*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

*wheels *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by MrFisk.

Adding video to channels (Wheels) - requested by MrFisk.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dhs, stop, detained, top, refusal' to 'dhs, stop, detained, top, refusal, Fourth Amendment' - edited by MrFisk

There should be a youtube series with a judge or well qualified lawyer that explains exactly where citizens (and non-citizens) stand in common situations like these (DHS and DUI checkpoints, audio/video recording of police, searches of vehicles and clothing/bags, stop and frisk, requests for identification, etc.). People would benefit from a clear explanation both from a constitutional perspective as well as the perspective of any precedence set by previous trials.

And to take this one step further: This should be funded BY the government! Law enforcement should Want people to know the law.
The fact that officers use the imbalance of power in these situations to force people into a positions where they don't know whether they are breaking the law or not is disgusting. Confusion about the law should not be a law enforcement tactic.

Jesus, immigration checks randomly around the country? WTF? What happens if you admit you're not a US citizen?

Tazers and anal beads....er...so I hear anyway

With all the illegals in this country, I'm surprised anyone is checking at the border.

What about if you're not caucasian, have a foreign accent, and refuse to answer questions?

Oppositional defiant disorder is a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures. Therefore, I would be arrested for verbally expressing my "feelings".

This is almost * eia.

FINE. Go on your way sir.

(Next Summer at airport with wife and kids.)
What do you mean I can't fly anymore????

That is the next video, Top DHS Checkpoint Beatdowns.

but by saying he is a citizen with the right to not be stopped, he is in fact, answering the guard's question of whether or not he is an American citizen, no?

Still, way to continue being stupid Arizona.

assuming for the moment that this stuff is constitutional, what exactly are these checkpoints supposed to accomplish? They seem pointless.

These are awesome.

Love the ol' "refusing a search is reasonable cause to search" BS.

While I don't think these checkpoints do anything other than irritate people, it is already approved and supported by the Supreme court. The decisions covered these particular checkpoints (called Interior Checkpoints), sobriety checkpoints, and pretty much all others as constitutional.

Secondly, while the person in the video does have a right to refuse to answer, his tone didn't help the situation. I'm sure if he had said "Yes, I'm a citizen" and showed an ID, he would've been on his way in 1/10th the time it took him to sit and complain to the officers. All that he was doing was raising suspicion on himself by constantly holding a snarky tone toward the officers.

I'm pretty sure that you missed the point.

"Are we in Mexico or Nazi Germany?"

WTF... Since when is Mexico in any way comparable to Nazi Germany?

State border crossing immigration checkpoints? Jesus, a lot has changed in the 6 or so years I've been out of the US. /facepalm

Then explain it to me, from how I see it, people are complaining that they're being stopped and asked for verification of citizenship at posted checkpoints.

The point is that we don't have to prove our citizenship or answer questions at a random police stop. There's no point in having that freedom if we let the police harass people until they give up their rights.

and again, if all it takes to pass the checkpoint is to say you're a citizen, then it's a complete waste of time.

So far it looks like a flimsy excuse to stop brown people. All of those videos are of white college aged kids. Each one of those guards ultimately let them pass even after refusing to cooperate. Why is it I think it would be different if they weren't white?

And here's my point:

1. The stops are legal, while irritating, they're not surprise check-stops, they're posted and advertised. So one could avoid them if they don't want to be stopped. There's no rights violations, there's no harassment in the literal form.

2. This is what happens when so many people cry and whine about illegal immigration. and that there's "nothing" being done about it. This is a response to those people who ask for additional checks for illegals. And again, the stops are constitutional/legal.

edit: Also, considering that a *lot* of the checkpoints are in Arizona, this is what happens when they pass a law that allows an officer to stop *anyone* for a check of citizenship. Texas has a law where they can stop and ask for your license at any time and as a requirement you must provide it to them. See a Pattern?

