Border Patrol now investigating firearms in Michigan

[PT111]

A question and some comments. First since I live within 100 miles of the Atlantic Ocean and that can be considered a border do I fall under this Constitution Free Zone?

I thought the OP handled the situation perfectly and a lot better than many would have.

The drug and sex trade was/is so bad at the Interstate rest areas around here that they closed all the ones without facilities down. The Feds made them open them back up so now they are restricted to trucks only, no cars. This is probably what the BP folks were doing hanging around a rest area.

I think this was VERY SMALL PEANUTS. And to make a big deal over it makes us look like the boy that cried wolf.

We really need to pick our fights and the one's we pick should be clear, 100% clear that a citizen was jacked up.

Then WE need to ALL stand behind that citizen 100% and win a JUDGMENT and NOT settle the case.

When people make posts like this and complain over the chicken sheet stuff and people get all worked up and want to file complaints and FOIA's and make a big deal over something so minor, people will stop listening to us. We become an "Extremist Group".

Take the money that you would use for the FOIA for this incident and donate it to MOC so they can print more tri-folds so they can hand them out and educate more people, you'll get more bang for your buck this way.

Right or wrong the extremist group tag has already been applied by a large number of people, primarily LEO's. But at the same time progress is being made, usually by the more level headed one. To try and harass these two BP guy's for something like this will not help our cause the next time they see a gun at a rest stop. I don't know how much it would cost for a FOIA request but that money can be better spent on something else even if it is for more ammo.

 

[Jared]

The supreme court has "carved out" exceptions for checkpoints within a certain distance from the border; however, people misinterpret this as stating that the Border Patrol only has authority near the border. A BP agent could arrest someone anywhere in the United States for an immigration violation or any violation of federal law in their presence.

Regarding the rest area issue, were they wearing blue shirts or green shirts? I ask because A LOT of people in Michigan refer to Customs Officers as Border Patrol Agents and they are a completely different agency. They are both under DHS, but so is the Coast Guard and the Secret Service, but they are all different agencies.

 

[lapeer20m]

People also misinterpret this to mean that the 4 th amendment does not apply simply because you are within 100 miles of the border which is simply untrue.

 

[nonameisgood]

Somewhere in the middle ground, we should talk about how far we let our freedom erode.

The use of the emergency lights had the effect of a police stop. The person was not free to leave. Do we really want officers to feel free to stop law-abiding citizens at will for no legal reason?

Law enforcement is a serious job, and is no place for amateurs. They need to be held to a higher standard, and in return they should receive our respect. The problem is that some seem to have crept into the realm of "keepers of the public", and they feel at odds with "the People.

Regardless of what the officers saw, if nothing illegal was happening, they had no reason to stop the OP'er. (period)
We do not live in a police state where we need to interact with police fishing for who knows what. If the officers wanted to interact informally, they should not use emergency lights, and should not ask direct questions, except maybe "any luck hunting today?"

 

[Venator]

The supreme court has "carved out" exceptions for checkpoints within a certain distance from the border; however, people misinterpret this as stating that the Border Patrol only has authority near the border. A BP agent could arrest someone anywhere in the United States for an immigration violation or any violation of federal law in their presence.

Regarding the rest area issue, were they wearing blue shirts or green shirts? I ask because A LOT of people in Michigan refer to Customs Officers as Border Patrol Agents and they are a completely different agency. They are both under DHS, but so is the Coast Guard and the Secret Service, but they are all different agencies.

I think you better cite your statement. The Supreme Court has said that you can detain people, that is, in line at a check point away from the border, but you need RAS to detain them more than a moment, that is you can have casual contact (ask questions) with a person, and can look into a vehicle from outside (In plain sight) BUT YOU NEED RAS or PC to detain them longer or search a vehicle or demand ID, remember you still don't have to give ID or answer any question put forth by any LEO within the US under the 4th and 5th Amd.

As a BP agent you know this. As I said there are several video of people refusing to answer question or letting them search at in-land check points without arrests. The agents try like crazy and lie and try to get them to comply but after a half hour or so they are free to drive on without complying.

Remember refusing to answer questions IS NOT RAS.

Now early on their were abuses by PD agents that smashed windows and beat people for not complying but I believe that has been corrected and some law suits file against the agency.

Now at the border your 4th Amendment rights are suspended as you leave or enter the country. I'm talking about in-land check points.

 

[mastiff69]

I have a very easy solution, how about the BP stays on the border and secures the border,
then they would NOT have to be 100 miles off the border stopping and harassing citisens rights.

Example if a river dam is leaking, why would you go down stream to scoop up the water, to put back up above the dam, how about just fix the damm dam ?

Enough said on this subject fix the leak, and stop using it as an excuse to have a job !!!!

 

[autosurgeon]

Mastiff your solution is too grounded in common sense for a gov agency :lol:

I do agree though!

 

[Big Gay Al]

You know what it is, Ohio finally figured out they got the short stick in the Toledo war of the early 19th century, and they're trying to get us to take Toledo back and give THEM the UP. That's probably why the BP is there, to stop the next Toledo war between Michigan and Ohio.

 

[Jared]

Brian,

The case law about checkpoints is United States v Martinez-Fuerte. That is the carved out exception I was talking about. What is all the checkpoint video and other stuff about? I've never said anything on this forum about any of that and when I mentioned that SCOTUS carved out an exception, that's all I meant. Geez man, dont kill the messenger.

SCOTUS said that a stop at primary requires no suspicion and to detain for immigration violations at a checkpoint, only "some or mere suspicion" is required.

Generally, RAS is needed but the exception is at a checkpoint and only for immigration violations, that's all I was saying.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

i believe that this thread is slowly starting to degenerate into a useless thread. smellslike was stopped by the BP for an openly carried firearm. true? yes.

were his rights violated? no. he consented to the interaction.

there are bigger fish to fry than this interaction. i know smellslike and he is a very level headed guy, so he can probably handle it from here.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

yep, i consented. the main reason i posted this is because it seems to be our first OC border patrol encounter here in MI. i posted for general information rather than as a complaint.

 

[Venator]

Brian,

The case law about checkpoints is United States v Martinez-Fuerte. That is the carved out exception I was talking about. What is all the checkpoint video and other stuff about? I've never said anything on this forum about any of that and when I mentioned that SCOTUS carved out an exception, that's all I meant. Geez man, dont kill the messenger.

SCOTUS said that a stop at primary requires no suspicion and to detain for immigration violations at a checkpoint, only "some or mere suspicion" is required.

Generally, RAS is needed but the exception is at a checkpoint and only for immigration violations, that's all I was saying.

No problems, you made it sound like they can search your car, etc and that the 4th Amendment didn't apply away from the border. As I said the SCOTUS has stated that the stop at internal checkpoints are lawful, but to detain and search and DEMAND ID or that you have to answer questions is still protected at internal checkpoints.

I just wanted people to be aware they have rights at internal checkpoints and that all applicable laws and rights exist.

I wasn't shooting anyone, just wanted to be clear on the law and if you had new information to post it.

So it's all good for me, I hope for you too.