A True American!

[Ferdinand]

You might not agree with this, but the courts would uphold the existence of roadblocks as being necessary to secure our borders. Also, did you ever think that perhaps this road is known to be used by illegal traffickers? 40 miles is not really that far from the border.

See my post above.

Roadblocks securing the border should be located at the border.

Regardless of whether the road is used by smugglers, or paedophiles, or polar bears, how is that relevant to the other people who merely use the road to get to work and back? It is unconstitutional to stop and interrogate someone, without reasonable cause, merely on the off chance that they might be a smuggler, paedophile, or polar bear.

Yes, if they're weaving all over the road, it's reasonable to assume they are driving drunk. Yes if they're speeding, have a tail light missing, or not wearing a seatbelt, or talking on a cellphone while driving (which is now illegal in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland), they can be stopped by police. But none of that even remotely resembles the potential injustice of random border patrol stops far inland of the actual border.

40 miles is a heck of a long way from the border! Even worse, they can set up random checkpoints as far as 100 miles from the border.

It's ironic that the Statue of Liberty once was a symbol welcoming immigrants landing in New York. Now even American citizens could be prevented from coming within 100 miles of it, unless they are able to produce proof of citizenship at checkpoints located 100 miles inland.

That sure sounds fucked up to me.

Last summer we took part in a fun car rally hosted by the Montreal rally club. This was one of the roads we ran on. It's an open public road. That means the public is free to drive on it, unharassed, for whatever purpose they like. We Canadians aren't required to carry a passport when driving on our Canadian roads, eh. We don't have Homeland Security nazis stopping us and asking if we're citizens or not. And even if we did, it would never even cross our mind to question their right to speak to us in English with a French accent, or vice versa, or whatever, eh.

Anyway, on this road there's nothing but a simple wire fence there to keep the farmer's cows from wandering over from the USA and making a hazard of themselves on our Canadian roads.

Of course if you were actually to stop your car on the Canadian side, and step one foot over that fence onto American soil, you'd probably risk immediate incineration by a death laser fired from the unmanned Predator drones cruising high overhead to "secure your borders" so y'all can go to sleep every night without first having to check under your bed whether Osama Bin Laden is hiding there.

[gwb72tii]

See my post above.

Roadblocks securing the border should be located at the border.

Regardless of whether the road is used by smugglers, or paedophiles, or polar bears, how is that relevant to the other people who merely use the road to get to work and back? It is unconstitutional to stop and interrogate someone, without reasonable cause, merely on the off chance that they might be a smuggler, paedophile, or polar bear.

Yes, if they're weaving all over the road, it's reasonable to assume they are driving drunk. Yes if they're speeding, have a tail light missing, or not wearing a seatbelt, or talking on a cellphone while driving (which is now illegal in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland), they can be stopped by police. But none of that even remotely resembles the potential injustice of random border patrol stops far inland of the actual border.

40 miles is a heck of a long way from the border! Even worse, they can set up random checkpoints as far as 100 miles from the border.

It's ironic that the Statue of Liberty once was a symbol welcoming immigrants landing in New York. Now even American citizens could be prevented from coming within 100 miles of it, unless they are able to produce proof of citizenship at checkpoints located 100 miles inland.

That sure sounds fucked up to me.

Last summer we took part in a fun car rally hosted by the Montreal rally club. This was one of the roads we ran on. It's an open public road. That means the public is free to drive on it, unharassed, for whatever purpose they like. We Canadians aren't required to carry a passport when driving on our Canadian roads, eh. We don't have Homeland Security nazis stopping us and asking if we're citizens or not. And even if we did, it would never even cross our mind to question their right to speak to us in English with a French accent, or vice versa, or whatever, eh.

Anyway, on this road there's nothing but a simple wire fence there to keep the farmer's cows from wandering over from the USA and making a hazard of themselves on our Canadian roads.

Of course if you were actually to stop your car on the Canadian side, and step one foot over that fence onto American soil, you'd probably risk immediate incineration by a death laser fired from the unmanned Predator drones cruising high overhead to "secure your borders" so y'all can go to sleep every night without first having to check under your bed whether Osama Bin Laden is hiding there.

lol a canadian explaining constitutional law

[Ferdinand]

lol a canadian explaining constitutional law

Please, enlighten me. Where have I misunderstood your Constitution?

Seriously, don't just tell me to go read the whole damn thing again. Point to specific paragraphs and clauses. I'm curious.

[Massive Lee]

lol a canadian explaining constitutional law

In France, you can be stopped at anytime for checking your identity. If you don't have your official papers on you (papiers d'identité), you get arrested and go to jail until somebody can prove who you are. You can be checked out several times per day, especially if you look arabic or black. Cops can arrest anyone, without any reason (they don't need a reason), and you are guilty until you prove your innocence.

Is that what you guys are ready to accept in the US, on the false pretext that it is for your own good?

