Peace.
SFTech on May 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Good debate. I enjoyed it too.
You too, Conservative Voice. ;-)

if BP had a legal right to arrest this guy–THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT.

the fact not in dispute is that BP called DPS to make the arrest–DPS states that DPS is arresting him for failing to obey DPS’s order.

the question is:
1. was the stop legal- very likely
2. was his detainment legal- according to the immigration statute that I posted on page 7, probably not. It states BP can ask questions like anyone else, but not detain, and the suspect can “walk away”.

I don’t think I need to go on from here because everything else, is actions of an illegal detainment thus VOID.

Thank you to all of the BP agents and LE who get up every day and make the US safer. To the ones that break the law and intimidate law abiding citizens, I hope you get reap all that you sow.

Peace.

Feedie on May 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Here is the problem I have with your analogy, if I get beaten up by police and beaten a gang member, its the same!
Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 4:29 AM

Well, this is not my problem. Your moral equivalence is the problem and I said nothing like your statement above. Here, you are saying gangbangers are equivalent to LE. Did you annoy the gangbangers for 90 minutes and live to tell about it? Did government give gangbangers authority to detain you? Unlikely.

Cops are only good if they can restrain themselves!
Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 4:29 AM

They did restrain themselves — for an hour and a half. I think they waited too long to take control and their tempers got frayed. There is a hazard in being too patient. That said, I won’t support any action against them because he asked for it. You defend and your brats claim the right to harass and provoke as if police aren’t human beings too. This is total cop-hating behavior and bias. Further, it’s the looting of the system by people who should’ve learned their lessons at age 2.

If you want liberty, then grow up and act worthy of it. Brats will get treated like brats sooner or later, and it won’t matter what legal papers say. LEs who know the rules may disagree and I won’t argue with them. I’m speaking as a citizen who is fed-up with this crap.

You won’t acknowledge authority, human nature, or give benefit-of-the-doubt to people charged with policing us for our protection. Out in the field, that’s a dangerous game and if you goad them into playing it, you have yourself to blame.

Scripture commands against assassinating Hitler or in breaking the law – yield under Caesar…? If it’s OK to break the law by assisting Jews, how is it so much worse to assassinate the cause of this Evil?

Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM

This isn’t very difficult. You can of course choose to disagree with me or not.

Scripture says we should not kill and we should defend the helpless. Scripture also says that we should respect leaders that God himself has put in place.

I agree this is difficult. Scripture doesn’t say that we should always follow our leaders. If they go against God’s commands we should not follow. A good example would be Daniel. He continued to pray to the one true God and did not bow down and worship the false gods that he was commanded to worhip by the king.

It really bothers me that you can not see that it was excessive force. The preacher doesn’t seem to be the dishonest type…he doesn’t seem all that threatening.

Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 4:29 AM

He also dosent seem the type to resist arrest and square off with border patrol for an hour and yet here we are.

And I am not going to condem the actions of the officers involved with the scant evidence provided. I havent seen enough to determine whether they were right or wrong so I will reserve my judgement.

I totally disagree that the drug dog search was legal. You have to have probably cause to call the drug dog out.

Since when? Sorry, but an open air search with a K9 is perfectly legal. It is handled the same way as a plain view search.

It was BP’s K9 that “alerted” on his car, so then why did BP not arrest him?

I have no idea. I live far enough from the border that the only border patrol I have ever met are recruiters. Had I been in their position I wouldnt have bothered calling in another agency, but I dont work for border patrol. I really dont know what their rules are for this sitation.

So you’re automaically saying the dog was right, the pastor had just removed the drugs or illegals prior to the search?

No, what I am saying is that it is possible to develop probable cause and not find anything. That is why it is probable cause and not beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bottom line is that, we don’t know because we haven’t seen the full tape.

Exactly. That is my entire point. Did he resist? We dont know because his own camera dosent show it and the security footage is blocked by the car (poor camera placement, in my opinion). I do know that, when being arrested, people can get hurt in ways other than being beaten by the police. He either got those injuries by 1. Resisting 2. Not resisting and being beaten or 3. By accident (was dropped being pulled out of the car, raked his head into the broken glass while being tased, etc.) We just dont have enough information to say either way.

And as far as DPS requesting the dog? He probably was hoping it would help defuse the situation. But when you Mr Pissed off Preacher demanding the dog on one side and Pissed Off BP on the other saying “no, we arent doing it” it is understandable why DPS would just say “screw it, we’re arresting him.”

SFTech on May 19, 2009 at 6:27 AM

a few short steps away from “I felt bad about the guy…” being the standard for PC

The officers motive for an open air search with a K9 does not matter as long as doing so is legal. And it was. You do not need consent to check with a drug dog.

