AZ US Border Patrol Stops Man, Who is in the Right? YOUR Call!

Quote:
I think if every citizen who passed thru these idotic random checkpoints, did exactly what the pastor did, we would find them gone from our public hiways in short order, and no longer a nuissance to US citizens living in border states.



I've been through the New Mexico check station the pastor went through his provocation at. It's not very close to the border but it's a permanent check point and not a random one. I'm not sure of the mileage from the border but I remember driving quite a ways before I came to it. There is probably a reason why it's located where it is .

I'm not sure that doing away with random check stations is a viable idea unless open borders are your goal. A quick stop and check isn't much of a inconvenience , not really any more than stopping to pay a toll. It is quite obvious to me that not all foreign invaders and drug dealers cross the border at the regular check stations.
 

Border Patrol checkpoints near Yuma nab hordes of pot users headed back from the beach
By Ray Stern
published: March 13, 2008

The small sedan slowed as it approached the U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint on a deserted section of Interstate 8 east of Yuma. The car contained three middle-age women on their way back to the Valley after a planning retreat in San Diego.

Thr past three days had been idyllic and productive as the women lounged on the beach, making art and chatting over ideas for the future of their ceramics business.

The self-described hippies had taken marijuana to the beach and were returning with some of it in the car. One of them, Mary (like others quoted in this article, she agreed to talk about her experience only if New Times used a pseudonym) was unapologetic.

"I would never quit. I like my life, you know?" the 56-year-old says later of her pot use. "None of us drink. We're leftover people from the '60s and '70s."

Mary, the oldest of the group, was driving. She didn't sweat the traffic stop as her car rolled up. She'd been through this same movable checkpoint along the stretch of I-8 East before and had never had a problem.

This time, something was different. She noticed that the checkpoint seemed better staffed than usual. One green-shirted agent manned a small, white booth while others milled about near tents, office-trailers, and patrol cars. Another agent walked a dog, which held its snout high as it sniffed along a line of slowing vehicles.

As Mary's sedan neared, the dog tensed as if it had seen a rabbit, straining at its leash and jerking its human handler forward. Mary was told to park her car under a large canopy to the right of the road. An agent walked up to the driver's-side window and asked her if she would consent to a search of the vehicle.

"This was pretty intimidating," she recalls. "They had guns and were wearing fatigues. We're three little ladies from Phoenix who are calm, peaceful people."

The women were asked to step out and stand a few feet away as the dog trounced through the car.

A moment later, one of the agents confronted the group.

"Well, you obviously don't have any illegal immigrants in the car," he said. "My dog signaled for marijuana. Does anyone want to say anything?"

The women said nothing, but the agents soon found about a half-ounce of pot and a small wooden pipe. The women were made to sit in a holding cell in one of the Border Patrol trailers.

"I was, like, 'Come on. I'm a grandma,'" says Mary. But the agents showed no reaction to her plea. Mary took the blame for the pot and paraphernalia because she says it was "critical" that her business partners have no arrest record.

An agent handed Mary, who had never before been busted for anything harsher than a traffic violation, a citation listing two charges: possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Stories like Mary's used to be rare, compared to what's going on at the Border Patrol's two Yuma Sector checkpoints nowadays.

In the past, small-time drug users were busted occasionally. The Border Patrol has used dogs at its checkpoints for at least two decades, mainly for the purpose of detecting human cargo. But until a few years ago, it employed far fewer than it does now, which meant dogs were not routinely placed at the checkpoints near Yuma. Also, the checkpoints were often closed because fewer agents were available to staff them.

Since late 2005, though, the number of Yuma Sector agents has risen 55 percent — to about 850 agents, up from 550, as of January. Augmenting those agents are hundreds of National Guard soldiers who are part of a 6,000-troop border-protection plan called Operation Jump Start, ordered by President Bush in mid-2006.

The number of K9 dogs also has increased, to more than 30, up from four in 1999. The animals are trained to sniff out hidden human beings, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and meth-related drugs such as Ecstasy.

The beefed-up resources and the addition of more than 50 miles of fencing along the border south of the Yuma area have slowed illegal immigration in the sector to a trickle compared with what it was just two years ago.

