US Customs does "advance security"...

[rottydaddy]

... by interrogating pax after their flight. A domestic flight.

What? Really?

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/09/filght_home.php

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

As far as the law goes, that's what is called a "consensual encounter," and he could have just walked away.

Is it fair? I don't know, but you can't really keep someone from voluntarily talking to the police.

 

[Florida Cracker]

If no one makes it stop, it will become the new normal.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

If no one makes it stop, it will become the new normal.

It has been for years.

The police ask, "would you mind talking to me," and if you start talking, that's your own choice - you can't say that they didn't ask you for your consent or that they didn't give you a choice.

The solution? Say, "yeah, I would mind."

 

[wsuffa]

As far as the law goes, that's what is called a "consensual encounter," and he could have just walked away.

Is it fair? I don't know, but you can't really keep someone from voluntarily talking to the police.

But this was supposedly US Customs & Border Patrol. IIRC, there's an exemption that allows them to stop people & vehicles and question folks to establish, at the minimum, their citizenship. That exemption applies within a certain distance of the border, which has been defined as a port of entry. Terminal 4 at DFW is the international arrivals terminal, making (at least part of it) "the border" for CBP purposes.

It's that exemption that allows them to set up checkpoints on highways within the US, such as the one on I5 between San Diego and LA.

IANAL, so I defer to your judgement, but I suspect that said exemption makes it highly likely that failure to "cooperate" would lead to a much more intrusive interrogation & possible search. FWIW, a google-foo search turned up this document put out by the ACLU.

 

[rottydaddy]

It has been for years.

The police ask, "would you mind talking to me," and if you start talking, that's your own choice - you can't say that they didn't ask you for your consent or that they didn't give you a choice.

The solution? Say, "yeah, I would mind."

It would seem that it is not considered voluntary, at least in the case described in the article. I'm not sure I would walk away any more than I'd drive off from a road checkpoint, but I'd sure as hell ask why I'm being stopped. And that is all I would say. Show ID? sure, why not. But that's it without a lawyer. Much as I respect LEOs as a group, some of them need to be reminded, occasionally, who they work for.

There must be reasonable suspicion, IMHO- simply casting a dragnet to see what you might get because, after all, "everybody's guilty of something" kinda clashes with this idea that it's all being done in the name of Liberty. Or is that "unAmerican" thinking now?

 

[DaleB]

Call me uncooperative, call me a curmudgeon, I don't know. I support legitimate law enforcement goals as much as anyone in the country. BUT...

That said, I am less and less inclined to put up with these stupid games we sometimes see used to justify overgrown bureaucracies trying to assume absolute power. If you're going to stop me and ask questions, you'd bloody well better have a reason, or at the very least the actual authority to do so. If not you will get as close to zero cooperation from me as legally possible. I have done nothing, and continue to do nothing, to give anyone probable cause to suspect me of any crime. So, want to know where I've been and for what reason? Tough. None of your business. Officer Friendly wants to search my vehicle? Great. Get a warrant, if you think you can. Want to see my ID papers? It's not Russia, pal. If I'm required to show 'em, you can see 'em. If not, you'll just have to take my word for it, I guess.

I try not to cop an attitude, but some days it takes more effort than others. And some days it just doesn't matter, because they know they don't have a legitimate reason to ask.

 

[BillTIZ]

Interesting, you already asked, business or pleasure and I answered business, so now ask me what I was doing and I would have said "business" again. It matters not what my professsion is, and if you keep asking, I'll take your name and badge number and report you to my government security manager.

And I get to go because I answered in a "normal tone" YGTBSM!

 

[Henning]

Yeah, they've been doing it for a while. They hit me up every now and again. Sometimes they bump me to the front or to crew since I have a CBP clearance ID number..

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

But this was supposedly US Customs & Border Patrol. IIRC, there's an exemption that allows them to stop people & vehicles and question folks to establish, at the minimum, their citizenship. That exemption applies within a certain distance of the border, which has been defined as a port of entry. Terminal 4 at DFW is the international arrivals terminal, making (at least part of it) "the border" for CBP purposes.

It's that exemption that allows them to set up checkpoints on highways within the US, such as the one on I5 between San Diego and LA.