I totally disagree that the drug dog search was legal. You have to have probably cause to call the drug dog out. Does not answering questions or refusing to be searched give BP probable cause to call the dog? (If he rolled down the window and a cloud of pot smoke came out that’s a different story.)

By your standard, it’s not an immigration check point–it’s a drug check point. It was BP’s K9 that “alerted” on his car, so then why did BP not arrest him? Why did BP have to call in DPS?

As far as searching and not finding anything that dosent mean there is something wrong with the dog. Hell, I have searched cause due to the odor of marijuana and not found anything myself.

So you’re automaically saying the dog was right, the pastor had just removed the drugs or illegals prior to the search? Where does that come into evidence? Your past experience is not in evidence here, sorry nice try.

Using your logic, we know LE has been convicted of planting evidence–so then one has to assume the first fact is the K9 agent caused the dog to alert. I previously stated that was one of several option, which I put at the bottom of the option list.

Side note: Thank you for the LE job that you do.

Because he was most likely trying to get them to do another check to shut the guy up. Border Patrol probably refused because they were done playing nice and were not going to humor the guy.

The bottom line is that, we don’t know because we haven’t seen the full tape. Lets assume that as LE you look to defuse the situation. BP calls you in and the guy sitting in the car is a d*ck but not violent. He’s going on and on that the dog didn’t alert, it would seem to be a reasonable request to diffuse the situation. Or maybe LE training tells him every story really has 3 sides, the only side you know for sure is what you see for yourself.

He does not have to answer any questions but the fact of the matter is the drug dog alerted on the car. That is probable cause for a search. The only debate with merit here is whether these check points SHOULD be legal.

I agree that the checkpoints internal to the US should debated to determine if they are legal. If all it takes is for a dog to alert to a car then every car is subject to search. Why stop at the checkpoints? Lets just have drug dogs walking by cars suck in traffic on city streets.

As I’ve already stated they had to have probable cause. A court will decide if they did and if BP/DPS used excessive force.

And whether the dog actually gave the alert…given the circumstances, I am left with thinking the Border Patrol is blowing smoke. If I were the DPS, I would of required it, because it removes ALL doubt.

Just in case it wasn’t obvious…I was being sarcastic, I still think Rodney King was justified and was mad at Bush for going all PC.

SnakeintheGrass on May 19, 2009 at 2:25 AM
It really bothers me that you can not see that it was excessive force. The preacher doesn’t seem to be the dishonest type…he doesn’t seem all that threatening. The cops took out their frustrations out on a citizen…You still do not seem to grasp that when cops defend this, it hurts ALL cops. They crossed the line.

Feedie on May 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM
Here is the problem I have with your analogy, if I get beaten up by police and beaten a gang member, its the same! Cops are only good if they can restrain themselves!

The dog came up and alerted. The case could be made that the BP were just using the dog as an excuse to arrest or harrass him.

The officers motive for an open air search with a K9 does not matter as long as doing so is legal. And it was. You do not need consent to check with a drug dog.

As far as searching and not finding anything that dosent mean there is something wrong with the dog. Hell, I have searched cause due to the odor of marijuana and not found anything myself.

Can someone think of a reason (if true) that when DPS requested BP to bring the dog a 2nd time and BP refused–why did DPS still continued with the arrest?

Because he was most likely trying to get them to do another check to shut the guy up. Border Patrol probably refused because they were done playing nice and were not going to humor the guy.

SFTech on May 19, 2009 at 3:36 AM

He does not have to answer any questions but the fact of the matter is the drug dog alerted on the car. That is probable cause for a search. The only debate with merit here is whether these check points SHOULD be legal.

Look at the HotAir video and then look at these other videos:
https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2009/04/23/p141#more141
-Specifically video 4, at 6:40 where he reads a BP flyer that says they can stop if they “suspect” you are here illegally and that they need a warrent to search.
-Nothing beats at 7:40 where BP tells him he has no rights as a US citizen at the internal checkpoint.
-BP calls him a terrorist.

Here’s some more:
http://www.liveleak.com/user/CheckpointUSA
https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/

It took some work but here’s the sections that’s stated on the BP flyer.

General:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=a62a9bc86f1bdcccedd86765ddbecf84

More specific:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=a62a9bc86f1bdcccedd86765ddbecf84

Right on:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=a62a9bc86f1bdcccedd86765ddbecf84

(b) Interrogation and detention not amounting to arrest . (1) Interrogation is questioning designed to elicit specific information. An immigration officer, like any other person, has the right to ask questions of anyone as long as the immigration officer does not restrain the freedom of an individual, not under arrest, to walk away.

(2) If the immigration officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States, the immigration officer may briefly detain the person for questioning.