[CorvallisBMW]

wow, that dude is a total douchebag. They should have arrested him and held him for 48 or 72 hours just to teach his ass a lesson. he was being a complete ass for no reason whatsoever. All he had to do is say "yes" and it'd be over. Seriously, that guy needs to realize how retarded he is.

[blunttech]

wow, that dude is a total douchebag. They should have arrested him and held him for 48 or 72 hours just to teach his ass a lesson. he was being a complete ass for no reason whatsoever. All he had to do is say "yes" and it'd be over. Seriously, that guy needs to realize how retarded he is.

im not sure what to make of this. i would have bet my wrinkled sack youd side with said asshole

[mrsleeve]

lol a canadian explaining constitutional law

well for 1: hes right, which is far more than I can say about many Americans in here on the subject. 2: Just because hes a canuck dose make him ignorant of the famed US Constitution

[uofom3]

WOW the cunauck has it right again why dont we have smart people like this is our country.

lolz

[gwb72tii]

Please, enlighten me. Where have I misunderstood your Constitution?

Seriously, don't just tell me to go read the whole damn thing again. Point to specific paragraphs and clauses. I'm curious.

it is not unconstitutional to set up a roadblock to enforce the law, such as border enforcement. there is no constitutional right to not answer a law enforcement officer's questions without being arrested. all of these matters have been adjudicated by the courts. the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested. he does not have any constitutional right to non-cooperation in enforcement of law.
one does have all the rights enumerated in the constitution only in specific circumstances. silence, non-cooperation with the law is anarchy. the courts have recognized all this many times, although there are continuing circumstances that demand reinterpretation from time to time, which is the ultimate strength of our constitution.
the guy went looking for trouble, found it, and has the gumption to complain. none of his circumstances is remotely comparable to blacks being pulled over without probable cause etc. this guy was not singled out, all drivers were stopped.

the first amendment guarantees free speech. you cannot however yell fire in a theater without being arrested. even though we all benefit from our constitutional rights, there are in fact limits to those rights and how they are exercised.

[a_thomasmr23]

In France, you can be stopped at anytime for checking your identity. If you don't have your official papers on you (papiers d'identité), you get arrested and go to jail until somebody can prove who you are. You can be checked out several times per day, especially if you look arabic or black. Cops can arrest anyone, without any reason (they don't need a reason), and you are guilty until you prove your innocence.

Is that what you guys are ready to accept in the US, on the false pretext that it is for your own good?

For the record you can be stop for id anytime in the US too and you are required to prove correct information

As soldier, personal if some starts acting like at CP they are going to get detained and search, PERIOD. Anywhere warzone US doesn't matter. You act strange like that and its a safety issue for the squad or whatever

[Ferdinand]

it is not unconstitutional to set up a roadblock to enforce the law, such as border enforcement. there is no constitutional right to not answer a law enforcement officer's questions without being arrested. all of these matters have been adjudicated by the courts. the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested. he does not have any constitutional right to non-cooperation in enforcement of law.

I was really hoping you could point out to me exactly where in your Constitution it says anything remotely like that. Evidently you are unable, otherwise you would have done so.

So allow me, a mere Canadian, to take a stab at it.

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
--------

Unreasonable search and seizure seems to be what's happening here. There is no probable cause, certainly none supported by oath or affirmation, no warrant, nothing of the sort.

one does have all the rights enumerated in the constitution only in specific circumstances. silence, non-cooperation with the law is anarchy.

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
--------

Illegal entry to a country obviously is prohibited. If you try to enter a country illegally you should expect to be turned away or arrested at the border. Citizens of your country not crossing an international border but simply minding their own business while travelling within the country should not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor should they be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested.

Have you actually watched any of the guy's videos?

There are more than just one. Listen carefully to what everyone is saying in those videos.

The Homeland Security officer only ever "asks" Terry to roll down his window. The officer then only ever "asks" him what his citizenship is. They know damn well that they don't have the right to force him to roll down his window, nor to force him to answer any questions whatsoever.

They are only permitted to detain and question you if they have "probable cause" to believe you have committed an offence, or if you have volunteered your "consent" to be searched.

If they "ask" you to roll down the window, and you voluntarily do so, that means you have consented to their request.

If they "ask" you, "would you mind opening your door and stepping out of the car please", and you do so, that means you have consented to their request.

If they "ask" you to please open the trunk of your car sir, and you do so, that means you have expressly given your consent to have the trunk searched.

However, if you choose to assert your 4th and 5th Amendment Constitutional rights and choose not to give your consent to an illegal search with no probable cause, then the Homeland Security officers have no right to detain you further.

It is obvious when watching the videos that the officers know damn well they are on shaky legal ground and that the author of these videos is perfectly within his rights not to give his consent.

the fact that this guy would not cooperate with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties as set forth in law is why the guy was arrested.

The officers repeatedly deny that Terry is being detained. But they implythat he is not free to leave until he has answered their questions about his citizenship. In each case though, he is eventually allowed to leave without having responded to any of their question. He is not arrested. Ergo, he obviously has not broken any laws, otherwise he would have been arrested.

this guy was not singled out, all drivers were stopped.

