What happens when you follow the constitution at an internal DHS checkpoint?

[thereisnospoon]

What happens when you assert your rights protected by the constitution at an internal DHS checkpoint?

This happens...

What Happens When You Insist on Your 5th Amendment Rights to Not Answer Questions or Show Your Papers to Immigration Cops in an Empty Desert Somewhere? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Troubling technicality....
If one interprets the 5th amendment( one cannot be compelled to be a witness against oneself) strictly, that applies to a trial. Answering questions such as giving law enforcement your name and presenting identification have been ruled valid by the SC.
Police officers can ask and expect answers to basic questions. Until an arrest has been made an the suspect Mirandized, one DOES NOT have the right to remain silent.
This is where the person being questioned has a choice. They can endure the hassle of police questioning, or they can waste hours of their time battling with the cops over a trivial matter such as "where are you going" and "where are you coming from"...
Quite frankly I just make up shit when I'm pulled over. It's none of the cop's business where I've been or where I'm going.
Understand this, when a police officer stops you he considers you a suspect until he discovers otherwise. so when the cop asks you those questions he is "building a case against you"...Do not let him do this.
There is one thing that bugs the living shit out of me....If the person in this incident was Latino, he would have gotten the once over easy and allowed to go on his way.
This entire immigration issue is bullshit.

 

[saltshaker]

BAD GUY, BAD GUY

Bad Guy Happens On Both Sides

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRRTlrfTw0s&NR=1[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4jjQ&feature=related[/ame]​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They don't have to wait for me to be convicted, you dolt.


If they've reason to believe I am a criminal, then they can hold me until they confirm my identity.

No they cannot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What happens when you assert your rights protected by the constitution at an internal DHS checkpoint?

This happens...

What Happens When You Insist on Your 5th Amendment Rights to Not Answer Questions or Show Your Papers to Immigration Cops in an Empty Desert Somewhere? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Troubling technicality....
If one interprets the 5th amendment( one cannot be compelled to be a witness against oneself) strictly, that applies to a trial. Answering questions such as giving law enforcement your name and presenting identification have been ruled valid by the SC.
Police officers can ask and expect answers to basic questions. Until an arrest has been made an the suspect Mirandized, one DOES NOT have the right to remain silent.
This is where the person being questioned has a choice. They can endure the hassle of police questioning, or they can waste hours of their time battling with the cops over a trivial matter such as "where are you going" and "where are you coming from"...
Quite frankly I just make up shit when I'm pulled over. It's none of the cop's business where I've been or where I'm going.
Understand this, when a police officer stops you he considers you a suspect until he discovers otherwise. so when the cop asks you those questions he is "building a case against you"...Do not let him do this.
There is one thing that bugs the living shit out of me....If the person in this incident was Latino, he would have gotten the once over easy and allowed to go on his way.
This entire immigration issue is bullshit.

Wrong. You always have the right to remain silent. Until you get that fundamental concept right you have no business discussing law at all.

By the way, keep lying to cops and you will eventually end up in more trouble that you possibly could by keeping your yap closed.

 

[SFC Ollie]

These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.

UNITED STATES
v.
MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL.
No. 74-1560.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 26, 1976.
Decided July 6, 1976.[*]

- Google Scholar

End of thread, checking IDs at internal checkpoints is constitutional.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Damn looks like I broke the thread....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.

UNITED STATES
v.
MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL.
No. 74-1560.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 26, 1976.
Decided July 6, 1976.
[*]

- Google Scholar

End of thread, checking IDs at internal checkpoints is constitutional.

Funny thing about the case you just cited, it does not allow the government to indefinitely detain a person in an attempt to force them to identify themselves, nor does it say anyone has to answer the questions that are asked at the checkpoint.

 

[SFC Ollie]

These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.

UNITED STATES
v.
MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL.
No. 74-1560.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 26, 1976.
Decided July 6, 1976.
[*]

- Google Scholar

End of thread, checking IDs at internal checkpoints is constitutional.

Funny thing about the case you just cited, it does not allow the government to indefinitely detain a person in an attempt to force them to identify themselves, nor does it say anyone has to answer the questions that are asked at the checkpoint.

I knew someone would try to spin it... USSC says that the checkpoints do not intrude upon your rights. So save yourself time and trouble and answer the harmless questions. Unless of course you are an anarchist or have something to hide....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

UNITED STATES
v.
MARTINEZ-FUERTE ET AL.
No. 74-1560.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 26, 1976.
Decided July 6, 1976.
[*]

- Google Scholar

End of thread, checking IDs at internal checkpoints is constitutional.

Funny thing about the case you just cited, it does not allow the government to indefinitely detain a person in an attempt to force them to identify themselves, nor does it say anyone has to answer the questions that are asked at the checkpoint.

I knew someone would try to spin it... USSC says that the checkpoints do not intrude upon your rights. So save yourself time and trouble and answer the harmless questions. Unless of course you are an anarchist or have something to hide....

