Homeland Security checkpoints violate the 4th amendment:

[Mia]

These videos are so cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GgkB9Cs18I

[jafar00]

Just remember the thousands that died to protect your right to be free of this kind of abuse. Egypt has been under emergency rule for 20 years, yet there are no checkpoints like this anywhere here. It may not look like it, but these checkpoints are rather extreme.

[Mia]

I know - where is the military to protect us from Homeland Security?

[Mia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFEj-UBU9Q&feature=related

[Mia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKDdH8xtpN4&NR=1

[Mia]

Wow, they also steal drugs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LcGOMs9OUc&feature=related

[PostmodernProphet]

I have to admit, these videos increased my respect for the border patrol.....I think I would have ordered a full cavity strip search of these assholes long before the video had ended......

[Mia]

They know they're in the wrong, else they wouldn't be letting this guy go - he does this over and over at different checkpoints and it's the same every time - they are forced to admit they aren't detaining him, and he's free to go.

They try to sidestep the fact that they are attempting to detain him long enough to answer their questions.

[Easy90]

They know they're in the wrong, else they wouldn't be letting this guy go - he does this over and over at different checkpoints and it's the same every time - they are forced to admit they aren't detaining him, and he's free to go.

They try to sidestep the fact that they are attempting to detain him long enough to answer their questions.

Actually...they "know" who these people are, and that they are in fact, legal citizens...that's why they let them go. These videos are brought to you courtesy of people who think it's not Constitutional to protect and enforce the borders of America. I think the BP agents demonstrated remarkable restraint and professionalism. In Mexico, if you tried to smart-mouth one of their soldiers at a security checkpoint, you would be very lucky to be alive...and if alive, you would likely wish you weren't in short order.

[PostmodernProphet]

They know they're in the wrong, else they wouldn't be letting this guy go - .

why are they "in the wrong"?.....the courts have approved check points years ago for seatbelt inspections and for drunken driving reduction programs......why would it be any different for checking for illegal aliens?......

[Easy90]

When driving into California from AZ on 8 or 10...you come to checkpoints where they are supposedly there to see you don't bring unauthorized "vegetation" into the state. I suppose the libs here think that's "unconstitutional" too... because people are stopped and asked if they have any fruits or vegetables in their cars (clearly anti-gay and anti-lib)...and "where they live." There's clearly no "probable cause" to stop individuals. Go get em libs!

[AlanC]

They know they're in the wrong, else they wouldn't be letting this guy go - he does this over and over at different checkpoints and it's the same every time - they are forced to admit they aren't detaining him, and he's free to go.

They try to sidestep the fact that they are attempting to detain him long enough to answer their questions.

The legality of checkpoints is well established. The only thing that would make them illegal is if they cherry pick who they stop.

Check points for DUI drivers, seat belt usage, commercial trucks and the mentioned transportation of banned fruits and begitables has long been established.

These are people manufacturing incidents for a cause and its obvious that the Border Patrol is remaining courteuous and prefessional inspite of having to deal with idiots like these.

[davo]

The people who made those videos just seem like wankers who are trying to cause trouble. Of course the police and border patrol are allowed to determine if you're in the country legally or not; there's nothing unconstitutional about that. Cops are also allowed to pull people up to check if they have a valid license and registration, are wearing a seatbelt and aren't drunk.

Although it does seem a bit extreme having checkpoints of 12+ agents in the middle of nowhere solely to test if you're an illegal immigrant or not, there's nothing unconstitutional for officers of the law to ask you that question.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think the border patrol should deal with them by routing the rest of the traffic around them and let them sit in the hot sun till they decide they really WANT to roll down their windows and talk.......

"Am I being detained?"....."No, Sir, you are choosing not to leave".......

[PatrickHenry]

Why the issue with the word, "detained?"

[cronic]

I have to admit, these videos increased my respect for the border patrol.....I think I would have ordered a full cavity strip search of these assholes long before the video had ended......

just the opposite for me.. I disrespect them more.

[AlanC]

Because the idiots in the film seem to be equating being detained with being arrested. They are not the same thing.

[PatrickHenry]

Then why did the BP not just say, "Yes we are detaining you until you answer the citizenship question?"

I don't consider the film makers idiots anymore than the BP, by the way.

[Wndrtch]

Oh Gawd!

Give me a break!

I used to go up to Canada and visit a good friend of mine up there, and I was stopped everytime I crossed the boarder, both going and comming back.

They also asked me more questions than just "are you a US citizen?" They wanted to know who I was staying with, how long (or how long was I in Canada) I had visited, and if I was taking any contriban across. They even wanted to know if I purchaed anything.

This guy was just an immature brat looking to cause problems. He should be arrested for obstructing justice.

[AlanC]

Then why did the BP not just say, "Yes we are detaining you until you answer the citizenship question?"

I don't consider the film makers idiots anymore than the BP, by the way.


Watch the second video I believe. They did just that.

[Mia]

Then why did the BP not just say, "Yes we are detaining you until you answer the citizenship question?"



Exactly - that's why I said they know they are in the wrong. Otherwise they'd say exactly that.

BTW, we're not talking about borders to come into the country. We're talking about inside our borders.

One of the things we used to brag about was that we could drive from one corner of this nation to the other without being stopped for 'our papers'.

All these arguments I hear in favor of this makes me sick and scared.

A little bit of liberty lost here and there, always for a 'good reason'.

What's the big deal?

GAH!

[potter]

Personally, if I'm not doing anything wrong and am stopped and interrogated as if I were doing something wrong I get very pissed. This is exactly why I don't fly any more. Just because some people are crooks doesn not mean that you should treat everyone like crooks.

Let's treat all authorities like they are murdering and thieving crooks at every turn and see how they like it.

:fight::fight::fight::fight::fight::fight::fight:: fight::fight::fight::fight::fight:

[Wndrtch]

Personally, if I'm not doing anything wrong and am stopped and interrogated as if I were doing something wrong I get very pissed. This is exactly why I don't fly any more. Just because some people are crooks doesn not mean that you should treat everyone like crooks.

LOL! INTEROGATED!

What are you talking about? They asked ONE question, that I can answer with one word consisting of three letters. How is that treating you like you did something wrong?