IANAL, so I defer to your judgement, but I suspect that said exemption makes it highly likely that failure to "cooperate" would lead to a much more intrusive interrogation & possible search. FWIW, a google-foo search turned up this document put out by the ACLU.

What they're allowed to do is set up checkpoints. I've forgotten the numbers involved, but I think they're allowed to be up to something like 300 miles away from the border.

Here, though, we're not looking at a checkpoint. It's a small distinction, but it's one that I think is worth making.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

It would seem that it is not considered voluntary, at least in the case described in the article. I'm not sure I would walk away any more than I'd drive off from a road checkpoint, but I'd sure as hell ask why I'm being stopped. And that is all I would say. Show ID? sure, why not. But that's it without a lawyer. Much as I respect LEOs as a group, some of them need to be reminded, occasionally, who they work for.

And that's *why* this works. There just aren't many people that will drive around a checkpoint, or say "no, I'm not going to talk to you."

If I had to guess, it's mostly from either: 1) a lack of knowledge; 2) a lack of sureness that what someone like me has told you is actually correct; and 3) a very justified concern of, even if what I've told you is correct, whether that will matter on the side of some dark road.

There must be reasonable suspicion, IMHO- simply casting a dragnet to see what you might get because, after all, "everybody's guilty of something" kinda clashes with this idea that it's all being done in the name of Liberty. Or is that "unAmerican" thinking now?

I see where you're coming from. I really do, and to a large extent I agree (at least with the principle).

But, at the same time, if you're given the choice to answer some questions, and you agree to, why shouldn't you have the opportunity to do so? Alternatively, should reasonable suspicion be required to get witness statements?

What I'd like to see change is the education given about your rights vis-a-vis the government. But don't expect that to be done in a public school, unless you've got something of a rogue teacher.

 

[Henning]

When I lived in CA there was a time I drove through the checkpoint every day. I could have been an illegal Soviet agent, they wouldn't have caught me, I never had to stop.

 

[wsuffa]

What they're allowed to do is set up checkpoints. I've forgotten the numbers involved, but I think they're allowed to be up to something like 300 miles away from the border.

Here, though, we're not looking at a checkpoint. It's a small distinction, but it's one that I think is worth making.

Why would this not be a checkpoint? Clearly more than one person was being stopped and questioned.

I do not believe a checkpoint need be a fixed location.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Why would this not be a checkpoint? Clearly more than one person was being stopped and questioned.

I do not believe a checkpoint need be a fixed location.

They don't need to be fixed, but everybody has to go through them.

For instance, a roadblock near a prison after an escape, where everyone driving down that road has to show ID. As compared to a lone deputy sitting behind a billboard, pulling over cars of a certain description.

I'd say what we're looking at here is more akin to the latter than the former.

 

[wsuffa]

They don't need to be fixed, but everybody has to go through them.

For instance, a roadblock near a prison after an escape, where everyone driving down that road has to show ID. As compared to a lone deputy sitting behind a billboard, pulling over cars of a certain description.

I'd say what we're looking at here is more akin to the latter than the former.

DOn't have enough info to really tell, but I read the article to say that folks were "randomly" being pulled aside. Just like the TSA does inside the "secure" area.

From a legal sense, can a "checkpoint" be used on "randomly" selected people? Or is it required to be some method (like every third car/passenger)?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

DOn't have enough info to really tell, but I read the article to say that folks were "randomly" being pulled aside. Just like the TSA does inside the "secure" area.

From a legal sense, can a "checkpoint" be used on "randomly" selected people? Or is it required to be some method (like every third car/passenger)?

You could have a traditional checkpoint based on something like "stop every third car that is on 10th Street between North and South Streets."

I think that what we've got in the blog post is somewhat more "targeted" than that.

Again, this all something of an academic issue, as the author was asked to cooperate and consented to do so.

 

[Palmpilot]

Again, this all something of an academic issue, as the author was asked to cooperate and consented to do so.

What's not academic is this question: If one of us faces the same situation as the article, are WE required to cooperate, and to what extent?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

What's not academic is this question: If one of us faces the same situation as the article, are WE required to cooperate, and to what extent?

