Fucking Jack Boots

[Joods]

No they had no business harassing a free citizen . And she had every right to stay silent .

Which part was harassing and which enforcement of a law on the books?

Yep, she had the right to stay silent in protest. With that right came the detainment until verification.

When I'm driving and get pulled over I have the right not to show my driver license, insurance and registration in protest. I'm positive the the enforcement entity will detain me until they can verify. Yet I'm a free citizen. Is this scenario harassment?

 bold mine.

You are comparing apples to oranges. If you are driving and you get pulled over by a cop, chances are you're already doing something illegal (violating a traffic law). That's a valid reason for you to pull over. She was subjected to a Border Patrol checkpoint. Border Patrol agents were not pulling her over because they were behind her and suspected suspicious activity, absolutely not. She wasn't in violation of any laws and the checkpoint was not on a border road or "US Port of Entry" which would reasonably require a person to be subjected to going through a citizenship verification process before they can be on their merry way. No - she was funneled off the main road, which wasn't a border road, with every other driver, to a checkpoint and being held against her will (10 seconds against one's will is 10 seconds too long) and being asked if she was a US citizen. 


Let's see what the ACLU has to say about the border zone:


https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-...order-zone

---

The Problem

• The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
  
  
• According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
  
  
• Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
  
  
• In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
  
  
• Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
  
  
• In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.
  

Much of U.S. Population Affected

• Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
  
  
• Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
  
  
• Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
  
  
• Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose.
  

Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight

• The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000.
  
  
• The Border Patrol often ignores this regulation and rejects any geographic limitation on agents' authority. At least two federal circuit courts condone Border Patrol operations outside the 100-mile zone, federal regulations and Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding.
  
  
• Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
  
  
• For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicion-less stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.
  
  
• The ACLU has documented numerous cases of abuse by Border Patrol and filed lawsuits to obtain more information about the agency's practices. Given Border Patrol's lack of transparency, and in the absence of any meaningful oversight, there is still much that we don't know about the full extent and impact of these interior "border enforcement" operations.
  

Part of a Broader Problem

• The spread of border-related powers inland is inseparable from the broader expansion of government intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans. For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicion-less searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth of personal information stored on such devices. At least one circuit court has held that federal officers must have at least "reasonable suspicion" prior to conducting such searches and recent Supreme Court precedent seems to support that view.
  
  
• These practices also coincide with the spread of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems (such as the Automated Targeting System traveler risk assessment program), advanced identification and tracking systems (including electronic passports), and intrusive technological schemes such as the "virtual border fence" and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka "drone aircraft"). With many of these technologies in the hands of private companies, there are powerful financial incentives for the continued "militarization" of the border zone.
  
  
• The expansion of government power both at and near the border is part of a trend toward expanding police and national security powers without regard to the effect of such expansion on our most fundamental and treasured Constitutional rights. The federal government's dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security is one that is increasingly turning us all into suspects. If Americans do not continue to challenge the expansion of federal power over the individual, we risk forfeiting the fundamental rights and freedoms that we inherited—including the right to simply go about our business free from government interference, harassment and abuse.
  

---

Wait.... it gets better.

Let's talk about those consequences mentioned in another post, shall we?

Consequences of CBP Operations Far Removed from the Border

     As a result of regulations issued interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3), CBP can and does conduct operations far removed from the border and on roads with no immediate border access, where encounters with non-border crossers, including U.S.citizens and permanent residents, are the norm, and notwithstanding that primary responsibility for interior enforcement rests with a different agency –Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
     These non-border operations by CBP may force residents to encounter CBP enforcement regularly while moving about their home county, including on their way to and from work. Allowing CBP to divert its attention from the border distracts from its primary mission and results in widespread violations of Americans’ rights to property and liberty, including Fourth Amendment and other constitutional violations.

For example:
-Between 2006 and 2010 in the Rochester, NY, area, approximately 300 immigrants with legal status were arrested by Border Patrol agents, then released. The arrests coincided with an incentive program that rewarded agents with cash bonuses and Home Depot gift cards based on the number of arrests they made.5

-According to the ACLU of Arizona, in Tucson, community members report CBP agents entering courthouses and hospitals (including maternity wards) and approaching and interrogating hospital patients, motorists, and pedestrians.
    A patient at University of Arizona Medical Center was reportedly forced to deliver her child with a CBP agent in the room. CBP agents in Tucson regularly respond to calls to investigate from police, hospital staff, and school officials. These incidents often result from and encourage racial profiling of U.S. citizens and lawful residents.

-In April 2012, residents of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the Border Patrol’s practice of stopping vehicles and interrogating occupants without legal justification.6 CBP settled the lawsuit and agreed to require training for Border Patrol agents in the area on Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, and to provide the ACLU with data regarding all traffic stops that take place in the area for the next 18 months. These terms should be extended nationwide and data collected from CBP checkpoints as well as roving patrols.

Federal courts are also skeptical of CBP enforcement in the interior. 

     For example:

-InU.S. v. Gabriel, the District Court in Maine expressed unease with the “constitutional implications of      ‘pushing the border in’ and the fact that Border Patrol was conducting operations well inside the territorial borders        of the U.S.”7

-In United States v. Venzor-Castillo, the Tenth Circuit ruled that a Border Patrol search 235 miles from the border exceeded CBP’s authority.8 “The further one gets from the border,” the court stated, “the greater the likelihood the volume of legitimate travelers will increase.”  Id. at 639.  

-The Fifth Circuit regards the distance from the border as a “vital element”in evaluating the reasonableness of a Border Patrol stop.  See U.S. v. Rubio-Hernandez,39 F.Supp.2d 808, 810 (W.D. Tex.1999).  
When the stop occurs over fifty miles from the border, this “vital element”is missing.9
SeeU.S. v. Inocencio,40 F.3d 716, 722 & nn.6-7 (5th Cir. 1994).
If the “vital element”rule has not been met, all other factors must be examined ‘charily.’ See U.S. v. Pena-Cantu, 639 F.2d 1228, 1229 (5thCir. 1981)

Conclusion 

The “100-Mile Rule” has never been subjected to meaningful debate or scrutiny in Congress. There is nothing in the record to indicate whether the Justice Department’s designation of 100 miles as a “reasonable distance” was anything other than an arbitrary selection.10  To prevent CBP from engaging in operations far from the border where border crossers are few and far between, and legitimate travel and commerce are currently often impeded, we urge restricting CBP’s authority to no more than 25 miles from the border and limiting incursions onto private property to no more than 10 miles

But some of yall think that the CBP agents were within their rights to do what they did. No they were most certainly not.

---

[edit]

The BP acted like dicks by initially refusing to allow her son to use the bathroom. He's a god dammed child and wasn't committing a crime. They finally let the child go to the bathroom, but it didn't come without being assholes about it.

Who thru the first asshole (protest [if your believe that] stone? Thanks Mom!

The CBP did when they violated her 4th Amendment rights. Why don't you ask the ACLU what their opinion is on the matter as well as look at the court cases referenced above, for your convenience. Homework is already done... please go have a read then come back to me and we can continue this debate.

---

Let's not forget that nearly all of these checkpoints are on our southern border.  I suppose illegal Canadians are OK?  I wonder why that might be.

It's because their skin color is several shades lighter than what the requirement for "reasonable cause" is.
But you know.... the CBP would never admit that this is a huge reason why they are nearly all south.