Let's treat all authorities like they are murdering and thieving crooks at every turn and see how they like it

Will you please show me on that video, where the cops murdered or stole anything from that brat in the truck?

It's too bad this post doesn't show up on the screen at the 911 dispatchers. Maybe they could chose wheather or not to save you're ungreatful ass.

[potter]

LOL! INTEROGATED!

What are you talking about? They asked ONE question, that I can answer with one word consisting of three letters. How is that treating you like you did something wrong?



Will you please show me on that video, where the cops murdered or stole anything from that brat in the truck?

It's too bad this post doesn't show up on the screen at the 911 dispatchers. Maybe they could chose wheather or not to save you're ungreatful ass.


My point was not to address the video but to convey how I personally feel about being stopped and harassed by the self appointed "authorities" for shit like this.

And speaking about the authorities, since some of them are crooks, why not treat them all as crooks? That is exactly how they treat Mr. and Ms. citizen.

As far as them "saving" my ungrateful ass...how presumptuous. I didn't ask them too and never agreed to pay them to do it in the first place. Let them play hero somewhere else on someones elses dime.

[Mia]

Will you please show me on that video, where the cops murdered or stole anything from that brat in the truck?



I guess you missed the video I posted where the Border Patrol agent stole drugs, lol!

[AlanC]

My point was not to address the video but to convey how I personally feel about being stopped and harassed by the self appointed "authorities" for shit like this.

And speaking about the authorities, since some of them are crooks, why not treat them all as crooks? That is exactly how they treat Mr. and Ms. citizen.

As far as them "saving" my ungrateful ass...how presumptuous. I didn't ask them too and never agreed to pay them to do it in the first place. Let them play hero somewhere else on someones elses dime.

They are not "self appointed authorities". That is a false premise.

They are following the laws as they are currently written and interpreted.

I take it you are not familiar with the concept of represenative government? Those you have elected to represent your interests have agreed to pay them to perform their proscribed duties on your behalf.

Its all in the constitution.

[cronic]

All these arguments I hear in favor of this makes me sick and scared.

I agree

Also, IMO,
Cops and lawyers are always going to be in favor of this unconstitutional crap everytime.. its their bread and butter & thats why it continues to happen and whats scarier is it has lots of room yet to get worse.

The people in the video were already stopped at the border once.
what these BP Agents were doing was totally against the 4th amendment.

I'm sorry,
But what mia says here makes alot of sence to me
One of the things we used to brag about was that we could drive from one corner of this nation to the other without being stopped for 'our papers'.
..

& this to me seems a bit closer to un-necessary strong arming then homeland security.

I'm all for border patrol..ON The Borders

Id be in favor of a Giant wall surrounding the country even.. :thumbsup:

But this behavior is getting to be more and more recognizable activity by our police and govt officials that we the little people..
( the ones not wearing the badge and the gun ), have no choice but to sadly, accept it.

I applaud the ones that stand up for themselves and take a stand.
more power to them..
I guess we can look at it the way they do.

If they can stop us and waste our time.. then we can surely do the same back to them!

[potter]

They are not "self appointed authorities". That is a false premise.

They are following the laws as they are currently written and interpreted.

I take it you are not familiar with the concept of represenative government? Those you have elected to represent your interests have agreed to pay them to perform their proscribed duties on your behalf.

Its all in the constitution.


So some joe shmuck who may be the biggest creep on earth and a thief to boot can stop me and ask me any questions he wants. They don't represent me, they represent the government who stopped representing the people long ago.


The system is set up to benefit the system, not me. :fight::fight::fight:

Fuck the authorities...and their little dog too.

[Wndrtch]

My point was not to address the video but to convey how I personally feel about being stopped for shit like this.

The trick is, you have to throw the roach out, BEFOR you get to the check-point, and leave a little time to spray down with "Ode de Nag-Champa"

And speaking for the authorities, since some of them are crooks, why not treat them all as crooks? That is exactly how they treat Mr. and Ms. citizen.

Maybe it's your "charming personality"?

I've never had a problem with them, and I even released gas seconds before I rolled down the window, once! It was REALY bad, the cop was not amused to say the least! (that was a funny moment!)

[PatrickHenry]

I've never had a problem with them, and I even released gas seconds before I rolled down the window, once! It was REALY bad, the cop was not amused to say the least! (that was a funny moment!)LOL!

Reminds me of the "beer/cop" scene in Dumb and Dumber...

[potter]

The trick is, you have to throw the roach out, BEFOR you get to the check-point, and leave a little time to spray down with "Ode de Nag-Champa"

You probably shouldn't do drugs and drive.



Maybe it's your "charming personality"?

I've never had a problem with them, and I even released gas seconds before I rolled down the window, once! It was REALY bad, the cop was not amused to say the least! (that was a funny moment!)

I've never had a problem with them either. I've never given then any reason to have a problem with me. Which is why I take exception to being treated as if I was a problem. Unless they have concrete reason to believe I've done something (evidence) I expect them to leave me the hell alone and mind their own business.

[Mia]

Often cops will do things they are not entitled to, or should I say are not without your consent or a court order.

However, they will make the request in such a way as to sound like there is no option, and most people will comply, which is totally within the law for them to do.

It's up to the citizen to object if they do not desire to give consent, and to me this is a case that illustrates this perfectly.

They cannot stop and detain you, even long enough to 'just ask a question' without your consent, a court order, or probable cause.

Since they stop every car at these checkpoints, I'm thinking they don't have individual courts orders for them all, or probable cause.

They are operating under the consent 99.9% of the drivers provide.

Bravo to the ones that don't!

[Wndrtch]

You probably shouldn't do drugs and drive.

LOL, PROBABLY?

I've never had a problem with them either. I've never given then any reason to have a problem with me. Which is why I take exception to being treated as if I was a problem. Unless they have concrete reason to believe I've done something (evidence) I expect them to leave me the hell alone and mind their own business.

There are definately some A-hole cops out there, but conversley there are also alot of A-hole Joe-citizens out there, like the moron in the video who just wanted to cause problems instead of answering one simple question. It's not easy to find the "bad-guys" out there, so don't make their jobs any harder by being an ass.

