CPB sets up check point on jetway of SFO-JFK
02-25-2017, 09:04 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by jcountry
I see your point.....
I'm not sure whether that is technically a violation of the 4th... It's clear that police can stop and search under reasonable suspicion.... It's not clear whether that can apply to an entire airplane of people the same way that it could apply to an individual.... What's to stop the CBP from searching everyone in Times Square under this pretext-or the entire state of Oregon for that matter?
Why not declare "reasonable suspicion" on he whole country and have effective martial law? Clearly these cases concerned individual circumstances-not arbitrary groups of unreasonable size.
At any rate, I think we are getting off base.
The CBP claimed that their stun was justified under a CFR which is a blanket authorization to stop and question and search anyone who has come to this country from a foreign origination point. That clearly was not the case.
Coming from Baltimore would have been exactly the same. The CBP had no jurisdiction here, and no legal standing.
I think the whole incident was a silly case of someone trying to invent some stupid drama. The fact that the FBI has authority and control over actual air incidents is pretty cut and dry.
I'm not sure whether that is technically a violation of the 4th... It's clear that police can stop and search under reasonable suspicion.... It's not clear whether that can apply to an entire airplane of people the same way that it could apply to an individual.... What's to stop the CBP from searching everyone in Times Square under this pretext-or the entire state of Oregon for that matter?
Why not declare "reasonable suspicion" on he whole country and have effective martial law? Clearly these cases concerned individual circumstances-not arbitrary groups of unreasonable size.
At any rate, I think we are getting off base.
The CBP claimed that their stun was justified under a CFR which is a blanket authorization to stop and question and search anyone who has come to this country from a foreign origination point. That clearly was not the case.
Coming from Baltimore would have been exactly the same. The CBP had no jurisdiction here, and no legal standing.
I think the whole incident was a silly case of someone trying to invent some stupid drama. The fact that the FBI has authority and control over actual air incidents is pretty cut and dry.
You cannot "declare" reasonable suspicion. There have to be a set of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe the person detained may have either just committed or was about to commit a crime. The basis for an officer's reasonable suspicion can be challenged in court and if found to be unreasonable any evidence gained from the stop would be thrown out.
In the case I referenced earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that an internal immigration checkpoint (not on the border) was not an unreasonable search on the basis that:
1. people do not have as great an expectation of privacy in a vehicle as they do in their residence.
2. the scope of the search and seizure was limited and did not cause an unreasonable invasion of the person's privacy when weighed against the national interest of enforcing immigration law.
3. The checkpoints worked because the court had evidence that CBP was able to make a lot of arrests using the checkpoint.
Now, the case above also talked about how there was less of a chance for their to be harassment/discrimination on the part of the law enforcement officers because the checkpoint was stationary, always operated in the same place and everyone was subject to the checkpoint. The facts of the news article are slightly different. The court may decide differently when faced with a different set of facts, however the first two points I mentioned above could easily translate over to the news story case.
As far as jurisdiction goes, the CBP officers were well within their jurisdiction. They were investigating an immigration issue. If they had come across the violation of any other federal law while investigating the immigration issue, they have full authority to make an arrest. They may very well refer any non-immigration violations to the FBI or other federal agency but that doesn't stop them from making an arrest. CBP arrests for drug violations all the time at their internal checkpoints. In fact, based on statistics I saw earlier today, they make more drug arrests than immigration arrests.
Let's be clear, I'm not saying that what they did was definitely legal....it's just not as cut and dried "illegal" as some on here would make out.
Last edited by Xdashdriver; 02-25-2017 at 09:22 PM.
02-26-2017, 12:28 AM
#62
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
While you are arguing the constitution, officer friendly will be hauling you in for whatever he makes up plus "resisting without violence". The judge will play along until you give one of his shyster buddy's a lot of money. Years later you get to explain your arrest record to a prospective employer. Or you can just play nice when the goon squad shows up.
02-26-2017, 12:56 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: fatigued
Posts: 1,398
Originally Posted by B200 Hawk
Won't be opening the plane door until they GTFO.
02-26-2017, 01:16 AM
#64
ILL BEE DAT
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Rollin' Down tha 405
Posts: 2,550
Originally Posted by kevbo
while you are arguing the constitution, officer friendly will be hauling you in for whatever he makes up plus "resisting without violence". The judge will play along until you give one of his shyster buddy's a lot of money. Years later you get to explain your arrest record to a prospective employer. Or you can just play nice when the goon squad shows up.
02-26-2017, 04:55 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,611
Originally Posted by snackysmores
02-26-2017, 05:20 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,764
Originally Posted by kevbo
While you are arguing the constitution, officer friendly will be hauling you in for whatever he makes up plus "resisting without violence". The judge will play along until you give one of his shyster buddy's a lot of money. Years later you get to explain your arrest record to a prospective employer. Or you can just play nice when the goon squad shows up.
