Comments on: Politely refusing to talk to DHS checkpoints

By: William Todd Salzman

William Todd Salzman — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:18:00 +0000

I remember that checkpoint (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.197471,-107.252741&num=1&t=h&z=14 124 miles from Juarez Mexico)(from the early 80′s when I attended college in Las Cruces) as being just north of T or C NM around Elephant Butte. I also remember that you could get off the freeway before Elephant Butte and return just after and bypass the checkpoint altogether. There was another one on the road between Las Cruces and Alomogordo.

By: singsong jones

singsong jones — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:09:00 +0000

DHS officers gonna start “Going Homeland” before too long, doing crazy shit nobody wants to see happen. Too little training, too much bullshit

By: Bureaucromancer

Bureaucromancer — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:02:00 +0000

Seriously, I’ve been seeing a lot of that. Where the hell did it start?

By: Jim Friess

Jim Friess — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:36:00 +0000

I hate to say it, but you are totall correct, Stefanie. I am an highly educated, law abiding white male, and it has happened to me more than once. Sure, when a police officer makes up an excuse to ticket you, you can go to court to dispute it. In court, however, it will be your word against theirs and guess who the judge will believe.

By: jimh

jimh — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 02:30:00 +0000

I especially liked “Um, well your car’s kinda dirty…”

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:22:00 +0000

The more that you engage with them, the more opportunity they have to trick you into a search.

By: Dr P Fenderson

Dr P Fenderson — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 21:57:00 +0000

Here's some more info that just came out recently:

In the statement filed this week in a federal court in Maryland, the Justice Department argues that not only do individuals have a First Amendment right to record officers publicly doing their duties, they also have Fourth and 14th Amendment rights protecting them from having those recordings seized without a warrant or due process. The DOJ urges the court to uphold these rights and to reject a motion to dismiss from Montgomery Co. in Garcia v. Montgomery Co., a case that has implications for an increasing crop of litigation on the subject in the era of ubiquitous smartphones.

By: Craggin Stylie

Craggin Stylie — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:40:00 +0000

This is about as defacto as possible: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

I had a link to some other stuff done by a photog-turned-lawyer, but that must be on my older desktop, which I can’t get to at the moment…

The above is pretty dang good though!

By: Dr P Fenderson

Dr P Fenderson — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:36:00 +0000

Just remember: A law enforcement officer in uniform is not your friend. They are trained to be suspicious of you, lie to you, and coerce you to commit actions that violate your rights out of fear. Friends don’t do that.

By: Dr P Fenderson

Dr P Fenderson — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:20:00 +0000

Well, you're lucky to be white then. It's completely legal, and highly encouraged, to not comply with requests - only direct orders. They cannot search your car without probable cause. Here's a nice little pamphlet from the ACLU outlining your legal rights re: Stop and Search. Here's a lovely class video of a law professor and police officer talking about why you should never talk to the police or comply with requests, and only direct orders.

By: Peter Carley

Peter Carley — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:35:00 +0000

Does refusing to answer the question “Are you an American citizen” prevent some nefarious next step? Does knowing that information grant the asker additional permissions to further invade your privacy? I feel really ignorant about this. I understand “the principle of the thing,” but is that all there is?

By: Kl-0

Kl-0 — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:18:00 +0000

Hi there, thanks for your thoughts, first up, here is the ACLU rundown on your rights during interactions with police, which goes into a lot more detail than I possibly could: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

Secondly, yes, you absolutely do not have to consent to a search and/or questioning, but it does not mean police will ultimately find they have probable cause to detain or arrest you on other grounds.

Technically I suppose you don’t even have to be polite about it (see first video of the compilation), but if it was me, I would probably err on the side of politeness, as hostility may be interpreted as providing other grounds for a detention or arrest, and you know, being polite doesn’t cost anything as they say.

Finally, I’m afraid I don’t have a clue as to what a TL;DR is; sorry! The good news is, if you are interested, you can basically just read the lexis nexis page I posted, which goes over substantially the same material.

As for recording police, that is an area of law I don’t know anything about I’m afraid, so I am going to demure to talk about that one (I think it would vary by state according to wiretap, privacy and other laws? I know some states have contended with this recently, but again, I’m not sure)

By: Craggin Stylie

Craggin Stylie — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 18:42:00 +0000

Season 3 coming soon!!!!! Love the username!

By: schadenfreudisch

schadenfreudisch — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:56:00 +0000

anyone know a good primer on when/where i’m allowed to film/record interactions with DHS/cops/private security guards?

By: Ryan Lenethen

Ryan Lenethen — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:28:00 +0000

Wow. Simply wow.

“Papers?”

By: Roose_Bolton

Roose_Bolton — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:49:00 +0000

Ehhhh….sure, what the hell….

By: Petzl

Petzl — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 10:56:00 +0000

I had no idea this stuff was going on in the border states. From the video, these DHS guys seem to realize all they really have on their side is intimidation and exploitation of citizens’ ignorance.

By: Jamie Norwood

Jamie Norwood — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 07:34:00 +0000

I have two middle names, which Stephen Sondheim observes means I am probably an assassin.

By: noah django

noah django — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 07:09:00 +0000

MadZack posted the one you mean not too far upthread (look for the thumbnail with 4409 in green,) but it’s also edited into the posted video, it’s the finale.