No, they said they are not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Since the premise of the thread is that you have a right to exercise your 5th Amendment right not to answer questions when stopped by anyone, and that is what I have argued consistently in this thread, I fail to see where I am spinning anything.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Funny thing about the case you just cited, it does not allow the government to indefinitely detain a person in an attempt to force them to identify themselves, nor does it say anyone has to answer the questions that are asked at the checkpoint.

I knew someone would try to spin it... USSC says that the checkpoints do not intrude upon your rights. So save yourself time and trouble and answer the harmless questions. Unless of course you are an anarchist or have something to hide....

No, they said they are not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Since the premise of the thread is that you have a right to exercise your 5th Amendment right not to answer questions when stopped by anyone, and that is what I have argued consistently in this thread, I fail to see where I am spinning anything.

Try reading the link sometime.
"While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited. The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to "free passage without 558*558 interruption," Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925), and arguably on their right to personal security. But it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which

" `[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.' " United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 880."

Notice the word "required"? That is right from the USSC. Do you really believe that you have total immunity from answering any questions?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I knew someone would try to spin it... USSC says that the checkpoints do not intrude upon your rights. So save yourself time and trouble and answer the harmless questions. Unless of course you are an anarchist or have something to hide....

No, they said they are not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Since the premise of the thread is that you have a right to exercise your 5th Amendment right not to answer questions when stopped by anyone, and that is what I have argued consistently in this thread, I fail to see where I am spinning anything.

Try reading the link sometime.
"While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited. The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to "free passage without 558*558 interruption," Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925), and arguably on their right to personal security. But it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which

" `[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.' " United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 880."

Notice the word "required"? That is right from the USSC. Do you really believe that you have total immunity from answering any questions?

Try reading my post. I pointed out that SCOTUS said they checkpoints were not in violation of the 4th Amendment, and I also pointed out that I am talking about the 5th Amendment.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

! wow ! ! this thread still going?

What happens when you assert your rights protected by the constitution at an internal DHS checkpoint?

This happens...

What Happens When You Insist on Your 5th Amendment Rights to Not Answer Questions or Show Your Papers to Immigration Cops in an Empty Desert Somewhere? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

A DHS checkpoint? You can travel freely in this country. You do NOT have a constitutional right to board an airplane

stupid

 

[SFC Ollie]

No, they said they are not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Since the premise of the thread is that you have a right to exercise your 5th Amendment right not to answer questions when stopped by anyone, and that is what I have argued consistently in this thread, I fail to see where I am spinning anything.

Try reading the link sometime.
"While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited. The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to "free passage without 558*558 interruption," Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925), and arguably on their right to personal security. But it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which

" `[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.' " United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 880."

Notice the word "required"? That is right from the USSC. Do you really believe that you have total immunity from answering any questions?

Try reading my post. I pointed out that SCOTUS said they checkpoints were not in violation of the 4th Amendment, and I also pointed out that I am talking about the 5th Amendment.

I do believe you are taking the 5th farther than it goes. USSC says that the vehicle occupants are required to respond to a brief question or 2. The 4th amendment does not say that you don't have to answer any questions, it says you do not have to incriminate yourself in any criminal case. Are you a citizen, does not seem to fit the bill, unless of course you aren't.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try reading the link sometime.
"While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited. The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists' right to "free passage without 558*558 interruption," Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925), and arguably on their right to personal security. But it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which

" `[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.' " United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 880."

Notice the word "required"? That is right from the USSC. Do you really believe that you have total immunity from answering any questions?

Try reading my post. I pointed out that SCOTUS said they checkpoints were not in violation of the 4th Amendment, and I also pointed out that I am talking about the 5th Amendment.

I do believe you are taking the 5th farther than it goes. USSC says that the vehicle occupants are required to respond to a brief question or 2. The 4th amendment does not say that you don't have to answer any questions, it says you do not have to incriminate yourself in any criminal case. Are you a citizen, does not seem to fit the bill, unless of course you aren't.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Really? Where does the decision you post say that? It quite clearly states that a checkpoint, with the intent of asking brief questions, does not violate the 4th. Just because the checkpoint requires that I answer questions it does not mean I can be punished for not answering them.

I would just like to point out, again, that I could easily find dozens of people that would argue that you take the 2nd Amendment way to far, and that the only reason the right to bear arms is in the Constitution is because the founding fathers wanted a militia.

There is no such thing as taking a right to far. Any encroachment on a person's rights to do anything threatens everyone's rights. By arguing against this man's right to remain silent you are effectively arguing against your right to own a gun. Personally, I would have simply answered the question and driven away, but that would be my choice, just like it is yours, and his. I never argue against anyone's right to make their own choice unless that choice infringes on other people's rights, and this action we are debating did not do that.

Him invoking the fifth did not inconvenience you, or make you less safe. Why do you have a gripe about it at all?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Try reading my post. I pointed out that SCOTUS said they checkpoints were not in violation of the 4th Amendment, and I also pointed out that I am talking about the 5th Amendment.