[PatrickHenry]

Soo...

If you come to a complete stop, then drive on without answering their questions or even acknowledging their presence, you have violated no law, is that correct?

Should the BP have the authority to pursue and stop a vehicle that does this?

[Trish]

Wow, they also steal drugs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LcGOMs9OUc&feature=related

"They?" I only see one - so wouldn't it be "he?"

[Wndrtch]

This is why we need to have checkpoints.

"The Millennium Bomber"

At the US-Canadian border, upon noticing that he appeared nervous, US Customs officers inspected him more closely and asked for further identification. Ressam panicked and attempted to flee. Customs officials then found nitroglycerin and four timing devices concealed in a spare tire well of his rented car. He was arrested by customs, and investigated by the FBI. He had shared a room in Canada with Abdelmajid Dahoumane, a suspected terrorist. A suitcase in the room which they lived in tested positive for chemicals used for making bombs

He would have been know as the LAX bomber, if that Customs Agent didn't push him for more info.

They are not "Jack-booted thugs", they are civil servents charged with protecting you and your family. Stop giving them a hard time, and answer the damn questions!

[cronic]

"They?" I only see one - so wouldn't it be "he?"

speaking only on that cop...
didnt they say he stole one 20 lbs block?

haha.. what a dumb ass. hardly worth losing your job and going to jail over.. hell.. 20 lbs ain't shit

he could have been much smarter in his dumbness..
1. shut the camera off
2. steal all of it.. not 1 block
3. don't call off sick and fly to cali.. call off sick and fly to Ohio.
4. :peace:

Half of this post was typed in cheesymuslim format

[potter]

LOL, PROBABLY?


Hey, you're the one who apparently chucks the roach out the car winder.... :evil:


There are definately some A-hole cops out there, but conversley there are also alot of A-hole Joe-citizens out there, like the moron in the video who just wanted to cause problems instead of answering one simple question. It's not easy to find the "bad-guys" out there, so don't make their jobs any harder by being an ass.

I won't be an ass if they leave me alone. I work hard to obey the law and be an honest citizen. I don't know who this guy is when he stops me, he could be a real creep and I have absolutely no reason to trust him or to answer his/her questions. The fact that he works for the government compells me to trust him even less. I don't cause problems for them and I expect them to leave me alone.

[potter]

They are not "Jack-booted thugs", they are civil servents charged with protecting you and your family. Stop giving them a hard time, and answer the damn questions!

Civil servants - "servants" indeed....they are control freaks who like to order people around for shits and giggles.

I see them differently. I see them as people who steal my paycheck.

[Mia]

"They?" I only see one - so wouldn't it be "he?"

Yeah, that was just for funny. I was seeking more of this guy at various checkpoints, and this drug-stealing BCA came up.

[Mia]

This is why we need to have checkpoints.



He would have been know as the LAX bomber, if that Customs Agent didn't push him for more info.

They are not "Jack-booted thugs", they are civil servents charged with protecting you and your family. Stop giving them a hard time, and answer the damn questions!



You are referring to a border between countries; that is not what is being discussed here.

[Mia]

Let me tell you a story about one of the wonderful LE in this country. A friend was stopped for suspicion of drunk driving. Fine. He was given field sobriety tests. Fine. He passed them all. OK. Then the LEO asked for a breathalyser.

I had been sitting quietly in the passenger seat, listening and watching in the side-view mirror.

At this point, I spoke up and said 'DON'T take that'. In AZ, one need not reach a .08 to get a charge. They can charge you for .01 if they want.

My friend tuned his head and did not blow. The LEO came up to my window with a mag flashlight and told me to shut up. I said I won't shut up, I'm giving legal advice and I have a right to do so.

He slammed his mag on the partially rolled-down window and told me to shut up or he'd shut me up. (EXCUSE ME?)

I quickly rolled the window all the way up and called 911. The 'officer' never identified himself to me, despite repeated questioning on my part.

He demanded to have the phone, spoke to the 911 operator, ejected me from the vehicle, and told me to 'be on my way' as they took my friend in their car.

Don't tell me some of those guys aren't complete a-holes, violating the law themselves!

[Muser]

The legality of checkpoints is well established. The only thing that would make them illegal is if they cherry pick who they stop.

Check points for DUI drivers, seat belt usage, commercial trucks and the mentioned transportation of banned fruits and begitables has long been established.

And yet, interestingly enough, the Supreme Court struck down illegal drug checkpoints as unconstitutional.

[Muser]

Let me tell you a story about one of the wonderful LE in this country. A friend was stopped for suspicion of drunk driving. Fine. He was given field sobriety tests. Fine. He passed them all. OK. Then the LEO asked for a breathalyser.

I had been sitting quietly in the passenger seat, listening and watching in the side-view mirror.

At this point, I spoke up and said 'DON'T take that'. In AZ, one need not reach a .08 to get a charge. They can charge you for .01 if they want.

My friend tuned his head and did not blow. The LEO came up to my window with a mag flashlight and told me to shut up. I said I won't shut up, I'm giving legal advice and I have a right to do so.

He slammed his mag on the partially rolled-down window and told me to shut up or he'd shut me up. (EXCUSE ME?)

I quickly rolled the window all the way up and called 911. The 'officer' never identified himself to me, despite repeated questioning on my part.

He demanded to have the phone, spoke to the 911 operator, ejected me from the vehicle, and told me to 'be on my way' as they took my friend in their car.

Don't tell me some of those guys aren't complete a-holes, violating the law themselves!

You go, girl!

Not sure if you (or others) are aware of this site, Mia - interesting information concerning this topic, though the site specifically addresses regular cops (as opposed to border patrol).

Flex Your Rights (http://www.flexyourrights.org/index.php) - check it out.

Good information to have, particularly the "Busted" DVD (excerpts are shown at the site). You seem to know much of it already, so good on ya.

