CLARIFICATION: US Immigration check points

CLARIFICATION: US Immigration check points

This is a discussion on CLARIFICATION: US Immigration check points within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Bottom Line Up Front : In the thread "Are you a US citizen" here in this sub-forum, some bozos were video-taped being jerks at immigration ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: CLARIFICATION: US Immigration check points

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,712

    CLARIFICATION: US Immigration check points

    Bottom Line Up Front: In the thread "Are you a US citizen" here in this sub-forum, some bozos were video-taped being jerks at immigration check points. I came to the discussion late , and it seemed that many here on the forum assumed that the video-tapeing folks were correct in their interpretation of the law. They were NOT correct , and they could have been arrested for Obstruction at a minimum. I added bold and color font to highlight the relevent findings.

    United States v. Martinez-Fuerte - 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

    United States v. Martinez-Fuerte

    No. 74-1560

    Argued April 26, 1976

    Decided July 6, 1976*

    428 U.S. 543



    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    Syllabus

    1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564.
    (a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-557.

    (b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving patrol stops. Pp. 428 U. S. 557-560.

    (c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.

    (d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563-564.

    2. Operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387

    Page 428 U. S. 544

    U.S. 523, distinguished. The visible manifestations of the field officers' authority at a checkpoint provide assurances to motorists that the officers are acting lawfully. Moreover, the purpose of a warrant in preventing hindsight from coloring the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure is inapplicable here, since the reasonableness of checkpoint stops turns on factors such as the checkpoint's location and method of operation. These factors are not susceptible of the distortion of hindsight, and will be open to post-stop review notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. Nor is the purpose of a warrant in substituting a magistrate's judgment for that of the searching or seizing officer applicable, since the need for this is reduced when the decision to "seize" is not entirely in the hands of the field officer and deference is to be given to the administrative decisions of higher ranking officials in selecting the checkpoint locations. Pp. 428 U. S. 564-566.

    No. 74-1560, 514 F.2d 308, reversed and remanded; No. 75-5387, affirmed.

    POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 428 U. S. 567.

    Page 428 U. S. 545


    MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

    These cases involve criminal prosecutions for offenses relating to the transportation of illegal Mexican aliens. Each defendant was arrested at a permanent checkpoint operated by the Border Patrol away from the international border with Mexico, and each sought the exclusion of certain evidence on the ground that the operation of the checkpoint was incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. In each instance, whether the Fourth Amendment was violated turns primarily on whether a vehicle may be stopped at a fixed checkpoint for brief questioning of its occupants even though there is no reason to believe the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. We reserved this question last Term in United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891, 422 U. S. 897 n. 3 (1975). We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a Judicial warrant.


    I


    A

    The respondents in No. 74-1560 are defendants in three separate prosecutions resulting from arrests made on three different occasions at the permanent immigration checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Clemente, Cal. Interstate 5 is the principal highway between San Diego and Los Angeles, and the San Clemente checkpoint is 66 road miles north of the Mexican border. We previously have described the checkpoint as follows:

    ""Approximately one mile south of the checkpoint is a large black on yellow sign with flashing yellow lights over the highway stating ALL VEHICLES, STOP AHEAD, 1 MILE.' Three-quarters of a

    Page 428 U. S. 546

    mile further north are two black on yellow signs suspended over the highway with flashing lights stating "WATCH FOR BRAKE LIGHTS." At the checkpoint, which is also the location of a State of California weighing station, are two large signs with flashing red lights suspended over the highway. These signs each state `STOP HERE -- U.S. OFFICERS.' Placed on the highway are a number of orange traffic cones funneling traffic into two lanes where a Border Patrol agent in full dress uniform, standing behind a white on red "STOP" sign checks traffic. Blocking traffic in the unused lanes are official U.S. Border Patrol vehicles with lashing red lights. In addition, there is a permanent building which houses the Border Patrol office and temporary detention facilities. There are also floodlights for nighttime operation.""


    United States v. Ortiz, supra at 422 U. S. 893, quoting United States v. Baca, 368 F.Supp. 398, 410-411 (SD Cal.1973).