These days, the checkpoints on eastbound Interstate 8 and northbound Arizona 95 near Yuma (a passageway to the I-10 and I-40 corridors linking Arizona and California) are open 24 hours a day. And with the addition of seven times more K9 dogs, they have become the biggest weed traps in the country.

Strictly in terms of quantity, other checkpoints catch more dope. The Border Patrol is allowed to set up roadblocks as far as 100 miles from any national border, and it operates 33 permanent and numerous other "tactical" or movable checkpoints on the Mexican and Canadian frontiers. In the Southwest, checkpoints are typically found on California's north-south I-5, numerous small highways near Mexico, such as Arizona's Highway 86, and along I-10 between Tucson and El Paso, Texas. The Border Patrol sometimes puts up movable checkpoints on I-10 between Phoenix and Los Angeles, but it's rare to encounter one.

Drug-sniffing dogs at some of the checkpoints, especially the ones south of Tucson and through Texas, find literally tons of marijuana being smuggled from Mexico.

But the Border Patrol and other law enforcement officials in the Southwest report that no checkpoints in the United States bust as many small-time marijuana users as the ones near Yuma, on I-8 and Arizona 95.

The past three years have seen an explosion of such cases. In just 11 months last year, the two checkpoints nabbed more than 1,200 people for possession of marijuana — and usually for smaller amounts than what Mary carried.

The majority of the busts occurred at the checkpoint along eastbound I-8, the freeway that carries vacationers between Arizona and San Diego.

Consequences are toughest for people caught with hard drugs. Possession of such drugs as meth, cocaine, or heroin will result in a long drive to the county jail in Yuma. But even for personal amounts of marijuana, citations are issued that can result in fines and big hassles.

The I-8 checkpoint garnered national attention in January after rapper Lil Wayne was arrested there. He was charged with carrying marijuana, cocaine, Ecstasy, and a handgun. He pleaded not guilty last month.

Few would argue that big dope smugglers or those carrying an arsenal of hard drugs shouldn't feel the pinch of the law. If it weren't for the trained dogs, smugglers could run thousands of pounds of drugs through the Yuma Sector checkpoints.

But the vast majority of people getting busted at checkpoints in Arizona near Yuma aren't smugglers or illegal immigrants. They aren't even big-shot partiers like Lil Wayne. They're just average people who happen to be carrying a smidgen of marijuana in their vehicles.

They might never be caught if it weren't for an exception granted the Border Patrol to set up roadblocks with trained dogs. All the Border Patrol checkpoints, not just the ones near Yuma, take advantage of special powers that experts say contradict normal constitutional search-and-seizure rules.

So many marijuana users have been caught that, last year, Yuma officials had to streamline the legal process. In a program unique to the Yuma Sector, Border Patrol agents were given the authority to write citations in low-quantity marijuana cases as though they were deputies working for the Yuma County Sheriff's Office.

The program even was anointed with a catchy federal handle: Operation Citation.

The deputizing of the federal agents means it's easier than ever to get busted. And the program reflects how busting minor pot users is what the agents working at the checkpoints — whose primary mission is supposed to be stopping illegal human trafficking — spend much of their time doing.

A review of 1,052 of the citations issued last year showed that more than 40 percent were issued to Arizonans, presumably on their way back from California. Of those, Phoenix and Tucson residents made up the majority. The rest were split among Californians, 44 percent, and people from other states. A handful of those cited listed hometowns in other countries, including Mexico, Spain, England, and Austria.

Most were cited for possessing just a few grams of marijuana, or a pipe containing marijuana residue. (A gram is about the weight of a large paper clip).

If there's more than one person in the vehicle and no one admits ownership of the marijuana, Border Patrol policy dictates that the citation goes to the driver.

It's not just the number of dogs that makes the Yuma checkpoints so different. Border Patrol checkpoints just a few miles away near El Centro, California, including a new one on westbound I-8, also use dogs. But marijuana laws are far more lax in California, resulting in far fewer citations and much-less-serious legal problems.