[PostmodernProphet]

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 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html#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 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html#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 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html#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 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html#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 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html#563)-564.
2. Operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant. @ 387 U. S. 564 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/523/case.html)-566.



http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html

[Mia]

Muser, from your site:

5) Determine if You Can Leave
You have the right to terminate an encounter with a police officer unless you are being detained under police custody or have been arrested. The general rule is that you don't have to answer any questions that the police ask you. This rule comes from the Fifth Amendment (http://www.flexyourrights.org/fourth_amendment_history) to the U.S. Constitution, which protects you against self-incrimination. If you cannot tell if you are allowed to leave, say to the officer, "I have to be on my way. Am I free to go?"


If the officer says "Yes," tell him to have a nice day, and leave immediately. If the officer's answer is ambiguous, or if he asks you another unrelated question, persist by asking "am I being detained, or can I go now?" If the officer says "No," you are being detained, and you may be placed under arrest. If this is the case, reassert your rights as outlined above, and follow Rules #6 and #7.



Without doing a complete search of the law, it seems to me that's what this guy in the videos is doing.



The Border Control Agents are not answering him - they are being ambiguous and continue to repeat their request for him to answer questions, which he is not obligated to do unless he is being detained, in which case he can still refuse to answer until his attorney is present.

[4Reaganomics]

And yet, interestingly enough, the Supreme Court struck down illegal drug checkpoints as unconstitutional.

We have a right against these seisures and searches as citizens. This has been upheld over time and will continually be held.

The issue is that we also have an obligation to protect our sovereignty.

Our checkpoints with border patrol our designed to keep illegal aliens out of our country, which in turns keeps them from posing a threat or danger to American citizens. These checkpoints are not designed to incriminate American citizens.

If there were random checkpoints designed to incriminate American citizens I would disagree with it, but if there are random citizenship status checks at the border I am all for this procedure.

Checking citizenship at the border does not incriminate American citizens, it keeps those who are not American citizens where they belong.

[jafar00]

These constitutional rights must be more widely publicised so less people can be brainwashed into actually believing that you need to "give up your freedom for liberty".

[jafar00]

These constitutional rights must be more widely publicised so less people can be brainwashed into actually believing that you need to "give up your freedom for liberty".

[PostmodernProphet]

Muser, from your site:

5) Determine if You Can Leave
You have the right to terminate an encounter with a police officer unless you are being detained under police custody or have been arrested. The general rule is that you don't have to answer any questions that the police ask you. This rule comes from the Fifth Amendment (http://www.flexyourrights.org/fourth_amendment_history) to the U.S. Constitution, which protects you against self-incrimination. If you cannot tell if you are allowed to leave, say to the officer, "I have to be on my way. Am I free to go?"


If the officer says "Yes," tell him to have a nice day, and leave immediately. If the officer's answer is ambiguous, or if he asks you another unrelated question, persist by asking "am I being detained, or can I go now?" If the officer says "No," you are being detained, and you may be placed under arrest. If this is the case, reassert your rights as outlined above, and follow Rules #6 and #7.



Without doing a complete search of the law, it seems to me that's what this guy in the videos is doing.



The Border Control Agents are not answering him - they are being ambiguous and continue to repeat their request for him to answer questions, which he is not obligated to do unless he is being detained, in which case he can still refuse to answer until his attorney is present.

???....this approach presumes that "detained" equals "arrested", which simply isn't true.....

[potter]

???....this approach presumes that "detained" equals "arrested", which simply isn't true.....

If one is being detained I would consider that under arrest as you are being held against your will.

[AlanC]

If one is being detained I would consider that under arrest as you are being held against your will.


When you are stopped and issued a traffic citation, you are detained. When the warrant comes back on you for failure to appear for previous citations, you are taken into custody and it is at that point you become arrested.

When you are witness to a crime and you are needed to be interviewed or make a statement, you are detained. When or if you become a suspect in that crime you may be placed under arrest and taken into custody.

You may be detained while an investigation is ongoing. If, in the course of the investigation, you become a suspect, it is at that point that you have to be read your rights and you become subject to arrest.

Detaining is holding someone at a particular place for an identified purpose. Arrest is where you lose your freedom and and are taken into the custody of the arresting authority.

[cronic]

When you are stopped and issued a traffic citation, you are detained. When the warrant comes back on you for failure to appear for previous citations, you are taken into custody and it is at that point you become arrested.


lol.. ya.. & how about if you drive away while being wrote the citation?

Well Alan?

What you gonna do officer?.. get back in your car and drive to the judges office to ask for a warrant//
or jump in your car and run the bastard down so you can arrest him?
:ponder:

[potter]

But when you are detained, are you not losing your freedom?

What exactly are you "free" to do?

[AlanC]

lol.. ya.. & how about if you drive away while being wrote the citation?

Well Alan?

What you gonna do officer?.. get back in your car and drive to the judges office to ask for a warrant//
or jump in your car and run the bastard down so you can arrest him?
:ponder:

If you do that, you will soon become aquainted with the arrest part of the equation.

Don't believe me? Try it.

[PostmodernProphet]

But when you are detained, are you not losing your freedom?

What exactly are you "free" to do?

the relevant point is that you are to be advised under the 5th Amendment of a right to council if you are arrested.......you do not have a right to council if you are being detained....so, when the guy made a big issue of whether he is being "detained" he was wasting his time....he ought to have been asking if he was under arrest....

[potter]

the relevant point is that you are to be advised under the 5th Amendment of a right to council if you are arrested.......you do not have a right to council if you are being detained....so, when the guy made a big issue of whether he is being "detained" he was wasting his time....he ought to have been asking if he was under arrest....

So if you don't want to answer the officers questions simply because those questions are none of the officers' business (as in "where are you going or coming from") your only option is to face arrest if you don't wish to answer?

[cronic]

If you do that, you will soon become aquainted with the arrest part of the equation.

Don't believe me? Try it.

thank you for your contradictions..
Now again.. paste me your definitions of being detained and being arrested and then tell yourself.. they are still 2 different things..:madlaugh:

[AlanC]

But when you are detained, are you not losing your freedom?

What exactly are you "free" to do?

Yes, you do for a limited period of time. In the course of investigation, an officer has certain rights as well. He or she has every right to ensure you are not armed for example. They can only demand identification if you are driving a vehicle at the time.

For example in Mia's encounter, the officer has the duty and the right to determine the legal status of the driver, ie. do they have a license. If the driver has been doing anything erratic, such as weaving or something else that raises supicion of being under the influence of alcohol, they have the right and duty to make that determination. If they have probable cause to suspect alcohol usage they have the right to test for it.