I do believe you are taking the 5th farther than it goes. USSC says that the vehicle occupants are required to respond to a brief question or 2. The 4th amendment does not say that you don't have to answer any questions, it says you do not have to incriminate yourself in any criminal case. Are you a citizen, does not seem to fit the bill, unless of course you aren't.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Really? Where does the decision you post say that? It quite clearly states that a checkpoint, with the intent of asking brief questions, does not violate the 4th. Just because the checkpoint requires that I answer questions it does not mean I can be punished for not answering them.

I would just like to point out, again, that I could easily find dozens of people that would argue that you take the 2nd Amendment way to far, and that the only reason the right to bear arms is in the Constitution is because the founding fathers wanted a militia.

There is no such thing as taking a right to far. Any encroachment on a person's rights to do anything threatens everyone's rights. By arguing against this man's right to remain silent you are effectively arguing against your right to own a gun. Personally, I would have simply answered the question and driven away, but that would be my choice, just like it is yours, and his. I never argue against anyone's right to make their own choice unless that choice infringes on other people's rights, and this action we are debating did not do that.

Him invoking the fifth did not inconvenience you, or make you less safe. Why do you have a gripe about it at all?

Scotus said that the people in the vehicle are "required" to answer one or two questions. therefore the asshole whom this whole thread is about was wrong for refusing to answer. Had those ICE Agents knew the law he could have found himself facing much more than just wasting his time and our money. But of course you will disagree with the Court. I'm done here, comment all you like the law is the law and you have seen the decision by the US Supreme Court. The asshole was wrong.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Do you consider checkpoints for ANY reason to be a violation of the 4th Amendment?

Or do we assume that once we are on a public highway we are subject to scrutiny for the general welfare of everybody else who shares that highway?

Is your vehicle roadworthy? Properly tagged? Registered to you or legally in your possession?

Do you have a valid driver's license and minimal required insurance?

Are you a citizen or in this country legally?

If nobody is ever allowed to check these things, there wouldn't be much incentive to follow the law huh? A whole lot of people would just take their chances that they wouldn't commit a violation or have an accident and could just save all the lovely money necessary to be legal.

Unless you have broken a law that have no legal authority to stop you, period.

On a side note, sorry but I gotta ask...........do you actually think that your sig is funny bro? I mean, I am always down for a good laugh or kicker, but not in a sig. So, Other than a few idiots that maybe do think it's funny enough to put in a sig, how many people here actually join you in your amusement of the abuse of a child? Just wondering.........? ~BH

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do believe you are taking the 5th farther than it goes. USSC says that the vehicle occupants are required to respond to a brief question or 2. The 4th amendment does not say that you don't have to answer any questions, it says you do not have to incriminate yourself in any criminal case. Are you a citizen, does not seem to fit the bill, unless of course you aren't.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Really? Where does the decision you post say that? It quite clearly states that a checkpoint, with the intent of asking brief questions, does not violate the 4th. Just because the checkpoint requires that I answer questions it does not mean I can be punished for not answering them.

I would just like to point out, again, that I could easily find dozens of people that would argue that you take the 2nd Amendment way to far, and that the only reason the right to bear arms is in the Constitution is because the founding fathers wanted a militia.

There is no such thing as taking a right to far. Any encroachment on a person's rights to do anything threatens everyone's rights. By arguing against this man's right to remain silent you are effectively arguing against your right to own a gun. Personally, I would have simply answered the question and driven away, but that would be my choice, just like it is yours, and his. I never argue against anyone's right to make their own choice unless that choice infringes on other people's rights, and this action we are debating did not do that.

Him invoking the fifth did not inconvenience you, or make you less safe. Why do you have a gripe about it at all?

Scotus said that the people in the vehicle are "required" to answer one or two questions. therefore the asshole whom this whole thread is about was wrong for refusing to answer. Had those ICE Agents knew the law he could have found himself facing much more than just wasting his time and our money. But of course you will disagree with the Court. I'm done here, comment all you like the law is the law and you have seen the decision by the US Supreme Court. The asshole was wrong.

No they didn't.

What you are referring to in an attempt to make your point is a citation of another case. If you follow the link to that case you will be able to put that quote in context.

Against this valid public interest we must weigh the interference with individual liberty that results when an officer stops an automobile and questions its occupants. 880*880 The intrusion is modest. The Government tells us that a stop by a roving patrol "usually consumes no more than a minute." Brief for United States 25. There is no search of the vehicle or its occupants, and the visual inspection is limited to those parts of the vehicle that can be seen by anyone standing alongside.[6] According to the Government, "[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States."

- Google Scholar

That is not the Supreme Court saying that you are required to answer questions, it is the government arguing that, because you are only required to answer a question or two in order to make the case that roving checkpoints are not a violation of the 4th Amendment.

These cases are not in any way, shape, or form, about the right to remain silent. They are about illegal searches.