By: MissNormaDesmond

MissNormaDesmond — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:04:00 +0000

I’m sorry, but If we simply accept this, we’re part of the problem. The Constitution is a document. It can’t run out and wrap itself around people who are violating it. It needs us to protect it by forcing the Government to remain within its boundaries.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:03:00 +0000

It depends on where you’re driving. Palm Springs to Las Vegas through the Mojave is amazing.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:02:00 +0000

More words equals more opportunities for them to imagine probable cause.

Loose lips sink ships.

By: laurent oget

laurent oget — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 05:04:00 +0000

Drivers licenses – at least in Georgia – do not show citizenship status.

By: ocschwar

ocschwar — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 04:18:00 +0000

Be aware that American road trips are nowhere near as enjoyable as you might think. The distances are seriously long, and we Americans do them largely as a rite of passage.

By: Heevee Lister

Heevee Lister — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 04:17:00 +0000

Can you be polite to these officials without giving up your rights? For example, could I, without losing any rights, say “I’m sorry to make your job tougher today, sir/ma’am, but I need to stand up for my rights under the constitution. Am I being detained? If not, am I free to go?” Or could I say “Ma’am/sir, with all due respect to you and your authority, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle or person”?

By: mccrum

mccrum — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 03:18:00 +0000

Is there a TL;DR you can provide instead? Without paragraphs it’s kind of a monolith.

By: mccrum

mccrum — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 03:14:00 +0000

The funny thing about “the law” is that it eventually involves courts. The police can indeed do whatever they want, it can then result in civil and criminal cases against them which the city, state, or country then pays for when “the law” says the police were incorrect.

By: Kl-0

Kl-0 — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 02:32:00 +0000

wow, the formatting got trashed in that last post. Sorry if it is a bit difficult to read.

By: Stefanie Trillanet

Stefanie Trillanet — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 02:06:00 +0000

You are wrong my friend. The police can do whatever the hell they want, regardless of what “the law” is. Did that ever stop a cop? If they need an excuse to harass or arrest you then they’ll make something up.

By: Kl-0

Kl-0 — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 02:05:00 +0000

Hello,I recognize that I am a bit late to the party on this one, but I’d like to talk about the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which serves as a Constitutional constraint against unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by state or federal police. This is obviously a bit of a crash course, and I am discussing these issues only extremely generally, and there are a multitude of exceptions which are not susceptible to discussion in this forum.There are three levels (very generally, as is this entire discussion) of interaction with police which can occur. First, general discussions instigated by police officers on the street. For instance, if you are buying a slurpee, and a policeman in the 7-11 says “hey, my favorite flavor is cherry, what is yours”; this type of conversation is not considered unreasonable for the purposes of the 4th Amendment, and if some sort of incriminating response were given, it could be admitted against you in court. An extension of this theory is questioning based on consent. This is a fairly common approach taken by law enforcement officials; it will often look something like this, an officer will approach a person, and preface any conversation or questions which follow with “hi, do you mind if I talk to you for a moment?”. Very generally speaking (and there are complicated exceptions) any incriminating statements may be admitted. One is never required to give consent. If you refuse consent, then officers will generally be required to make a decision: if they have probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, they may arrest you, of if they have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, they may detain you for further investigation (see Terry stop below), otherwise they may not detain you. Whether denying consent to a search or to questioning may in itself provide the basis for a reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing is a complicated issue, but probably not outside the realm of possibility in some instances.From watching the first video only of the above compilation, my opinion is that officers were trying to go the consent route, and when consent was not given, the person was free to go. Also of note, the gentleman talks a bit about his right to travel; this is not an issue covered by the 4th Amendment (but rather by one, or both of the “Privileges and Immunities” clauses of the United States Constitution) and while it would be the basis for an interesting discussion, I am just going to ignore it for purposes of the discussion of the 4th Amendment. So, that being said, this is (again, in my opinion and experience) an extremely common tactic that law enforcement will use. Practically every conversation an officer will initiate with you will be prefaced by something like “Hey, do you mind if I talk with you for a second?” or the like. I believe it is also common for law enforcement to use social pressure, and other non-verbal factors to imply that a person does not in fact have a choice but to say yes to these questions. However, as can be seen from the first video, if you deny the consent, and ignore how rude you may feel about doing so, then they are generally required to allow you to go about your business (with the below exceptions.)Next up, there is a Terry stop. This is where officers have a suspicion, based upon articulable facts, that the person may be engaged in criminal activity of some kind, which merits further investigation.This does not allow officers to search your vehicle. It does, under some circumstances (if there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that a person may be armed/dangerous), allow officers to give you a “pat down”. Under the “plain feel” doctrine, if they detect weapons, or items which are obviously contraband, they may detain those items.If the investigation, which can include questioning yields information sufficient for probable cause, then the officers may arrest the detained person (see below). To effect an arrest, officers must have probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred. If the crime is a misdemeanor, then the officers must (generally, but again, exceptions) have directly witnessed the crime. Felonies require only the reasonable belief. So, that is the 4th Amendment in a nutshell. To learn more, there is a nice Wikipedia article, and also there are some pretty well done ACLU videos which discuss common interactions with officers.

Another note worth mentioning, and which I have previously discussed in the forums; there are different rules for administrative searches, and administrative searches do not fall into the above categories generally speaking. For instance, DUI check points, border stops (with one issue being exactly how close to the border/international point of entry for a check point to be considered a border check point), agricultural searches, and air port searches. This is
something of a complicated area, but generally speaking, searches under these circumstances are much more permissive.

In any event, I think it is an interesting area of the law (actually, one of my favorite), and the more the public knows about it generally, the better. If you’d like to read more, here is very broad and general outline which covers the material in the way you would learn about it in lawschool.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro03.htm