The driver has the right to not cooperate with any tests, but in most states, refusual to submit to a sobriety test is cause for arrest. Its called an implied consent law. You imply your consent when you apply for and are granted a license.

There are things the cops can demand and there are things they can ask. There are things they must say or do based on conditions and information known.

They shouldn't act the asshole and neither should the citizen. If either do, there are possible ramifications to both.

[AlanC]

thank you for your contradictions..
Now again.. paste me your definitions of being detained and being arrested and then tell yourself.. they are still 2 different things..:madlaugh:

You must have missed it.

Detaining is holding someone at a particular place for an identified purpose. Arrest is where you lose your freedom and and are taken into the custody of the arresting authority.

[cronic]

They shouldn't act the asshole and neither should the citizen. If either do, there are possible ramifications to both.

No offense,, really.. But I have spoken to lawyers on the fact that it is my word against the cop.. and the lawyers tell you every time.. "well.. sorry.. unless you have a witness.. the judge will always take the word of the cop over the citizen in question".. when you don't have the badge and the license to do what ever the fuk you want, like cops can do when it comes to a one on one with a citizen, be it a speeding ticket or a stop sign, or the border patrol inside our borders already.
I have to ask

Tell me what ramifications there is when cops act like assholes?
I can go to court and tell the judge you was arrogant towards me?

If I get lippy tho,
My ramification is a fukin tazer
You all have the right to mis treat us and tazer our asses at will and all you have to say i didn't comply.
or better yet.. I wasn't under arrest but I was being "detained"

[Mia]

There is no practical difference between detained and arrested. If you are being detained, you are not free to go, and in fact are not protected by the law that causes the officer to advise you of your rights (one of which is not to answer his questions!).

Under detainment, the officer is counting on you waiving that right by answering; then he'll decide if he wants to arrest you.

What the man is asking in the videos is entirely correct.

The issue here is unreasonable search and seizure. Without probable cause or a warrant, they have not the legal authority to even stop you, much less answer questions or detain you.

[PostmodernProphet]

So if you don't want to answer the officers questions simply because those questions are none of the officers' business (as in "where are you going or coming from") your only option is to face arrest if you don't wish to answer?

well....if you are refusing to answer the officer's questions, when they are engaged in an activity found lawful by the federal courts and directed toward pursuing the legitimate concerns of the government, then yes, you should be prepared to be arrested for your recalcitrance......

[PostmodernProphet]

Without probable cause or a warrant, they have not the legal authority to even stop you, much less answer questions or detain you.

/boggle.....

[Mia]

PMP, where are you coming from? You're saying LE can stop any one for any reason at any time?

There must be a warrant, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion to stop my vehicle and ask me questions. Or even if If I'm walking down the street.

If I'm in a parking lot behind a business that is closed, the officer may have cause to say 'what are you doing?'

Whether he has enough to detain/arrest me if I say nothing and continue on my way is another story.

I doubt he'd back down once he asked me a question and I didn't answer. I would probably give some type of polite response, but I'd be within my rights to continue away from him unless he detained me.

If he detained me, and I refused to answer and he moved to arrest, and I fought it in court, he would need to show he had cause to believe I was engaged in a crime or about to be.

The reality is he could make something up at that point, and as Cronic pointed out he'd most likely be believed, what I am speaking to is the letter of the law.

[potter]

well....if you are refusing to answer the officer's questions, when they are engaged in an activity found lawful by the federal courts and directed toward pursuing the legitimate concerns of the government, then yes, you should be prepared to be arrested for your recalcitrance......

Theres the rub. The legitimate concerns of the government have little to do with me. They are there to further their agenda and justify their existence, and I can guarendamntee ya their agenda will only cause me problems and cost me money and won't benefit me one bit. It's us against them pup.....

[Mia]

If you do that, you will soon become aquainted with the arrest part of the equation.

Don't believe me? Try it.


Which is our point. There is no practical difference between detained and arrested in that sense.

[Mia]

the relevant point is that you are to be advised under the 5th Amendment of a right to council if you are arrested.......you do not have a right to council if you are being detained....so, when the guy made a big issue of whether he is being "detained" he was wasting his time....he ought to have been asking if he was under arrest....

He is correct in what he is asking.

If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, I am being lawfully detained but not arrested. I do not say to the officer, 'Am I being arrested? If not, I'm going to be on my way'.

I AM being detained, for the purpose of deciding if I shall receive a ticket or an arrest or a warning or a 'have a nice night'. I have given him probable cause by my traffic violation.

This guy is arguing that the detainment at these checkpoints is improper, as the officer has no cause for it. He has committed no violation. Merely driving down this road gives no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that he is committing a crime or is going to, and therefore no reason to detain him. A forced stop and being asked questions is being detained, but not arrested.

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP, where are you coming from? You're saying LE can stop any one for any reason at any time?

There must be a warrant, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion to stop my vehicle and ask me questions. Or even if If I'm walking down the street.

If I'm in a parking lot behind a business that is closed, the officer may have cause to say 'what are you doing?'

Whether he has enough to detain/arrest me if I say nothing and continue on my way is another story.

I doubt he'd back down once he asked me a question and I didn't answer. I would probably give some type of polite response, but I'd be within my rights to continue away from him unless he detained me.

If he detained me, and I refused to answer and he moved to arrest, and I fought it in court, he would need to show he had cause to believe I was engaged in a crime or about to be.

The reality is he could make something up at that point, and as Cronic pointed out he'd most likely be believed, what I am speaking to is the letter of the law.

no Mia....I already quoted the 1976 case where the federal courts said they could do what they were doing in this situation without a warrant.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The legitimate concerns of the government have little to do with me.

whether you acknowledge it or not is irrelevant....the courts have already decided they can do what they did in this case....

[Muser]

A little more information from this guy's website pertaining to the OP:

Border Patrol Roadblock (https://www.checkpointusa.org/DHS/DHSroadblock.htm)
Below you will find links to video (https://www.checkpointusa.org/DHS/video/BPRoadblock.wmv) & photos (https://www.checkpointusa.org/DHS/DHSroadblock.htm#photos) of a Department of Homeland Security suspicionless roadblock setup along Arizona SR86 near mile marker 146. This location is over 40 miles North of the international border and the roadblock took place on April 14, 2005.