1. You are correct that there is not a rights violation, which is why none of these people are seeking damages. However, as soon as they allow themselves to be identified or searched, they are surrendering their rights under the 4th amendment. Furthermore, if the DHS officers state that they are being detained and are not free to go, and use force to make that so, then they are violating their rights for the same reason.

2. Many things have been "legal" in the past and viewed as "constitutional" that have long since been overturned. You don't have to dig too far into the historical grab bag to find some examples. Slavery, internment of Japanese citizens during WWII, poll taxes, spousal abuse, etc. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Likewise, the findings of a particularly conservative and activist Supreme Court does not mean that an issue is actually in keeping with the constitution. Don't forget that our constitution as it was originally written included the proclamation that 'non-free' men only counted as 3/5ths of a person. I mean, you don't get more constitutional than that.

Just because it's possible for someone to avoid them if they know about them and know a way around them doesn't mean that they can always be avoided. If they were meant to be easily avoided, then we'd be allowed to drive on through. Instead, as shown in the video, people are harassed until the police get tired of it.

I guess first off, I should explain that I'm not in full support of these searches/stops, but again, if I were stopped and asked questions, I'd just give them my ID and be on my way. Which, actually I have been before (just not in this context).

Yes, but Identified and searched are two separate instances and rights are not forfeit for giving that information. They must still have probable cause to open, and search. By acting like the kid(s) in the video, would possibly give an officer suspicion that there may be something to hide, and therefore, probable cause (although that's a very very loose explanation/definition). Also the plain sight rules apply, and given that this is essentially an extension of the border searches, I wonder if the Border Search exception could apply (given that it's the DHS/Border patrol holding the stops).

Basically what I'm saying is that, while yes, the stops are annoying, this is what you get if you cry/whine about illegal immigrants. Also, like I said before, if the kid just said "here's my ID" he would've been back on the road in likely seconds rather than giving the officer an attitude.

Oh, and "moral" is subjective, your morals may differ than mine, or someone else, bringing morals into a law debate doesn't support your argument. And until the 1979 ruling is overturned regarding these checkpoints, they won't stop. It's just best to take another road if you don't want to be stopped in the checkpoint.

@Jaer not sure why you think morality is not involved in the law. The laws, the courts and the police agents are there to serve justice (IIRC).

via Wikipedia:
'Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness'

Also, you make the argument from a point of convenience but several of these people are willing to bear the inconvenience to make their point. Non-compliance is a form of activism and the fact that they are all let go without answering the questions or submitting to searches shows that the DHS agents understand that what they are requesting is actually outside the bounds of our rights as they are generally interpreted. They are simply seeking compliance.

Which brings me to my final point. My German girlfriend overheard the video and then came to sit by me and watch it. She was fascinated with the video and at the end, she commented on the several references to Nazi Germany.

'Americans don't really know anything. That's not like Nazi Germany, it's like East Germany. The only difference is the Stazi got results and nobody dared to resist their constant intrusions so directly.'

She should know, since she lived there until the wall came down. Non-compliance against an unjust act/request is a moral duty. Damn your convenience.

Morality isn't involved into the law because morality is not objective, nor fair. Like I said, morals are of ones own definition, trying to place a blanket over the entire debate with 1 definition doesn't make Morals "standardized".

Morals aren't necessarily "fair" nor always equal. Hence they cannot be in the same group as "morals" (I won't get too far into it, but look at the Gay Marriage debates, many claim "morals" when it comes to against it, etc)

Anyway, again the situation shown may be vaguely like East Germany, but overall it isn't even close. East Germany wouldn't allow any sort of questions to be asked to the authorities, let alone recorded onto any sort of video device. In places where there's a true police state, there's no such thing as convenience, so such a comparison isn't justified. IF this was happening *everywhere* in the country, and not along the southern border, then I'd agree that there's an issue.

The states that this is happening in (south/southwest states & Texas), it was voted on by the people to allow this. They asked, begged and rallied to get additional "border protection", this is what they get.