(3) Information obtained from this questioning may provide the basis for a subsequent arrest, which must be effected only by a designated immigration officer, as listed in 8 CFR 287.5(c) . The conduct of arrests is specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) Conduct of arrests — (1) Authority . Only designated immigration officers are authorized to make an arrest. The list of designated immigration officers varies depending on the type of arrest as listed in 8 CFR 287.5(c)(1) through (c)(5).

(2) General procedures . (i) An arrest shall be made only when the designated immigration officer has reason to believe that the person to be arrested has committed an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States.

(ii) A warrant of arrest shall be obtained except when the designated immigration officer has reason to believe that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.

(iii) At the time of the arrest, the designated immigration officer shall, as soon as it is practical and safe to do so:

(A) Identify himself or herself as an immigration officer who is authorized to execute an arrest; and

(B) State that the person is under arrest and the reason for the arrest.

(iv) With respect to an alien arrested and administratively charged with being in the United States in violation of law, the arresting officer shall adhere to the procedures set forth in 8 CFR 287.3 if the arrest is made without a warrant.

DID BP MEET ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS???

No, he is challenging authority using non-compliance methods to expose that the 4th amendment doesn’t mean a whole lot to some officers.
What? The officers were using a legal check point. They were in no way violating his 4th amendment rights as per case law. Say they used excessive force if you want but the stop itself is sound.
SnakeintheGrass on May 19, 2009 at 2:25 AM

Is it really? The stop most of us agree is legal to inquire. The expectaion of an answer and search are a matter of debate on the board.

The guy was not tazed for having a Bible…He was [tazed for] refusing to comply with a lawful order – FOR AN HOUR OR MORE.
Akzed on May 18, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Akred,
I so fully disagree. You saw 9 minuted of tape of a 90 minute situation. The lawful order was to stop at the checkpoint. He did that.

You ASSUME anything past that was lawful, how do you know that? They probably asked him if he was a US citizen and he asked to go on his way. 5th A, says he does not need to respond. BP policy is to determine if he is here illegally ONLY. The whole point is if he say yes and went on his way what does that prove–NOTHING. It’s an absolutely ridiculous stop. Do you think drug smugglers say anything but yes?

They then likely request that he go for a 2nd level search but he refused and wanted to just leave. This is where, in my opinion it becomes an illegal order (no probable cause)and everthing else that is born of the illegal order is void.

The dog came up and alerted. The case could be made that the BP were just using the dog as an excuse to arrest or harrass him. But lets say the dog did actually alert. THEY FOUND NOTHING.

If the dog alerted but there there was nothing that caused the alert–
the BP is either not trained right,
incompetent,
or just vindictive.

Tell me if there is some other option?

If what the pastor was doing was ILLEGAL, WHY DID BP HAVE TO CALL DPS TO ARREST HIM?

Can someone think of a reason (if true) that when DPS requested BP to bring the dog a 2nd time and BP refused–why did DPS still continued with the arrest? Back to the illegal order, the original search request was illegal then the subsequent actions of DPS are illegal and void.

I’ll close on this point, if it were ILLEGAL to refuse to answer BP questions; this other guy would have been in jail 10x more than the pastor.

http://www.liveleak.com/user/CheckpointUSA.

To add, I wonder what these posters would have said concerning another reverend that pushed the envelop with the authorities….you know, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr?

Conservative Voice on May 18, 2009 at 7:49 PM
+1….

“shut up and know your place Dr. King…..God says you must submit to erroneous secular authority…..”

//R2B

sven10077 on May 18, 2009 at 7:50 PM

There you two go giving me that tickle up my leg again.

Hey, I was at the movies, minding my own business. Why were they bothering me? My car didn’t fit the description – they didn’t have a vehicle description. They were just doing a canvassing of the area the find the scumbag.

What would have happened if I had decided to whine about my rights? I probably would have been dragged out of the car and beaten a bit before they finally got a chance to look at my hands.

It took all of two minutes for them to check my hands and declare me a non-suspect. I was polite, and so were they.

There are times to stand up for your rights, and times to just be cooperative and endure a minor inconvenience. If you piss and moan because your perceived rights are being violated, and make the officers job more difficult than it should be, then yeah, you risk getting the crap kicked out of you.

Not because they wanted to – because you forced them to by being a dick.

You need to learn to pick your fights.

Timothy S. Carlson on May 18, 2009 at 8:16 PM

That’s the pastor’s point, you can submit to anything you want. He doesn’t want to because his rights allow him an alternative. Not a nice and easy alternative, but what’s worthwhile if it’s easy?

I expect based on a similar guy doing the same thing, this will go to court and he will get a settlement. Either because they don’t want to spend the cash to defend or they think they’ll lose.

He took a tazer and beating for say $500,000. Not a bad night for sticking up for your rights. What does that work out to per stitch?

