been told by the REAL lawyers on the phone to let him GO. 

  23. Shinkuhadoken says:

    Say what you will about this guy, but if more people stood up for their rights, there’d be a lot fewer checkpoints on the grounds that it just wouldn’t be feasible against a free people.

  24. EH says:

    What are you, a cop?

  25. darladoon says:

    If you support the position of these “border” patrol agents (that they were acting “lawfully”), then how can you explain why they were unable to detain him and search his car?

    Why didn’t they just arrest him?

  26. darladoon says:

    “Someone holing up in his car is suspicious”??

    Really??

  27. darladoon says:

    The officers have no right to ask him to:

    a) stop; or

    b) roll down his window; or

    c) detain him 

    So, yeah, he’s definitely standing up for his rights. Keep in mind, this is *inside* the USA. This is not a border crossing. Kind of a big difference.

    And there are many of these in Arizona, New Mexico and California. And they suck.

  28. thecommongood says:

     Exactly. 

    And politeness almost never helps.  They will still ask you for more.

    And by the way, he educated them along the way.  He’s like quality control. 

  29. ChicagoD says:

    You’re actually wrong about all of those points. Fascinating.

  30. Judas Peckerwood says:

    Wow, with that kind of healthy skepticism of uniformed authority I’m surprised that the Anschluss ever happened!

  31. Robert Drop says:

    Not bending over backwards to comply with police requests is suspicious.  Bending over backwards to comply with police requests is also suspicious, however.

  32. katkins says:

    Sneaky Godwin.

Leave a Reply