They didn't know the consequence, so this is on them and the price they have to pay to fight the "illegal immigrant menace". I think it's absolutely ridiculous, but I hope these people realize that if they continue to push for "closing borders" and everything that Arizona (in particular) has done, will end up biting them in the ass.

Who cares if they take a little extra time? I'm sure they enjoy the sport at least as much as going on their way one minute earlier. As a bonus the traffic behind them becomes increasingly frustrated with checkpoints.

It's a win-win.

This discussion is what's wrong with America.

We are not free, we only falsely believe we are free.

Power belongs to the people, not government, Sadly, Americans would rather sit on their ass watching The Simpsons drinking a Slurpee than be bothered to protect their freedoms.

Refusal to allow a search is never probable cause. If it was, it would be impossible to refuse a search. Probable cause must refer to a specific law that is being broken. For instance, the smell of marijuana smoke suggests that drugs are in your possession, and the screaming of a person in your trunk suggests that you've kidnapped someone.

I don't know why you keep bring up illegal immigrants. That's a red herring. It's true that complying with the search would have been faster. So what? And again, not everyone knows where these stops are going to be. I don't constantly check the newspaper for word of checkpoints, especially when I visit other towns.

The stops are shown on various websites (local authority, news, etc). So people who are in those areas shouldn't be surprised by them. And if you're so "upset" with the checkpoints, or sobriety points, or anything that is similar to this (or just checking into a flight, where they check your ID as well, do you *not* fly?) you can easily check online where they're holding the stops. It's required that they announce/post where the stops are being held. They expect and hope that not everyone has the presence of mind to check where the stops are at, that's the *point* of the stops, to find people who are not of legal status in this country.

And I bring up Illegal Immigrants, because that's the reason as to *why* these checkpoints exist. (hence why in the video they ask what the persons citizenship is)

As for the probable cause debate;
As several law journals suggest (e.g. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause ), probable cause is subjective, there can be many instances of probable cause, but there can also be a lesser form called "Reasonable suspicion", which could essentially be used in this instance.

You simplify things way too much, the law isn't just a clear cut black and white instance. The law isn't simple, you can't quantify it in a simple explanation, and lawyers, law enforcement, judges (etc) know all this. Laws aren't water tight either, many contradict each other, or can be interpreted differently (which is why there's a supreme court, they dictate the wording and meaning of the laws).

Edit: I don't know how I got into defending the DHS or the checkpoints, as I said, I think the stops are ridiculous, and probably won't do anything worthwhile. But at this point, we're just going in circles. in the end, this video is just over-sensationalism at it's best.

Are the stops irritating to civilians in those areas (which are *very* limited, and not some wide spread epidemic as many seem to think it is)? Of course they are. Are they some form of "police state"? No, they're not (see examples above), they're localized stops, where the states have enacted laws allowing DHS / Law Enforcement to literally stop *anyone* they want and question them regarding citizenship.

last edit them I'm done, I swear
Where were all these kids and "freedom fighters" when the Patriot act was enacted, the illegal wiretaps, bugging and tracking of students and civilians happened? Oh.. that's right it was to "protect" us from the Terrorists. Everyone was OK with that....

I'm sorry, did I simplify my internet post a bit too much? Obviously law is a complex subject and speaking about it in broad terms will not be exact. Let me reword my statement. If refusing a search is reason to search, then we never had the right to refuse a search in the first place.

These DHS stops are already spreading to other states and modes of transportation, and they're not just looking for illegal immigrants. And they're no different from regular police check points, they're just another agency to deal with. I understand that stops like these are required to be advertised, but when I'm driving 100 miles I have no idea how to check the entire path that I might take to avoid a stop in the middle of the night, in The Middle of Nowhere, Georgia.

And when the Patriot Act was enacted, I was bitching about it and being ashamed of my country. And no, I don't fly.