It should be noted, I've been documenting all manner of Border Patrol abuse (https://www.checkpointusa.org/DHS/homelandSecurity.htm) in the Southwest for several years. It was with knowledge of this general misconduct, lack of accountability, and unfettered latitude that field agents operate with that I entered the roadblock while attempting to drive home from a remote work site. None of the actions taken by the agents during the encounter quelled my anxiety. Indeed, their actions reinforced my observations that Border Patrol agents operate with little knowledge as to the lawful extent of their authority, a large dose of arrogance, and little more than 'mere suspicion' & racial profiling so far inland from the international border.

A good reference on federal court cases (http://www.roadblock.org/federal/casefed.htm) regarding Border Patrol authority is available on the Roadblock Registry (http://www.roadblock.org/) website. If you're as concerned as I am about civil rights violations of this type being perpetrated against individuals in the name of 'security', feel free to contact the Tucson Sector Border Patrol Headquarters (http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_patrol_sectors/tucson_sector_az/tucson_general.xml) with your concerns. You may want to advise them that the best place to catch illegal border crosser's is on the border - not State Highways well inland that never even come close to the border.

Specific notes regarding the encounter appear below:


All three Border Patrol agents refused to identify themselves. I was forced to read their last names from their name tags with no way to determine the authenticity of the tags.
The stopping agent immediately demanded my citizenship without explaining the purpose of the stop, the scope of the stop, who she was or who she represented.
I responded with a request that the agent identify herself.
After failing to identify herself for a second time, she demanded my citizenship again. I responded by asking her the purpose of the stop. Without answering my question, she demanded that I pull my vehicle to the side of the road to an area where seized vehicles were being loaded onto a tow truck.
I asked several times if I was being detained. The agents responded by telling me I was not being detained but would then refuse to allow me to leave. This is of course a legal contradiction. If an individual is not being detained, the encounter is consensual and can be broken off at any point without repercussions. If an individual is being detained, he/she cannot leave without facing dire consequences. A law enforcement officer is fundamentally responsible for clearly articulating an individual's status. Failing to do so places everyone at risk.
At one point during the encounter, an agent demanded that I roll down my window so she could get a better look at me. She was engaging in racial profiling by trying to determine whether or not to detain me based upon the color of my skin and general appearance.
One of the agents indicated the demand to pull over wasn't based upon 'reasonable suspicion' but rather 'mere suspicion'. He indicated he knew this because he was taught this at the academy. While there are legal definitions for 'probable cause' & 'reasonable suspicion', there's no basis in law to detain an individual based upon 'mere suspicion'.
My right to travel, my right to privacy, my right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures were violated not because these federal agents had 'probable cause' or even 'reasonable suspicion' but rather because they were merely suspicious. Suspicion brought about for having the audacity to request to know who had stopped me and why.
Near time marker 3:38 in the video below, one of the agents attempted to break into my vehicle on at least two occasions. She can be heard ordering me to unlock the door while lifting up on the door handle. This violation was premised on agents who refused to identify themselves or the purpose of the stop, admitted I wasn't being detained, and who had clearly indicated they lacked 'reasonable suspicion'.
Towards the end of the clip, one of the agents indicated I was free to go after communicating with someone on her radio. She then told me they had recorded my license plate number and said, "We'll find out who you are".

[Osborn F. Enready]

This says it all....

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same [...] They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section [...] they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
-The US Code, Title 18, §241, "Conspiracy against rights"

If the man is a citizen, he has a right to travel.

If the police or any federal agents stop him without just cause, they are impeding and or suspending his right to travel.

[potter]

This says it all....



If the man is a citizen, he has a right to travel.

If the police or any federal agents stop him without just cause, they are impeding and or suspending his right to travel.


:clapper::fight::clapper:

[Osborn F. Enready]

This is why it is IMPERATIVE to keep secure borders.

[Katrolis]

any vet like me knows our infastructure is wide open. I was trained to kill humans, and disrupt enemy activity, like other vets. Our boarders are wide open... how many insurgents are already in our country by now? Yet we stoop to checking papers of vets like me to make sure I'm not a threat? wtf?

I dont need troops or cops to give me security. Luckily I have the skill and weapons in my home to take care of myself... and any cop that comes to my house will get a cup of coffee and a booya... cause I got nothing to hide, and game recognize game.

I respect anybody thats in the trade... just dont tread on me

[cronic]

a cup of coffee and a booya...

Whats a booya?
Im not interested in googling it.. id rather have your definition
:)

[Osborn F. Enready]

Katrolis said:
and any cop that comes to my house will get a cup of coffee and a booya

Really?

How about these cops?

Sherwood Policeman arrested in prostitution sting:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/12/sherwood_policeman_arrested_in.html

Officer Herrera Goes Public
Indicted cop Keith Herrera speaks for the first time publicly about his former unit, the SOS, members of which are accused of crimes including armed robbery and kidnapping, in one of the largest police scandals in Chicago history.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
the video confession....
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4143148n

Lon Horiuchi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi

Sorry Katrolis.... there are many bad cops, many bad politicians, and many bad military members, and I don't equate them as equal to the honorable ones, simply for their service or their lying in oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic.

Are you really blinded by label loyalty to that point?

[PostmodernProphet]

Whats a booya?
Im not interested in googling it.. id rather have your definition
:)

isn't that what the Marines shouted at each other in Jarheads?.....

[cronic]

isn't that what the Marines shouted at each other in Jarheads?.....

I watched that.. hmmm.. now imma have to watch it again to see ..haha

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
isn't that what the Marines shouted at each other in Jarheads?.....

I haven't seen the film, but all the real Jarheads I know say "OOOo RAH!"

Booya is a term often used by Kramer on "Mad Money".

[Mia]

I thoughts it's HU-rah. I was told it come from H.A.U. (heard and understood).