Actually he did provoke a confrontation… Simply put by refusing to answer the agents questions he gave the reason to believe he had something to hide!

As for his 4th amendment rights… Congress has granted (and the courts have generally upheld it) the Border Patrol fairly broad authority to stop and search vehicles within 100 miles of our land and sea boarders without probable cause.

Yes it sucks, yes it seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of 4th amendment, but it’s the law of land and as citizens we an obligation to obey the law… Even laws we may disagree with. Mr. Anderson had two options one he could comply with, what for better or worse, was a lawful order or two he could refuse and be arrested.

Bottom line he chose to provoke a confrontation to make a political point… I don’t necessarily disagree with his point but as former police officer I fundamentally disagree with his methods. The job is hard enough without self appointed constitutional experts trying to provoke confrontations to protest policies they disagree with!

jasetaro on May 18, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Show me where it says stop AND search. Stop I agree with. Search without probable cause is not right.

BP stops a van full of 30 people in the space for 5 = probable cause.

US citizen by himself, sorry without a gun, drugs, or other item in site of the stop = no probable cause. I am 100% sure drug dealers get pulled over, searched, and go to jail without probable cause. I am also 100% sure that with a good lawyer, you’re likely not to go to jail.

No, he is challenging authority using non-compliance methods to expose that the 4th amendment doesn’t mean a whole lot to some officers.

What? The officers were using a legal check point. They were in no way violating his 4th amendment rights as per case law. Say they used excessive force if you want but the stop itself is sound.

He wasn’t convinced the cops had probable cause.

Dosent matter. An invalid arrest is no defense to resisting arrest (at least here in Texas).

As for the excessive force, all we are sure of is that the officer’s broke his vehicle’s windows and used a taser on him. We don’t know how he got the cuts on his head. Did hit the glass on accident when he got tasered? Was he dragged out of the car and did a face plant? Was he beaten while trying to give up peacefully? Did he resist and had to be subdued? We dont know so it is difficult to say if excessive force was used.

Keep it up and you’ll bring on the 1930’s you fear.
Feedie on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Not sure what you mean here…you mean like Big Government coming in like thugs, if you didn’t comply with da President…kinda like President O….hmmm, yes there is cause for concern of a police state.
Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 1:46 AM

A society so demoralized and fed-up with crime, they’ll vote for anybody who promises to stop it. Not unlike 1930′s Germany. And in a way, like a population so fed-up with the cluelessness of Bushes and McCains, they’ll vote for the One to b-slap the RINO Party.

Yep, deserved 11 stitches and a kick in the head right?
Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 1:40 AM

Sedate him with an air syringe. Then he can sue for unconstitutional denial of stitches.

Actually, the error of the police may have been waiting too long to take control of the situation. Tempers became too frayed.

And to think I defended the Rodney King beating…now I’m not so sure )
Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 1:43 AM

The Simi Valley jury was correct: not guilty for the police. In that case, the video showed as much. The instant the thug stopped resisting, they ceased their use of force. Bush 1 thought criminal control was impolite. So he had them tried again.

Feedie on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 AM

Not sure what you mean here…you mean like Big Government coming in like thugs, if you didn’t comply with da President…kinda like President O….hmmm, yes there is cause for concern of a police state.

He wasn’t convinced the cops had probable cause. The cops used excessive force…the guy is a weenie..out weighed by all those officers, he wasn’t being aggressive…yet they took him down as if he was Rodney King doped up on pcp. ( And to think I defended the Rodney King beating…now I’m not so sure )

No, he is challenging authority using non-compliance methods to expose that the 4th amendment doesn’t mean a whole lot to some officers. Hence he is like Dr King…using the power of a peaceful demonstration to make a point.

Feedie on May 19, 2009 at 1:26 AM

Yep, deserved 11 stitches and a kick in the head right?

I agree that a police officer has the authority to shoot, even if the reality of the situation was the offender only had a toy gun…which is why I am so hard on cops to not abuse that power and authority.
Here is the thing, I would of been more on your side…if the officer said, sir get out of the car, with your hands in the position…and used minimal force to remove him…if it was a single taze and a cuff, then I doubt there would be much disagreement.

Noncompliance is an effective means to draw attention to the problem.

His noncompliance caused the problem. Leftists corrupted the law. Fourth Amendment curtailment was an error in reaction to the chaos of leftism. Take it up with your pals.

The fact that said citizen wants to prove a point, should cause thinking people to pause before breaking into his car and pounding his head in broken glass.
Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 1:07 AM

Yeah, it made me think he deserved it. He had no right to lock the cops out his car. Liberals whined about batons. Now they whine about stun-guns. Society is at its limit. Keep it up and you’ll bring on the 1930′s you fear.