    The "point" agent standing between the two lanes of traffic visually screens all north-bound vehicles, which the checkpoint brings to a virtual, if not a complete, halt. [Footnote 1] Most motorists are allowed to resume their progress without any oral inquiry or close visual examination. In a relatively small number of cases, the "point" agent will conclude that further inquiry is in order. He directs these cars to a secondary inspection area, where their occupants are asked about their citizenship and immigration status. The Government informs us that, at San

    Page 428 U. S. 547

    Clemente, the average length of an investigation in the secondary inspection area is three to five minutes. Brief for United States 53. A direction to stop in the secondary inspection area could be based on something suspicious about a particular car passing through the checkpoint, but the Government concedes that none of the three stops at issue in No. 74-1560 was based on any articulable suspicion. During the period when these stops were made, the checkpoint was operating under a magistrate's "warrant of inspection," which authorized the Border Patrol to conduct a routine stop operation at the San Clemente location. [Footnote 2]
    Here is the website: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte - 428 U.S. 543 (1976) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Yes, they may stop and "ASK" questions. But it does not say that they can detain you, nor is their PC to detain you, if you elect to not answer.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member
    Array manolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Milford California
    Posts
    1,280
    Chaplain Scott you should live in southern california and have a wife of 40 years who is a second generation American. You should have to go to the secondary lane each time because your wife is mexican. you should have them ask her questions in spanish. You should be asked why you are going to your Father-inlaws funeral this time of day.
    Yes sir the check point is legal under the ruling. The way individual officers handle the check point is very sad.
    You are ready to arrest under obstruction. You may want to apply for the area I lived in you seem to fit right in.

    Respectfully,

    Bill
    1MoreGoodGuy likes this.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Quote Originally Posted by manolito View Post
    Chaplain Scott you should live in southern california and have a wife of 40 years who is a second generation American. You should have to go to the secondary lane each time because your wife is mexican. you should have them ask her questions in spanish. You should be asked why you are going to your Father-inlaws funeral this time of day.
    Yes sir the check point is legal under the ruling. The way individual officers handle the check point is very sad.
    You are ready to arrest under obstruction. You may want to apply for the area I lived in you seem to fit right in.

    Respectfully,

    Bill
    I would assume that a legal US Drivers License or Passport would make going thru the checkpoint a lot less hassle free.
    I go thru the checkpoints several times a year and also see cars with Hispanics traveling thru daily that never get stopped unless there is something that raises the Agents suspicion
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,712
    Bill--Sincerely, thank you for the comments. Yes there are always the human dimension/side to any issue.

    SunTzu: What you say may be the case---as I really haven't looked that deep into it--which I guess I should--although I don't have plans anytime soon of going anywhere near there. To be absolutely honest, in the past, I really haven't given this whole area much thought, but now that I am going through the LE Academy, I am actually paying attention, and trying to sort thru what is legal, what is not, and where the grey areas are..........
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,712
    We further believe that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop. Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, [Footnote 16] we perceive no constitutional violation. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 885-887. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol

    Page 428 U. S. 564

    officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved. [Footnote 17]
    In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant. [Footnote 19] The principal protection of Fourth Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 24-27; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 881-882. We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975). 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." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 882. None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had affirmed the conviction of Sifuentes. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case with directions to affirm the conviction of Martinez-Fuerte and to remand the other cases to the District Court for further proceedings.

    It is so ordered.
    So, it looks like (I think) that it is legal to have drivers/vehicles move to the secondary inspection area, but any further detention is only justified by PC.........
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,298
    So they make up a PC. Detain you rip your car up if they like .They find nothing you sent on your way with a trashed car .
    Make to much of a Fuss they toss a bag in the car busted.
    Justice in America
    Hopyard likes this.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by manolito View Post
    Chaplain Scott you should live in southern california and have a wife of 40 years who is a second generation American. You should have to go to the secondary lane each time because your wife is mexican. you should have them ask her questions in spanish. You should be asked why you are going to your Father-inlaws funeral this time of day.
    Yes sir the check point is legal under the ruling. The way individual officers handle the check point is very sad.
    You are ready to arrest under obstruction. You may want to apply for the area I lived in you seem to fit right in.

