"Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted...
(more)
"Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark."
—United States v. 124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
Let me first say I do not advocate an open border. I am all for border security and I respect agents who have the duty of securing our country. I also have a great deal of respect towards our Constitution and the notion of liberty that many of us understand and appreciate.
Second, this did not take place at the border. Some might be unfamiliar with internal checkpoints like this one which are away from the port of entry and are governed by different laws.
At our port of entry, I expect to be searched and have no problem with that.
This checkpoint however, is located 42 km away from the border on Interstate 19 and people like myself have no choice but to go through it when we travel.
The purpose of these types of internal immigration checkpoints is to determine citizenship and immigration status. [United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)]
Notice I respectfully told the agent I was a U.S. Citizen.
Again, this is an immigration checkpoint and not a crime control checkpoint. The Customs & Border Protections Field Manual states in section 18.6 (e):
"provided the checkpoint is used for the purpose of determining citizenship of those who pass through it, and not for the general search for those persons or the vehicle. Inquiries must be brief and limited to the immigration status of the occupants of the vehicle."
There was no further questioning about my citizenship. Rather, the agent asks if he can search my trunk and I refused consent.
"We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search." [(U.S. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)]
When asked what the reason was for wanting to search the trunk, the agent answered "Your car is dirty."
He then felt he was justified in sending me to secondary even though the court also held that:
"(A)ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause." 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
This was not my first experience with the misuse of this checkpoint. On one occasion I was given a citation by a DPS officer for allegedly not wearing my seatbelt. Read more here: https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2009/08/30/p174#more174
Ask yourself why I was still sent to secondary if there was no consent or probable cause and why the second agent insisted that I put down my camera.
Not all agents that I come across attempt to abuse their power. Many of them are intelligent and respectful people. But when one does try to abuse his or her power and infringe on our liberties, it is our duty to hold these individuals accountable.
(less)
|
|
