Looks like his papers weren't in order, so they had to face plant him on the asphalt. Could've had a Bible on the front seat too.
Posted on 04/18/2009 8:37:39 AM PDT by kellynla
An Arizona pastor – Tasered, bloodied by broken glass and sporting 11 stitches in his head – claims his injuries came from being stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint 75 miles inside the U.S. and then being battered by police for refusing to allow agents to search his vehicle.
The incident earlier this week highlights tension between constitutional rights, the issue of border security and a controversial Supreme Court ruling that grants an exceptional level of police authority near the Mexican border.
Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe claims he did nothing to deserve his eventual arrest and believes that when he refused to allow the search of his car he was simply standing up for his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect him against unreasonable search without a warrant.
Anderson further questions why the Border Patrol is allowed to stop and search cars at a checkpoint along Interstate 8, 75 miles inland of where the highway nears the Mexican border at Yuma, Ariz.
"I was in the United States! I had crossed no international border!" writes Anderson in commentary accompanying a video he made about his experience.
"I didn't have any drugs; I didn't have a human beings in my car," he claims in the video itself. "Why is this happening in the United States of America?"
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
“Only a jurist could justify that exception. It’s a violation of the 4th amendment no matter how you look at.”
‘fraid not...check my earlier post on the law.
Looks like his papers weren't in order, so they had to face plant him on the asphalt. Could've had a Bible on the front seat too.
They had the vehicle and the pastor detained. There is no excuse NOT to go to the local magistrate and get a search warrant.
Not even a Baptist Preacher deserves that kind of treatmenat at the hands of law enforcement.
They do it all the time when it comes to the border. For example, there was the instance a couple of years ago where the wife of a US serviceman killed in Iraq was deported because she was no longer married to an American citizen. They have millions of illegal aliens they could deport, but they singled out the one that even a conservative would have trouble with, and did so purely to weaken support for the anti-illegal immigrant movement.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that it's permissible to murder unborn children. Everything the SCOTUS "rules" is OK with you? How far inland should Soviet-style checkpoints be allowed? You, too, might be targeted if you "spoke out" against government policies. Would that be OK as long as nine lawyers in robes said so? What happens when the SCOTUS ends up with six statists? Te place to stop illegal immigration is at the border. Unfortunately, there is NO control there, also, curiously, at the behest of the same government which has no problem seizing searching US citizens 75 miles inland. This stinks.
I agree. If this is the law; how the devil did we get all these illegals in this country? I would say there was quite a bit of non searching not going on.
If the dog alerted and they didn't find any drugs, they need to get rid of the dog.
“They had the vehicle and the pastor detained. There is no excuse NOT to go to the local magistrate and get a search warrant.”
True. But they have this “exception” to fall back on, to save the bother
Those exceptions don’t mean much when there is in reality no probable cause.
Of course not but the BP was doing what it was authorized to do. And, unlike aobrtion, for good reason. Without the checkpoints the border is wide open. If you want open borders go for it but most Americans do not.
The idea that these are Soviet-tyle checkpoints or that it has something to do with speaking out about public policy is childish.
He was in a rental car, and the dog allegedly detected traces of drugs. Probably previous users of the vehicle had dope in there.
I was employing reducto absurdum, to make a point. Sorry if I didn’t make that more clear. That said, there IS such a thing as “the slippery slope”. You might be sanguine about totalitarian governmental rulings and practices now, but in the future you (or your children) might well be singing another tune.
I’ve heard that some states have, as a requirement for getting a driver’s license in that state, the right to search your car.
You actually sign the right away when you sign your driver’s license.
Some “smells” don’t go away..even when you remove the source of the smell.
I suggest everyone go check out some of this Pastor’s other videos. I especially found the one about “p...ing on the wall” enlightening.
Some times irrational behavior can lead to an unfortunate climatic end...this “Pastor” needs to grow up...he has four little kids that need “a grown-up” for a father.
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (by which the US acquired the Southwest from Mexico in 1848) permits unfettered travel by citizens of both countries across the border for distance of a few score miles. So, “border” inspections may occur beyond that distance. (IIRC).
It made sense in the days of the Old West; now things are a little different. I don’t know if the treaty has since been amended (with Mexico’s permission?) or not.
The problem right now is an invasion of illegals which threatens the country’s future.
The Pastor falls into the category of provocateur, whether deliberately or through ignorance is unknown.
The choice is clear, remove the checkpoints and the border is open for all practical purposes or maintain them, and even expand them, to help secure the borders and keep national sovereignty.
Seems to me that the very use of the dog constitutes a search. If it IS, where was the probable cause ? I’d be inclined to try that argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.