(July 26, 2017 at 9:19 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:bold mine*(July 26, 2017 at 6:54 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: 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.
From your quoted ACLU text.
Quote: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.
So according to the ACLU, SCOTUS has ruled that stopping people at these checkpoints to inquire about their citizenship is legal.
What happened to the woman in videos? She (and everyone else on the road at that time) got stopped at a checkpoint and asked about their citizenship. According to the ACLU website SCOTUS says that is legal.
Since you want to pick out a sentence in the middle of a paragraph that was part of a bulleted list of the Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight section, here is the entire paragraph, quoted below.
Quote: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 SC may have upheld rulings, but the rest of the paragraph is key in realizing that a ruling isn't worth much if CBP agents do whatever they want anyway. Again, bold mine.
In addition, NOTHING about her stop was brief. An hour and a half is not brief and it's on tape saying a dog was brought out to search her vehicle.
So what was your point with intentionally leaving a key part of that paragraph out and misrepresenting what I posted?
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
