What Can Happen if You Refuse to Cooperate at a Checkpoint

[PTPD22]

The bigger your kahonies are, the better for the police dog to grab them

That is absolutely the quote of the week! Can I please steal that and use it myself?

[aardvarc]

Feel free! My K-9 officers use that phrase all the time. =)

Officer over the radio: "...and send EMS, the dog brought him down by the K's..."

Some day command staff will hear that and inquire as to it's meaning, at which point I suspect that particular phrasing will be banned....but until then....

[jk]

=aardvarc;634613]From a practical level, yes, to both questions.

why? These are not interrogations based on PC or reasonable suspicion. They are check points where all traffic runs through them. Unless there is an adminstrative exception to requiring PC, there is no requirement to comply with the demand to "move your car over there.

The problem is that you are thinking that the answers to probable cause are either yours to make, or, are made at the time that the officer gives you the command. Neither of those is true.

again, these are administrative searches (for the most part). They are not based on PC.

You comply at the time or risk arrest (the easy way, or the hard way).

Questions of probable cause and whether or not the command was lawful are answered AFTER the fact, in the courts.

actually to use a illegal search defense, one must make notice they are not allowing or giving permission to the search.

Law enforcement has things like guns, tasers, and dogs - not to mention that they operate under color of law - such that they ARE going to win any roadside or checkpoint encounter - up to an including arrest, physical control, or even up to deadly force if they feel they have to. You can be "right" all day long, and it won't matter. The bigger your kahonies are, the better for the police dog to grab them - thus the more confrontational and less compliant someone is at the time, the more the situation escalates. But the result will ultimately be the same. Your goal, if you feel that you are right, is to get through the situation as unscathed as possible so that you can appear in court against "the man" and bring your question of propriety to the court.

I wholly disagree. These are not searches based on PC. If they were, do you really think the guys on the videos would be allowed to refuse? I don't think so.

[cmre3456]

OK, Long rant on... Does anyone else remember the "fruit inspection" stations that California used to have at all of its borders? Anyone entering Calif. had to exit and pull into that big pass-through building. They would be asked where they were coming from and where they were going. The excuse for that was to find out what type of fresh fruits and vegetables they might have with them and where they came from and were going.

The idea was good. They were trying to keep people from bringing such items which might be infected with disease or insects which could spread and damage Calif. crops. But, the end didn't justify the means.

They asked random vehicles to pull off to the side and they searched them thoroughly. I mean they opened suitcases, looked in glove boxes - everything. Again the idea was good - let people know they might get searched so don't lie.

If you had any such contraband, your choices were to eat it on the spot and leave the "peelings" in their trash, or to throw all of it in the trash.

One day in about 1980 I got tired of it and refused to pull over for a search. I was driving our motor home, pulling our ski boat and heading for Lake Shasta from Oregon, going down I-5. I had my wife and our two grade school aged children on board.

I told the man that I didn't consent to a search. I asked him if I was under arrest or alternatively if I was free to go. He couldn't answer that but just kept parroting that "California Law" required me to pull over and be searched. I told him that California law didn't trump the US Constitution. At all times I was polite.

Soon I told him to either tell me I was under arrest or that I was leaving. He said I wasn't under arrest, so I just pulled back out onto I-5 and continued S. toward the lake. They kept a state patrol officer at those stations and he pursued and soon pulled me over. The inspector arrived shortly after, still wanting to search my motor home and boat. I wouldn't let the inspector do it and I was told if I didn't I would be arrested and my equipment impounded.

I asked them what they were going to do with my wife and children if they stranded them there. They couldn't answer that. I turned to the LEO and asked him if he could search my unit without permission. Oh no, he didn't want anything to do with that. He agreed that he would need probable cause and a search warrant. He could state why. He couldn't state why the inspector didn't need the same since it was US Constitution. I asked him if he was really willing to gamble on arresting me for something he had just told me was unconstitutional. If he didn't have PC to search, how could he have PC to arrest? He couldn't answer that. He did know what false arrest and illegal search and seizure were.

Those guys wanted out of that situation worse than I did at that point and they let me go. I had just pointed out that keeping me there against my will was a type of arrest and that the cash register was running on their wrongdoings.

Not long after that something happened in the form of a lawsuit, I think by an attorney who was stopped, and California removed and/or closed all of those check points. I had nothing to do with that but they are gone or the buildings are unused.

Personally I would refuse again to pull over for border patrol, run my cell phone video recorder, and hope that their violations contributed to my retirement. I'm retired now and have nothing better to do than to take them to court.

[surfer349]

cmre3456: excellent post. Yep, those agriculture checkpoints are still there, stopping traffic on every entering highway...only they just waive you through, rather than stopping people (your tax dollars at work).

For the BP checkpoints, it is forced/mandatory stop. They ask 1 question: Are you a US Citizen? They then make the determination to send you to secondary. I'm feeling like i/we/citizens should simply REFUSE to go to secondary and ask the standard question: are you detaining me or am I free to go?

[cmre3456]

Well more specifically I asked if I was under arrest, or if I was free to go. Frankly I was just itching for them to arrest me and haul my wife and kids off somewhere unknown, and impound my equipment.

I believe that the State of Kalifornia would now be twice as far in debt, LOL. Naw, I don't know, but I do know that it was unconstitutional as I believe the border stops are. One of these days they'll detain the wrong guy and we'll find out.