In the unlikely event that you do get busted on your way to San Diego for a small amount of marijuana at the California-side I-8 checkpoint west of the state line, you will be hit with nothing more than a $100 fine. In California, possession of an ounce or less of pot is not even prosecuted as a misdemeanor, it's a base-level "infraction."

But you'd better not risk bringing even a tiny amount of pot back from the beach — because nothing demonstrates how differently marijuana possession is viewed officially by California compared to Arizona than the checkpoint busts this side of Yuma.

Arizona has the stiffest marijuana laws in the country. Possession of any amount or of any kind of drug paraphernalia (even a small pipe) is technically a felony.

Technically, because charges against small-time users are knocked down to misdemeanors in Yuma County and in other Arizona counties, including Maricopa. Leniency is one reason — marijuana isn't considered as dangerous as other drugs. But it's also true that, if prosecuted as felonies, the sheer number of marijuana cases would overwhelm local court systems.

Still, a misdemeanor conviction for pot means that you must pay hundreds of dollars in fines in Arizona. And, it's not uncommon for defendants to fork over thousands of dollars in attorney fees trying to avoid a conviction — which, for some, means loss of a job or disqualification for federal financial aid.

The Border Patrol is unapologetic about its right turn toward busting hordes of minor drug offenders at the Yuma-area checkpoints. In fact, Jeremy Schappell, spokesman for the Yuma Sector, brags that the agency practices zero tolerance when it comes to any amount of illegal substances or paraphernalia.

"If we get just a pipe, they are getting written up," Schappell says. "If it's a seed, they are getting written up."

Using drug-sniffing dogs at checkpoints to catch small-time marijuana users probably seems like a smart idea to Americans who view drug use as morally unacceptable.

However, keeping in mind the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, judges have traditionally taken a dim view of such "suspicion-less" stops and searches of vehicles.

After first taking office in 1993, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a former DEA agent, proposed staking out main roads in and out of Maricopa County with checkpoints. Then-County Attorney Rick Romley put the kibosh on Arpaio's idea, saying it was unconstitutional.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down another drug checkpoint proposal in Indianapolis vs. Edmond. In the landmark case, Indianapolis police set up roadblocks staffed by dogs and their handlers, ultimately busting about 50 people with drugs.

The Supreme Court had, in the past, found two major exceptions to its general disapproval of police checkpoints. In 1990's Michigan Dept. of State Police vs. Sitz, the High Court allowed DUI checkpoints. And in 1976's United States vs. Martinez-Fuerte, it gave the Border Patrol the right to set up checkpoints that seek to uncover illegal immigrants — with the secondary purpose of finding drugs.

"We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," the Supreme Court majority wrote in the Indiana case. "The [Indianapolis] checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment."

The notion of a checkpoint where police can pull over every single vehicle and search it chills many Americans. Justice Clarence Thomas, no beacon of liberal thought, made that clear in his dissenting opinion in the 2000 case. Though Thomas felt compelled to side with the Indianapolis police because of court precedents, he challenged the basis of the precedents strongly.

"I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided," Thomas wrote. "Indeed, I rather doubt that the framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered 'reasonable' a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing."

The new agreement with Yuma County blurs the distinction between drug and immigration checkpoints.

The Yuma County Sheriff's Office, like all other law enforcement agencies in the country, cannot legally operate a K9 checkpoint. But in Yuma County, Border Patrol agents are deputized to write local-jurisdiction citations — an end run around long-standing constitutional protections against stopping motorists without probable cause.

The Border Patrol takes pains to explain that it's running immigration checkpoints, with the secondary mission of detecting illegal drugs, just as the Supreme Court's legal interpretation allows.

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project in Santa Cruz, California, says the procedures at the Yuma checkpoints are a good example of how increased police powers for one purpose often end up being used for another. The supposed need for an immigration checkpoint is "thin justification" for busting every drug user passing through, he insists.

"Even if somebody has no sympathy for a marijuana user," Boyd says, "you should still be concerned that the U.S. government is saying the border is an area where the U.S. Constitution is suspended."

On a recent winter day at the I-8 East checkpoint, two skinny young Hispanic women are led away in handcuffs. A Department of Public Safety Officer helps them into his patrol car for a trip to the Yuma County Jail.