Here's the *real* bottom line: you are always required to cooperate, regardless of whether the police are right or wrong.

Even if the police are dead wrong, and you know that they are dead wrong (hint: you never really know at the time), you are required to cooperate.

Do I like that? Not really. But, that's what the law is - you have to cooperate.* What we've said, as a society, is that we'd rather have these things sorted out in a courtroom, rather than on the side of the road.

Now, in an idea world, if you tell a cop "no, I don't want to talk to you," then he/she is going to say "OK," unless there is some kind of RS or PC to detain you. In the real world, though, we never truly know what will happen; you also never know either: 1) if I'm actually right; 2) if a police officer will know that I'm right; 3) if a judge will agree that I'm actually right; or 3) if your case will be the appellate case that completely changes things, either for or against your benefit.

So, my advice: assert your rights. But don't resist unless you're willing to assume the risks that come with it.

* There are certain exceptions to this. For purposes of posting on a public forum, though, I'm going to tell you that there is always a duty to peacefully cooperate.

 

[denverpilot]

When refusing to cooperate becomes "suspicious behavior" that's when the have a reason to detain you. So there you have it.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's the *real* bottom line: you are always required to cooperate, regardless of whether the police are right or wrong.

Even if the police are dead wrong, and you know that they are dead wrong (hint: you never really know at the time), you are required to cooperate.

Do I like that? Not really. But, that's what the law is - you have to cooperate.* What we've said, as a society, is that we'd rather have these things sorted out in a courtroom, rather than on the side of the road.

Now, in an idea world, if you tell a cop "no, I don't want to talk to you," then he/she is going to say "OK," unless there is some kind of RS or PC to detain you. In the real world, though, we never truly know what will happen; you also never know either: 1) if I'm actually right; 2) if a police officer will know that I'm right; 3) if a judge will agree that I'm actually right; or 3) if your case will be the appellate case that completely changes things, either for or against your benefit.

So, my advice: assert your rights. But don't resist unless you're willing to assume the risks that come with it.

* There are certain exceptions to this. For purposes of posting on a public forum, though, I'm going to tell you that there is always a duty to peacefully cooperate.

Is the answer the same for the situation described in the article, i.e. a Customs officer who was interviewing passengers getting off of a domestic flight?

I'm not talking about physically resisting - that would be stupid. I'm talking about whether we are required to answer their questions.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

When refusing to cooperate becomes "suspicious behavior" that's when the have a reason to detain you. So there you have it.

There is a great deal of law saying that refusing to cooperate, by itself, is never enough to create any kind of cause.

The legalese is something along the lines of the following: "exercise of your constitutional rights cannot be used against you."

Even something along the lines of "if you don't cooperate, I'm going to arrest you" is deemed coercive and thus verboten.

But, that's theory. In the real world, you're not free to resist even if you're in the right. That gets sorted out later in court.

Is it BS? Sure. But in choosing between a skullthumping and having my pride wounded, I know which one I'd pick.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Is the answer the same for the situation described in the article, i.e. a Customs officer who was interviewing passengers getting off of a domestic flight?

It all depends on how much hassle you're willing to go through in the name of principles.

 

[Palmpilot]

It all depends on how much hassle you're willing to go through in the name of principles.

True. Personally, away from Internet forums I'm pretty much of a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy. I'm just trying to figure out whether to b*tch about it.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

True. Personally, away from Internet forums I'm pretty much of a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy. I'm just trying to figure out whether to b*tch about it.

I understand.

I could prattle on for days about this issue. On the one hand, I really dislike the idea of the police taking advantage of people's ignorance of their rights (e.g., not knowing they can say "no"). On the other hand, a voluntary action is a voluntary action.

Bottom line: education and knowledge are never bad things.

 

[bigred177]

When refusing to cooperate becomes "suspicious behavior" that's when the have a reason to detain you. So there you have it.

I see them saying some along the line of "If you have nothing to hide..." BS

 

[rottydaddy]

Alternatively, should reasonable suspicion be required to get witness statements?

Yes, if the suspicion is that you had witnessed something.
And I suppose if a citizen doesn't want to offer a statement, they can just say "I didn't see anything" and move on.