Ding, ding, ding! Thank you. No further calls please. We have a winner!

That is precisely the problem here. They should be detaining illegal aliens at the border. They should be stopping people for which they have "probable cause" for suspecting them of smuggling illegal aliens across the border.

Instead, they are stopping ALL vehicles passing on this road, 40 miles away from the border, and interrogating their occupants.

The Homeland Security people, dressed up in slick uniforms with badges, flak jackets, guns, and bright lights, rely completely on their Gestapo tactics to intimidate people into voluntarily submitting to searches of their vehicles. In the process they hope to flush out smugglers, drug traffickers, illegal aliens, paedophiles, and any other Americans as stupid as you who clearly haven't taken the time to study their Constitutional rights.

And when someone actually has the guts to stand up to such an obvious abuse of power, and declare that this just ain't right, of course we can count on the usual idiots in this forum to step right up and be the first to post insightful responses like, "he should be killed on the spot". I've come to expect no less from a comedian like Blunt, but frankly, the warped opinions of so many of you other upstanding Americans are quite disturbing.

[mrsleeve]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I love it, thank you ferdinand.

[Ral]

The fourth amendment prevents law enforcement from searching a car without cause. There are circumstances the courts have upheld that give law enforcement the ability to do their jobs, i.e. if getting a warrant would be so time-consuming that it would allow evidence to escape the cop has a right to search your car. (If you smell like weed and get pulled over, the cop has the right to search your car based on the smell of weed on you.) It's called "exigent circumstances" I believe.

Also, his Miranda rights were not violated either, which is what I think you were getting at with the 4th amendment stuff. He was not interrogated. (He can only incriminate himself if he is being questioned with the purpose of accusing him with a crime. There's a list of 3 circumstances that must be met. I don't remember them well enough to post here, but look them up.)

Lastly, the checkpoint is necessary to defend the borders from invasion, as set out in Section 4 of the constitution. I find it funny to think that people assume the entire physical border is protectable, and that once something/someone crosses the border they should have nothing to worry about.

[mrsleeve]

If you smell like weed then thats reasonable suspicion that you are doing some thing illegal. If you are driving down the road then and doing nothing wrong and everything is in order law enforcement has no reason to stop you, question you , or bother you in any way, Not to say they dont just pull you over any way and make some shit up, I know I have had it happen on several occasions, and have used my rights on one such occasion as well.

short story, I was heading home at 3am form work had just worked 21 hours, was covered with mud an dirt and did not smell real good. Got pulled over for speeding ( I was maybe 3 over the limit as the road I am is heavily patrolled) by a cop traveling in the opposite direction he turned around an pulled me over. I was never told how fast I was going I gave the officer my papers that he requested, blew into his little breathlizer and he was shocked that it was 0.0. He comes back give me my shit an no ticket, but askes to search the truck, at this point I told him politely that I would not cosent to a search with out a warant. He said "well you must have some thing to hide then" I told him that I did not an that I will be right here napping till he got a warant and rolled the window up. I sat ther for about 25 mins while about 3 other cops showed up, then the 1st one showed up at my winodow and in a pissy manner told me that I could leave.

The point of the story is that he no reasonable suspicion to get a warrant other than my non consent to his search. That in itself is not enough, was I pissed about getting harassed after a very long day at work yes did it piss me off that I was stoped out of the blue for doing nothing wrong other than being out at 3am of damm right I was. But I as not about to let someone search myself or my truck with out the legal authority to do so as that one of the great things about where we live. We have law enforcement, its their job to to up hold the laws, not run around with gestapo like powers and do what ever they feel like at any time, or toss people in jail for no reason other than the officers whim.

These check points are in a very gray area when it come to violating the Constitution, while the guy in the video is a idiot for poking a badger with a spoon, hes also a model american citizen, this is the type of civil disobedience that the founding fathers wanted all amercans to participate in. Keeping the Government in check and from over stepping its bounds is the job of all citizens, but sadly has been lost in the last 200 years and it will be th d own fall of this great land and the largest symbol of freedom in the history of the world will have fallen.

[Ral]

I fully understand that some officers of the law take things too far, and I fully agree with you that the constitution should be guarded by normal citizens. (I'm sure you can also understand that by exercising your right to refuse a search, it might frustrate police officers who are trying to do their job. You were well within your rights, and they did let you go, but if you were the officer you might have been upset as well.) However, I don't think these are unconstitutional. They are well within their jurisdiction and are executing their duties professionally and in a manner in accordance with their mission. Being from Arizona, I can fully understand why they would set up this roadblock on a road a few miles inland, as it is most likely a primary artery used during the border crossings. If this was in Nebraska or Kansas, I would feel differently. If you want to complain about unconstitutional laws, the banning of radar detectors in some states is in direct violation of FCC regulations for example.