    Respectfully,

    Bill
    Same here. My wife is American Indian/Hispanic (and a veteran I might add). Profiling is fine as long as it is not a group you belong to.
    Hopyard, blitzburgh and Brad426 like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,485
    That's why I avoid groups.
    carracer and Brad426 like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  10. #10
    Member Array carracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Id.
    Posts
    403
    Glad I'm not a grouper. They would always think there was something fishy about me!

  11. #11
    Distinguished Member
    Array manolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Milford California
    Posts
    1,280
    This is still the Us. We can carry her Birth certificate passport and drivers license and she always has her CCW permit and weapon. The Basic premise of the US is you can move from place to place without papers and without being stopped and questioned about where or why you are going some place. I am beginning to understand how a Mexican can say White and make it sound like a dirty word we may have earned that disdain.

    When they came for the Jews is the start of an interesting time in world history.

    Too personal a topic for me my heart gets in the way of my mind I will move on.

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,184
    No it isn't legal just because some dimwit in a black robe says so.

    Right here in the ruling(that you posted) in you're OP, that tells us so.

    (c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.

    They are just snubbing their noses at the "Constitution" and getting away with it.
    ArkhmAsylm, OldVet and Ghost1958 like this.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array Chaplain Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by oneshot View Post
    No it isn't legal just because some dimwit in a black robe says so.

    Right here in the ruling(that you posted) in you're OP, that tells us so.

    (c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.

    They are just snubbing their noses at the "Constitution" and getting away with it.

    Yes, but since the Constitution also makes the Judiciarythe final interpreter of "what" is "Consitutional", then by definition it is legal. Now, before you get all hot under the collar, I also have difficulties with some aspects of it. For example, I think legalized abortion is a travesty, but it is "legal" by the reigning law of the land--even if its not moral. But then the difficulty comes when I want "my" interpretation of the Constitution, and somebody else wants "their" interpretation of the Constitution.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Scott, US Army 1974-2004

    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
    - Ronald Reagan

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by manolito View Post
    This is still the Us. We can carry her Birth certificate passport and drivers license and she always has her CCW permit and weapon. The Basic premise of the US is you can move from place to place without papers and without being stopped and questioned about where or why you are going some place. I am beginning to understand how a Mexican can say White and make it sound like a dirty word we may have earned that disdain.

    When they came for the Jews is the start of an interesting time in world history.

    Too personal a topic for me my heart gets in the way of my mind I will move on.
    Sadly, that's been trashed, and it will be further trashed until people get it in their heads to demand better
    of their legislators. NO PAPERS PLEASE. Its been that way for 200+ years; then OBL proved we aren't the home
    of the brave. Or, put another way, we don't have the courage to stand by our own principles. TSA= exhibit 1.
    Inland border points are exhibit B. (Maybe the other way around as I think maybe the inland border checkpoints
    predated TSA, don't know.)

    As Manolito and Suntzu, my wife can readily be mistaken for Mexican instead of Asian. And she has been. I didn't (don't)
    like it one bit --although in our case it was an idiot car salesman who marched up to us and started speaking in Spanish, and
    not BP officials. We actually sailed right through the checkpoint East of El Paso--- though its existence was a big
    surprise to me as I had no idea such a thing was lawful, and do believe it should not be.
    Last edited by Hopyard; March 2nd, 2013 at 11:17 PM. Reason: missing comma added-- Suntzu isn't my wife of course
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,882
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

are there border patrol checkpoints in florida
,
are there immigration checkpoints in florida
,
are there immigration checkpoints in san diego
,
border patrol checkpoints in florida
,
border patrol checkpoints south florida
,
immigration checkpoint in montana
,

immigration checkpoints

,
immigration checkpoints florida
,
immigration checkpoints in florida
,
immigration checkpoints in southern california
,
san diego immigration checkpoints
,
stop here us officers
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors