Hot Girl Knows Her Rights

Oldgrunt

Oldgrunt

Well-known member
The young lady has more cajones than some men!


 
Border Patrol overstepping again.


The first guard must have watched YouTube videos since he pulled "suspicion of criminal activity" out of his ass.
 
Nick Burkhardt said:
Border Patrol overstepping again.


The first guard must have watched YouTube videos since he pulled "suspicion of criminal activity" out of his ass.
Click to expand...

He even referenced YouTube at one point, saying something like, "I'm sure you've seen the videos about that online too..." or something close to that.

I love videos like these. I think it was kind of a "training run" for the lady though. She stumbled quite a bit and made several mistakes. The first BP agent made it clear that he was detaining her (them) but she just kept repeating "Am I being detained?" Every time she asked it, the BP answered in the affirmative, and her answer for the first 10 or so such exchanges was something like, "That's not a valid reason, may I be on my way?" It may have even been after the (jerk) supervisor got there, but whatever, it was pretty far into the event before she explained what "that" was. She was right, simply denying consent to have your vehicle searched is not a valid reason to detain or send the vehicle to secondary at a citizenship checkpoint. Perhaps, if she had explained that the first time the BP ordered her to secondary and said yes, she was being detained, they could have gotten on their way about five or 10 minutes before they actually did.

Still, you go girl! Pretty soon you'll be takin' 'em to court and winning just like Pastor Anderson!

On a related note, how do we know the girl is "hot?" Link Removed

Blues
 
"Shut up and listen"?! The first officer said that she was being sent to secondary because "we have suspicion that there might be illegal activity going on," but at no time did he actually advise her what that suspicion was based on. Checkpoints like these are where you run into Fourth Amendment problems. I don't give a rip what the courts have said, the Constitutional legal standard for a search is PROBABLE CAUSE, not reasonable suspicion, and it requires a detailed, duly sworn and issued search warrant in order for the search of any citizen to be a LEGAL SEARCH. The officers had already ascertained the status of both occupants of the vehicle, the dogs turned up no illegal activities related to either drugs or explosives, and the first officer had no justifiable reason to detain the girl. In short, his statement that there was suspicion of illegal activity was baseless; it sounds to me more like a pat answer used to justify a random vehicle search.
 
I would have asked "if I am an alien do I get free health care and food stamps"? And I would have further stated that nobody gets deported anyway so what's the point of harassing everyone.

I agree how do we know she was hot? Sounded hot from the video but I need more to go on before I can vote she was hot!
 
Actually, I remember from some years ago that the police do have the right to search a vehicle without a warrant, since it can be removed from the scene easily. Of course, there would need to be an indication that a law is being violated for that to happen. In this case, she was stopped to check citizenship and a dog had inspected the vehicle, giving no warnings. She could have gotten out of a search without a warrant by getting out of the car and locking the keys inside; that way it couldn't be removed easily, so they could wait for a warrant to arrive. I'm on her side, but she needs to get stopped a few more times so she gets some practice dealing with the situation.
 
When that cop asks, "Are you a lawyer?" I just boiled. He's not either; far from it. Most cops and Federal agents are clueless on the law and even more clueless about the Constitution.

Way to go girl, next time don't answer so many questions and ask specifically what you are being detained for. Other than that... good job!!
 
Did anyone notice how hard the first officer had to work not to smile when he told her, "we have suspicion that there might be illegal activity going on"? And I agree with one thing - she needs to do more than tell the officer that he has no right to detain her. If she's going to fight detention, then she had better be able to explain WHY the officer has no right to detain her.
 
ezkl2230 said:
I don't give a rip what the courts have said, the Constitutional legal standard for a search is PROBABLE CAUSE, not reasonable suspicion, and it requires a detailed, duly sworn and issued search warrant in order for the search of any citizen to be a LEGAL SEARCH.
Click to expand...

I'm with you all the way on that point, but BP checkpoint stops are particularly insidious violations that have been fully sanctioned by the Supremes since 1976 when UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U.S. 543 was decided.

As I pointed out in another thread yesterday, when the Supreme's rulings limit government power, such as in the case of Heller, state, local and federal governments ignore teir rulings with impunity, such as the guy who's facing jail time for unregistered ammo charges in DC in spite of Heller. When SCOTUS rulings expand gvm't authority however, such as warrantless, suspicionless BP or DUI checks, better watch out, because there is nothing short of revolution that will overturn such rulings.

In short, the Supreme Court is a paper tiger when it comes to forcing government to respect and protect our rights, but a pack of rabid frothing-at-the-mouth wolves when it comes to comin' after 'em.

Martinez-Fuerte has been bolstered a few times since '76, resulting in what is quite literally a 100-mile wide "Constitution-Free-Zone" surrounding the entire perimeter of the CONUS, as well as the entire perimeter of Alaska and the entirety of Hawaii. While not a regular fan of theirs, the ACLU came up with the Constitution-Free-Zone moniker that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of several times, and according to this 2010 article at Wired.com, they are pushing legislation to roll the perimeter back to closer to the border, but even if they're successful, SCOTUS rulings on the constitutionality of the checkpoints won't change, just their locations might.

There are many videos similar to the one in the OP where people get away with saying "No" to the warrantless, suspicionless demands for "your papers," but most of the time they simply wear the Nazis down and they let them through out of unadulterated exasperation. While I applaud these folks, and would engage heavily in the movement if I still lived near the border, I don't see them accomplishing anything long-term. The Capitol Building does not shelter The People's House anymore. There hasn't been a People's President since George Washington. And it's for damn sure the Supreme Court never was and never will be The People's Court. We're on our own, ladies and gentlemen. Well, I'm not, and I know several others on the site who aren't on their own, but speaking purely from a governments-of-man perspective, the republic is dead and the only thing left of it is her People, and in that regard, we are a People without a country and will never see her restored to her once-great glory.

Blues
 
I never had problems at a checkpoint near S. Padre Island, and my wife is Hispanic. Officer looks at me, looks at my wife (with pained expression sometimes), and off we go. If the officer had asked for my ID, I would have to show him my driver's and carry license.

I'm sure there are checkpoints erected at hotspots, but the one I went through was a stop and go, 5 second ordeal.:laugh:

No problemo.

Yeah, a few more checkpoints under this girl's belt would have her out of there quicker, by giving the right answers.
 
If obummer gets his way these type of check points will be everywhere. And with DHS buying ammo the way they have, the US Constitution and the law will most likely not matter. Look at how many illegal things the POS in the WH has done and the GOP or the courts has not even said, "Naughty! Naughty!"
 
ingeniir said:
Woulda cited the broken windshield for her bitching and moved on.
Click to expand...

I read this earlier today and just walked on by. But then I got to thinkin' about it.........

I honestly learned something from this. The word "bitching" makes it through the auto-censor! Wow, the possibilities are nearly endless now.....

Thanks ingeniir. Learn sumpthin' new every day. Link Removed

Blues
 
I commend her for her effort and fully support her...she needs to work on her performance though. She needed to focus on why they were detaining her, not that they were indeed detaining her.

I personally would have gone with the, "I'm being detained illegally, I do not consent to any searches, I'll see you in court. and I'm going to remain silent until my lawyer is present."

Or, "...............(crickets)...................." No searches, pure silence, until they let me go.
 
phillip69 said:
could you explain more please?
Click to expand...

Firefighterchen said:
What he means is I got his back.
Click to expand...

Actually, I meant that God has our backs.
0cfc913111e8b54913a8edff5d183cd9.gif


I am humbled by the sentiment though, Brother.

Blues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 197 (members: 0, guests: 197)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top