Listen
Now

Advanced
Search

Log
In To CommentRegister Now

Home

Alex Jones Radio
Show

Listening
Info

Listen Live

Podcast

Archives

Featured
Stories

World News

Prison
Planet

Commentary

Multimedia

Sci
Tech

Special
Reports

Paul Watson
Articles

Steve
Watson Articles

Links

Infowars

Prison Planet TV

Infowars.net

Social

Alex Jones Twitter

Alex Jones
Facebook

Prison Planet Forum

Prison Planet Twitter

Newsgroup

Store

Top Stories

Breaking
News

Contact

Contact

Advertise

Customer
Service

Featured Stories
World News Commentary Money Watch Multimedia Prison Planet U.S.
News Science And Technology

Motorist puts police in their place at suspicionless internal
checkpoint

Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
December 3, 2012

Border officers from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security at an internal
suspicionless checkpoint in New Mexico were shown last
week that if they have no reasonable suspicion or probable cause,
they can not deter occupants of a vehicle even if the person does not answer
their questions.

A commercial truck driver was off duty in the sleeper berth when he was
awakened by an officer at the checkpoint, which was nowhere near an
international border. The driver, having dealt with the issue before, did not
appreciate being woken up by cops once again. Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations dictate that every
commercial driver must have a 10 hour off duty period to sleep between shifts,
and is not to be disturbed. Any driver who violates these safety rules can be
prosecuted. So why are federal law enforcement officers and police across the
country in the habit and practice of waking up truckers illegally, when the
federal rules were put in place to specifically maintain the safety of both
commercial drivers and individual motorists? Federal agencies have completed
studies on the danger
of fatigue related big-rig crashes, thus enforcing extremely strict
guidelines and logbook rules. [See also The Effect of
Rest-Schedule Orientation on Sleep Quality of Commercial Drivers.]

The driver had two Texas troopers wake him up in 2010 when he was off duty
sleeping and his co-driver pulled into a weigh station. The Texas Department of
Public Safety officially
admitted wrongdoing in that case, admonishing the two officers with
‘corrective action’ and ‘retraining provided’. The troopers are currently
defendants in a federal lawsuit as a result of their acts.

In this case, a similar situation, a New Mexico border agent shouted through
the window while standing on the truck, waking the sleeping person and demanding
to know if he was a citizen. Once again, the driver recorded the entire
interaction and refused to answer questions, rebuking both the officer and his
supervisor for violating federal law.

Upon questioning the supervisor briefly claimed he was detaining the man, but
upon being asked what crime he was being accused of, the supervisor quickly did
a 180 degree turnabout and admitted that the man was free to go “now that we
know that you’re a U.S. citizen.” However, note that the man never once answered
any questions or said that he was a U.S. citizen. On what basis therefore, were
the New Mexico officers claiming knowledge of his citizenship? Is it merely
because he was white and speaks English? Does this mean that they racially
profile? Because that is the exact opposite of their department’s own stated
policy.

The reality is that Americans are not obligated to answer questions asked by
border agents at suspcionless checkpoints regarding citizenship, “where they’re
headed”, or anything else. Terry Bressi ofCheckpointUSA.org
recently won
over $200,000 in a federal lawsuit from Homeland Security. [Be sure to check out his youtube channel!].
Bressi points
out on his blog that the border patrol themselves have answered
questions in writing regarding internal checkpoints, and they admit the
following:

“Q. 11. Am I required to answer the agent’s questions at the
checkpoint?”
A. “No person can be required to give evidence that incriminates
themselves – that is a constitutional right. Neither can any public official
compel or coerce such a statement if the person being questioned refuses to give
one voluntarily…”

Bressi also notes

Referring back to the first question, the Border Patrol admits an agent
must believe the individual being interrogated is unlawfully in the United
States. While operating away from the border or its functional equivalent,
merely being suspicious is not enough of a legal basis to further a detention
or interrogation. In fact, at an internal checkpoint, the Supreme Court ruled
agents MUST have probable cause or consent in order to extend the detention or
to search. If an agent diverts a vehicle to secondary for further scrutiny
after asking the immigration question, that represents an extended detention
and must be premised on probable cause:“Our prior cases have limited
significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring
probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion
for inquiry stops by roving patrols. Our holding today, approving routine
stops for brief questioning is confined to permanent checkpoints. We
understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization
nor widely prevailing practice justifies a constitutional violation” -
U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte

“…We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if
justified by consent or probable cause to search….And our holding today is
limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further
detention…must be based on consent or probable cause.” – U.S. v
Martinez-Fuerte

See also ACLU Exposes
Homeland Security Enforced ‘Constitution Free Zone’, What To Do At A DUI Roadblock
and Police
Defendants Pay $210,000 To Settle Illegal Roadblock Lawsuit.

Print this page.

Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article

Leave a Reply
Log
In, Register, Lost
password?

Click here to cancel reply.

characters available

Click to cancel
reply

Comment
Rules

RSS FEEDS
RSS
Alex Jones podcast

MOST POPULAR

Obama Is Going Dictator! (73 comments)

Democrat Rep. Wants to Amend Constitution to Deny Free Speech (51
comments)

Our Collapsing Economy and Currency (50 comments)

Shock Video: Syrian Rebel Massacres 10 Unarmed Prisoners (44
comments)

Will Sick Babies Be Starved to Death Under Obamacare? (43
comments)

© 2012 PrisonPlanet.com is a Free Speech Systems,
LLC company. All rights reserved. Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Notice.

Digital
Millennium Copyright Act