16 Responses to “ Homeland Security Checkpoint: Video Blog - Day 1 ”

1. # 1 richardk Says:
   August 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

   funny. Even better when viewed on my iPhone while riding the bus. :P

2. # 2 JP Says:
   August 6th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

   I don’t get it. Is this an immigration checkpoint somewhere inside the US? I’ve seen one going the other way in SoCal on I5; just North of Carlsbad. Seemed to me that it should have been relocated to the border.

   Or maybe this video is taken at the border somewhere?

   All I hear is some dillrod asking “Am I being detained” a million times.

3. # 3 Bill Says:
   August 6th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

   JP, perhaps the related blog post about the checkpoint will help explain the location and purpose of the checkpoint.

4. # 4 Sank Says:
   August 7th, 2008 at 6:11 am

   This looks like Southern California, I see it’s on a rural road in AZ.

   I’ve been through many of these in Southern CA, and to rebut the post, they are on rural roads as well as the interstate, even before 9/11. As a guy who is completely aghast at the intrusiveness of Homeland Security and wiretaps and on and on, these checkpoints however.. fact is most of the illegal (not undocumented, illegal) aliens coming into California and Arizona aren’t taking I-5… they’re sneaking across. These stops seem reasonable to me as this problem there is out of control and there are an awful lot of people who would be on the roads who shouldn’t be if it weren’t for these stops.
   Let the gal do her job..

5. # 5 sornie Says:
   August 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am

   The whole idea of these checkpoints to me seems to overstep some sort of legal boundary that was originally written in to the constitution. Being who I am, I like the idea of questioning something that seems to be completely unreasonable and demanding an honest answer when asked a question.

6. # 6 Mrs Marcos Says:
   August 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

   Gah! I’m torn. On one hand, just answer the fucking question so she stops asking “What country are you a citizen of?” and so you stop saying “Am I being detained?!” She is “just doing her job” and probably doesn’t give a rats ass where the guy lives. Another thing, any time I’ve been in a confrontation with someone and that person started demanding my name I get hesitant to give it out as well (like she did). Not because I’m afraid I’m going to get into trouble for something I’ve done but because I don’t want some god damn patriot freedom fighter looking my name up in the phone book and burning a cross in my front yard.

   On the other hand this would be like someone setting up a random checkpoint on Cedar Avenue, making you stop in traffic, answer inane questions regarding your citizenship and thereby missing every green light the rest of the way home. What if she started asking real citizenship questions like how many senators are there or what year did Hawaii become a state? Lots of us suburbanites would be fucked and be detained indefinitely in Dakota county jail.

   I bet they serve Hunts Catsup in jail.

7. # 7 MSPD Says:
   August 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

   sank, your comments about these checkpoints are timely given the article on all of the news sites today (9 people die in a crash of an SUV that was carrying 19 people presumed to be illegals trying to enter the U.S). This is the same area (roughly) that the blogger/video person is complaining about.

   Had there been a “random” checkpoint, it could very well have saved these people’s lives.

8. # 8 Bill Says:
   August 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

   Benjamin Franklin (Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin):

   They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

9. # 9 Pear Head Says:
   August 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

   The point of this isn’t “is the checkpoint productive?”. The point of this “is the checkpoint legal?”.

   Yes, the driver could simply answer the question and be on his way.

   To me this is a violation of the 4th amendment, especially if you watch the Day 5 video. In day 5 they OBVIOUSLY know who he is (they call him by name at one point - “Terry”). Yet they still detain and harass him.

   This isn’t a question of what’s best in the short term, it’s a question about what’s right for the long term.

10. # 10 sank Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    The checkpoint is legal at all border crossings. Anyone entering the country is legally screened. The founding fathers didn’t anticipate a mass migration of people from another country entering ours illegally, and entering the country by means other than our border crossings. The game is changed a bit with the numbers that are coming across. The border patrol has had to back up their lines a bit in response.

    Had this tool just said, “United States’ the check would have been over. Personally I would be surprised, based on how prepared he was, if he was out looking for this and wanted to force a situation by being a asshole.

    BTW the Courts have also upheld that sobriety check points are also legal, and protect folks.. This is a tricky deal here. Not all that simple.

11. # 11 Pear Head Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    I understand where the courts have stood on this issue, although it doesn’t mean I agree with them.

    This isn’t at a border crossing either - it’s 40 miles inside Arizona on a highway that doesn’t intersect the border.

    Watch day 5 if you haven’t already. It’s an obvious abuse of power.

    Bill hit it on the head with the quote from Franklin.

12. # 12 Sank Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    When I lived in California, the border zone was 50 miles. The illegals are using secondary roads to move people who have walked across the border to staging areas. They stay of the main roads and the roads that run straight into Mexico.
    THese check points are supposed to be deterrents for those folks.

13. # 13 Pear Head Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    I don’t doubt that the checkpoint is productive and is good at being a deterrent. I do believe it is a violation of the 4th Amendment, regardless of how the courts have ruled. Especially when they *know* the person being questioned is a citizen but continue to harass that individual.

14. # 14 Sank Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    We’ll have to disagree. I don’t think the checkpoints are intrusive. Since no actual search is conducted unless there is probable cause, they don’t know if you’re a citizen until you say something. Had this guy simply said “hello” it would have been a two second stop. No search.
    Now there’s a legit question about profiling, but I’m not sure in this environment thats a bad thing.

15. # 15 Bill Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Hiibel vs Sixth Judicial Court of NV (or if you prefer a non-Wikipedia link, try this one).

    From the Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection link (emphasis mine):

    Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.

16. # 16 MSPD Says:
    August 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am

    I don’t have a problem with them at all. The Supreme Court has ruled (adequately, in my opinion) that these such things are acceptable. They specify that they can’t just be arbitrarily set up — they need to be done in a location with a statistically high proportion of offenses (e.g. locations/times of day with known high incidences of drunk driving in the case of random sobriety checkpoints) and in a manner that MINIMIZES the length of detention (yes, detention) of the motorist.

    These roads have a statistically higher incidence of trafficking of illegal immigrants. Accidents, such as the one to which I referred earlier are statistically common in this area. There are clear statistical legal issues and civil safety issues there.

    Further, and more importantly in my mind, as a motorist, I am VOLUNTARILY traveling on a highway that I know has those statistical characteristics. I travel aware of the possibility of such a checkpoint. ***I am using a facility that is offered to me by the federal government, state government or municipality (depending on the road) with accompanying responsibilities. I have no expectation or God given right to free, unmolested, uninhibited travel on such a facility.***

    One thing I will concede is that the agent, in my opinion, when asked if the person being “detained”, should have been trained to answer “Yes, you are being momentarily detained.” The agents should be trained in clearly and simply defining the legal parameters of the detention, as supported by the law, and able to give direction in the event of an objection (i.e. Here’s my name and badge number and you can contact your attorney, but I cannot let you continue until you simply verify your information.) I’m not qualified but I’m 100% certain there is a formal process in place similar to that.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website