Somebody end the mystery, though, I want to know how to say it right ;-)

[Mark L Hamburger]

There are three different types of police stops. The first is a "Terry" stop, all that is required is a suspicion. During a Terry stop you have complete rights, and the officer has very little. You are free to go at any time.

The second type is a detention. A detention occurs when a police officer stops someone because they have a reasonable articulable, or definable, suspicion that a crime has occurred. You can't leave when you're detained, but the detention must be of a short duration and is limited in its scope. A typical detention occurs where someone is stopped for a traffic violation. The officer may ask a few questions to identify the person and his passengers and can hold them there to find out if there really is a violation, but he can't stop someone as an excuse to search the car or the people inside. The officer may only hold you for a "reasonable" amount of time before either charging you and arresting, or releasing you. The "reasonable" amount of time varies, it is generally considered 30 minutes, but can be as high as 90 minutes.

The third type is the actual arrest. This requires probable cause that a crime has been committed. A detention can quickly escalate to an arrest without you even knowing it. If a person is not allowed to leave the scene for an extended period of time, the person may be considered to be "under arrest," even though the "magic" words are never used. If a person is handcuffed, is locked in the back of a police car, or is otherwise kept from leaving (seated on the curb while handcuffed, or surrounded by police), the person will ordinarily be considered to be "under arrest."

As soon as you are told you are not being detained, you are legally free to leave. One note, though, this does NOT apply to ports of entry, i.e. border crossings.

There's a great book on the subject called "You and the Police!" by Boston T. Party:
http://www.javelinpress.com/you_and_the_police.html

SO... as far as I'm concerned, these guys are doing what all good Americans should do, questioning authority. They are in the right, if you don't stand up for your rights, you will lose them all.

[Osborn F. Enready]

As usual, great post and I 100% agree Mr. Hamburger.

[Elrathin]

SO... as far as I'm concerned, these guys are doing what all good Americans should do, questioning authority. They are in the right, if you don't stand up for your rights, you will lose them all.

Yes, it is the person's right in the car to be an asshole. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you should. But by all means these people have the right to act like assholes.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Its not about being an asshole El, its about demanding COMPETENT police officers.

Did you hear the sorry job those police did of addressing the completely valid requests of the driver? They weren't even prepared to know the specific laws covering what they were doing out there that day in regards to the public stops.

I have the utmost respect for police and military personnel who understand their role in knowing the law, and explaining it when necessary as they are enforcing it. This also entails knowing the rights you are being asked to violate, if you are being asked to enforce laws that directly infringe on individual rights.

How can a people be self-governing if they don't even understand how laws infringe on rights, or don't?

I would be willing to bet if these police personnel had been courteous, and informative on the questions asked by the driver, he would have acted more courteous in return. I see it pretty much as he gave what he got.

[Elrathin]

Well we are going to disagree on this one Os, I see the driver was copping an attitude right from the start. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to be an asshole, they do, but I think the driver could have also been more courteous.

[Osborn F. Enready]

And you don't think the officer was copping an attitude right from the start?

[Elrathin]

And you don't think the officer was copping an attitude right from the start?

No I think the officer was giving a pre-done speech that is done for every car. Kind of like the greeting you get at a fast food restaurant in the drive- through. I don't equate that as copping an attitude.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
No I think the officer was giving a pre-done speech that is done for every car. Kind of like the greeting you get at a fast food restaurant in the drive- through. I don't equate that as copping an attitude.

Ok then, I suppose we can agree to disagree on this one. ;)

[AlanC]

And you don't think the officer was copping an attitude right from the start?

I don't see that in any way. I especially don't see it in the second video.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well, I guess we disagree on this issue also then Alan.

[AlanC]

Probably so, of course I may be biased as I live in the same area and have driven through some of these checkpoints often.

I have never been required to answer a question yet. They look in the car as I pull up and then just wave me through.

Once at a DUI checkpoint, I was asked if I had been drinking. I said no, and was immediately and courtesly waved through.

You do realize that we have the courts and political correctness to thank for these things don't you. They used to profile cars for drug stops on the I-70 corridor as an example until "profiling" became such a nasty word.

Then the courts ruled that you could not use judgment in who to stop based on your experience and knowledge in the field for any reason, DUI, illegals etc. But stopping every car, was deemed okay, since it doesn't discriminate.

Its kind of like strip searching a 90 year old grand mother at the airport just to prove you aren't doing any profiling of passengers. Our legal system has declared that not only must justice be blind, but our law enforcement officers must be as well.

These decisions amounted to saying you cannot have probable cause or suspicion to stop a car. Its insane.

[Elrathin]

These decisions amounted to saying you cannot have probable cause or suspicion to stop a car. Its insane.

Yeah probable cause, like some conservatives liked. For ecxample such great police work such as "Hey he's a black guy, let's pull him over". You mean like that probable cause there Alan?

[Elrathin]

I'm sure some people would just love to see a "Arab Looking Checkpoint" at an airport. That way if you look white you can just pass right on through and let those Arabs have to wait in line.

[AlanC]

Yeah probable cause, like some conservatives liked. For ecxample such great police work such as "Hey he's a black guy, let's pull him over". You mean like that probable cause there Alan?

Well that was certainly and unsupported leap into the unknown. I don't see where I said anything of the sort. But, since you want to discuss it, yes, sometimes race can be PART of what forms probable suspicision.

For example, if the there is a bank robbery by two white guys who left the scene in a red car, I would be a pretty dumb cop to pull over a blue car with 2 balck guys in it just to prove to someone that I wasn't making the stop based on a racial profile.

On the other hand if I saw a red car with two white occupants, you bet your life I would make the stop and determine if they were THE white guys in question.

Sometimes, racial profiling is just good police work. Can it be abused? Of course it can. But how about this, instead of handcuffing all cops, why not just fire the idiots? It would make a lot better sense.

What we now have is a system that, for the most part, does nothing to bad cops and only protects the rights of the guilty while it screws to death the rights of the innocent with no recourse for them

[Elrathin]

For example, if the there is a bank robbery by two white guys who left the scene in a red car, I would be a pretty dumb cop to pull over a blue car with 2 balck guys in it just to prove to someone that I wasn't making the stop based on a racial profile.