02-26-2017, 05:43 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Originally Posted by Xdashdriver
While the Supreme Court does allow law enforcement officers to stop and detain someone on the basis of reasonable suspicion, the only search that is allowed to occur absent probable cause is a "pat-down" for weapons for the officer's safety. Any search beyond a weapons pat-down would require probable cause. TSA and CBP searches are different under an exemption the court carved out as an "administrative search".
You cannot "declare" reasonable suspicion. There have to be a set of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe the person detained may have either just committed or was about to commit a crime. The basis for an officer's reasonable suspicion can be challenged in court and if found to be unreasonable any evidence gained from the stop would be thrown out.
In the case I referenced earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that an internal immigration checkpoint (not on the border) was not an unreasonable search on the basis that:
1. people do not have as great an expectation of privacy in a vehicle as they do in their residence.
2. the scope of the search and seizure was limited and did not cause an unreasonable invasion of the person's privacy when weighed against the national interest of enforcing immigration law.
3. The checkpoints worked because the court had evidence that CBP was able to make a lot of arrests using the checkpoint.
Now, the case above also talked about how there was less of a chance for their to be harassment/discrimination on the part of the law enforcement officers because the checkpoint was stationary, always operated in the same place and everyone was subject to the checkpoint. The facts of the news article are slightly different. The court may decide differently when faced with a different set of facts, however the first two points I mentioned above could easily translate over to the news story case.
As far as jurisdiction goes, the CBP officers were well within their jurisdiction. They were investigating an immigration issue. If they had come across the violation of any other federal law while investigating the immigration issue, they have full authority to make an arrest. They may very well refer any non-immigration violations to the FBI or other federal agency but that doesn't stop them from making an arrest. CBP arrests for drug violations all the time at their internal checkpoints. In fact, based on statistics I saw earlier today, they make more drug arrests than immigration arrests.
Let's be clear, I'm not saying that what they did was definitely legal....it's just not as cut and dried "illegal" as some on here would make out.
You cannot "declare" reasonable suspicion. There have to be a set of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe the person detained may have either just committed or was about to commit a crime. The basis for an officer's reasonable suspicion can be challenged in court and if found to be unreasonable any evidence gained from the stop would be thrown out.
In the case I referenced earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that an internal immigration checkpoint (not on the border) was not an unreasonable search on the basis that:
1. people do not have as great an expectation of privacy in a vehicle as they do in their residence.
2. the scope of the search and seizure was limited and did not cause an unreasonable invasion of the person's privacy when weighed against the national interest of enforcing immigration law.
3. The checkpoints worked because the court had evidence that CBP was able to make a lot of arrests using the checkpoint.
Now, the case above also talked about how there was less of a chance for their to be harassment/discrimination on the part of the law enforcement officers because the checkpoint was stationary, always operated in the same place and everyone was subject to the checkpoint. The facts of the news article are slightly different. The court may decide differently when faced with a different set of facts, however the first two points I mentioned above could easily translate over to the news story case.
As far as jurisdiction goes, the CBP officers were well within their jurisdiction. They were investigating an immigration issue. If they had come across the violation of any other federal law while investigating the immigration issue, they have full authority to make an arrest. They may very well refer any non-immigration violations to the FBI or other federal agency but that doesn't stop them from making an arrest. CBP arrests for drug violations all the time at their internal checkpoints. In fact, based on statistics I saw earlier today, they make more drug arrests than immigration arrests.
Let's be clear, I'm not saying that what they did was definitely legal....it's just not as cut and dried "illegal" as some on here would make out.
I took leave of my senses for a while last night and erroneously misremembered the bill of rights as meaning something.
Clearly I was in error.
When I did some more thinking about other stuff the justice system has upheld-like "civil forfeiture" laws and Obamacare personal mandates, it became clear once again the the govt can and will do anything it damn well wants.
I stand corrected. The bill of rights may as well be Charmin these days.
02-26-2017, 07:29 AM
#68
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
It is and always has been unless you have enough money. These days, we all have the same rights that Japanese Americans had in 1942. So smile and show the nice man your papers.
02-26-2017, 08:42 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,611
TSA checks your govt docs before you enter the sterile area of the airport as a passenger... why would it be unconstitutional for another Fed Police Officer (in this case ICE) checking your papers again? Tell either the TSA or ICE officer you don't have to show your ID and see where that gets you. ACLU will not be able to fix this situation...
02-26-2017, 09:30 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by kevbo
While you are arguing the constitution, officer friendly will be hauling you in for whatever he makes up plus "resisting without violence". The judge will play along until you give one of his shyster buddy's a lot of money. Years later you get to explain your arrest record to a prospective employer. Or you can just play nice when the goon squad shows up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