Sorry but what you described is NOT racial profiling. Racial profiling using your example would be a bank just got rob, so the police pull over the first car that has black people in it. THAT is racial profiling and that is what used to happen ALOT.

[AlanC]

Sorry but what you described is NOT racial profiling. Racial profiling using your example would be a bank just got rob, so the police pull over the first car that has black people in it. THAT is racial profiling and that is what used to happen ALOT.


Stopping a person because the fit the racial profile of someone you are legimately looking for is racial profiling. It is also sound police work.

Stopping anyone just because they are a certain race, is not profiling. It is racial bigotry and it should be crushed anywhere it is practised.

But we have effectively thrown out the baby with the bath water and the tub that held them both in many cases today.

The vast majority of cops are people doing the best they can to do a job with what they have that they consider vital for their communities well being and for their own families. No matter what your feelings, this is still true.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Stopping a person because the fit the racial profile of someone you are legimately looking for is racial profiling. It is also sound police work.

Stopping anyone just because they are a certain race, is not profiling. It is racial bigotry and it should be crushed anywhere it is practised.


You're a little backwards on this one. Racial profiling is:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racial%20profiling
S: (n) racial profiling (a form of racism consisting of the (alleged) policy of policemen who stop and search vehicles driven by persons belonging to particular racial groups)

What you're describing is NOT racial profiling. In fact, if the officer has a description of the suspects and/or vehicle, there is no "profiling" involved. They are just watching for the suspects that fit the description.

[AlanC]

You're a little backwards on this one. Racial profiling is:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racial%20profiling


What you're describing is NOT racial profiling. In fact, if the officer has a description of the suspects and/or vehicle, there is no "profiling" involved. They are just watching for the suspects that fit the description.

Welcome to the world of invented PC definitions. I love it when the PC world tries to come up with a spiffy new definition of something that was already well defined.

Harrasing people because of the color of their skin is racist bigotry. Slapping a new name on it is just stupid. Call it what it is.

Stopping a suspect because the fit a suspect "profile" is just that. That is why the FBI has profilers. The people who try to define and narrow the range of suspects that are being looked for. You can parse the words all you want, but that is all you are doing.

Race is and can be a legitimate part of a profile that is built to aid in the location of suspects.

Its the same as our lovely term "hate crime". If I hate you because you wear plaid shirts and subsequently beat the hell out of you, its just an assault. But if I hate you because you are black and subsequently beat the hell out of you, it is now a hate crime. But the PC crowd just wasn't happy only being able to charge someone with a crime. They needed a something to make a crime more than a crime if its committed against a certain individual. Hate is hate and to label one form of hate as somehow more pernicious than another form of indiscriminate hate is rediculous.

Words are supposed to have meaning, but the meanings of words has become so distorted that its almost a different language these days.

[Elrathin]

Stopping a suspect because the fit a suspect "profile" is just that. That is why the FBI has profilers. The people who try to define and narrow the range of suspects that are being looked for. You can parse the words all you want, but that is all you are doing.

So let me get this straight, you see no difference in a police officer saying "We have witness that said the suspect is a black male possibly in his 20s", VERSUS Let's stop all Arab looking people at the airport and all latino looking people at the border? Come on Alan.

The first example is NOT racial profiling, the second and third examples ARE.

If you want to disregard the definition, that is your prerogative, however, you have been shown incorrect in the term of what you have said racial profiling is.

[AlanC]

So let me get this straight, you see no difference in a police officer saying "We have witness that said the suspect is a black male possibly in his 20s", VERSUS Let's stop all Arab looking people at the airport and all latino looking people at the border? Come on Alan.

The first example is NOT racial profiling, the second and third examples ARE.

If you want to disregard the definition, that is your prerogative, however, you have been shown incorrect in the term of what you have said racial profiling is.


Aha, I see. You are attempting to use a political definition and make it a literal one. You have proved nothing of what I said to be wrong.

The term profile has many definitions:

Main Entry: 1pro·file
Pronunciation: ˈprō-ˌfī(-ə)l
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian profilo, from profilare to draw in outline, from pro- forward (from Latin) + filare to spin, from Late Latin — more at file
Date: 1645
1: a representation of something in outline; especially : a human head or face represented or seen in a side view
2: an outline seen or represented in sharp relief : contour
3: a side or sectional elevation: as a: a drawing showing a vertical section of the ground b: a vertical section of a soil from the ground surface to the underlying unweathered material
4: a set of data often in graphic form portraying the significant features of something <a corporation's earnings profile>; especially : a graph representing the extent to which an individual exhibits traits or abilities as determined by tests or ratings
5: a concise biographical sketch
6: degree or level of public exposure <trying to keep a low profile> <a job with a high profile>

You will note number 4. A set of data ... portraying the significant features of something...

The description of a suspect is a profile. A white male, 6-2, 200 lbs, wearing dark clothing in a black or dark blue Ford.

This is a set of data about a suspect. That data set, or that profile is given to officers to assist them in the location of that suspect.

Does matching the profile mean you have found the suspect? Of course not. It requires contact and further investigation. But it ensures that the officers are looking at the right people and not wasting time with someone who is clearly not the suspect. In as much as race is part of the profile, it involves a degree of racial profiling.

Knowing that terrorists who are hijacking aircraft have all been male, of middle eastern decent, with little or no luggage, paying cash for their tickets and apparently traveling alone..along with other information can become a terrorist profile.

Does that mean you don't look at anyone else? No. But does that mean you should pay attention to anyone who fits that profile? Of course you should.

Now how smart would it be to let someone who fit that profile walk on a plane with no additional verification, and instead search a 70 year old grandma from Cedar Rapids? Yet, in our PC world, that is exactly what is taking place at a number of airports. You may applaud it, I think its idiocy.

I will say it again, since you seem to be missing it entirely, stopping, harrasing, questioning or investigationg people based solely on the color of their skin is both stupid and illegal. It needs to be eleiminated from any place where it exists. It is racial bigotry and it is pernicious. So pease stop implying that I approve of it. I don't.

I just prefer to discuss with precise terms, not political jingoism.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alan said:
These decisions amounted to saying you cannot have probable cause or suspicion to stop a car. Its insane.

Almost as insane as the drug laws which made profiling such an issue.