A checkpoint dog found meth in the women's car.

The dogs working the checkpoint that day were Belgian Malinoises, though the agency also uses German shepherds, Labradors, and other breeds. They're kept fit and trim — so lean, in fact, that motorists often urge the agents to feed them more. It takes about six weeks to train the dogs to sniff out drugs and people, then another six weeks to train their handlers, says Wes Burch, the Yuma Sector's K9 coordinator.

To the animals, the work is a fun game of hide and seek. Sometimes, they can smell drugs from dozens of feet away as they walk along the queue of slowly rolling vehicles. A dog's body posture changes if it catches a whiff of drugs, becoming more rigid and focused. Its breathing quickens. After the vehicle is emptied of visible occupants, the dog is nearly infallible at finding drugs or people hidden inside. If drugs don't turn up, it doesn't mean they weren't there earlier. A Border Patrol K9's sense of smell is so acute, agents say, that it can tell if someone smoked marijuana in or near a vehicle days before the checkpoint stop.

When they find drugs, the dogs are rewarded with a small burlap toy for a few moments. The animals seem to love their job, eagerly sniffing within inches of vehicles, putting their paws on truck bumpers, and scanning the air with their snouts.

These days, there are enough trained canines to allow for rotating shifts. Still, the job is fairly intense for the dogs. They can focus on their work for only 15 or 20 minutes at a time before needing a break; their sense of smell is diminished when they become overheated. Despite the boost in dog teams that has led to increased drug busts, it's possible to pass through the checkpoints without ever seeing a dog.

At least three dogs are working on the day New Times visits the I-8 East checkpoint, but the animals rest more than half of the time. Even when the dogs are ready, sometimes the line of vehicles becomes too long and has to be "flushed," as the agents put it. All but the most suspicious autos are waved through quickly. Otherwise, commerce and the free flow of traffic on the highway would be disrupted, agents say.

One K9 handler walks far down the shoulder of I-8, using his dog to sniff out small bags of drugs and paraphernalia often discarded by approaching drivers or passengers. He finds nothing on this day, but it's common to find such contraband near the checkpoint, says Schappell, the federal agency's Yuma spokesman.

Schappell wonders why a Border Patrol sign announcing the checkpoint about a mile up the road doesn't warn all drug users to dump their stashes. But he fails to realize that most people have no idea their vehicles are about to be sniffed by a dog, with major consequences if the animal smells anything alarming.

The I-8 East checkpoint does have a sign declaring, "Working Dogs Ahead." But it's next to the checkpoint booth and the dogs, making it useless as a warning.

A lean, gray Belgian Malinois suddenly appears happier, its attention focused on a gold Chrysler 300. It tugs firmly at its short, leather leash, and its handler motions to another agent, who asks the 20-something driver to pull over beneath a shade tent. The young man sits on a folding chair for a few minutes, looking nervous. As the Malinois bounces through his car, he leans forward with his head in his hands.

But the dog finds nothing, and driver is released.

As far as the agents are concerned, a K9 is never wrong: The man must have had drugs in or around his car recently that left enough lingering molecules to alert the dog.

To Yuma County, the Border Patrol's dogs look more like geese — as in the ones laying golden eggs.

They've brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years. Until a change was made last fall, fines ranged between $750 and $1,400 for the small-time marijuana violators picked up at the checkpoints. Now, fines usually run $400 — but that still works out to be a lot of money considering there have been more than a thousand cases a year.

And considering that federal agents and their dogs do most of the work.

Yuma County officials insist it's not about the money. They say it's a black-and-white issue. Marijuana is illegal.

"It's the law, and we like enforcing the law," says Roger Nelson, chief deputy Yuma County attorney for criminal matters. "We're not going to apologize for it, and we don't think there's anything wrong with having drug-sniffing dogs at an immigration checkpoint."

Though the Border Patrol is a federal agency that's using its resources to do the work of Yuma County authorities, Schappell says it "can't turn a blind eye" to the casual users picked up because of the extra dogs.

The issue of whether the federal Border Patrol officers near Yuma should be busting small-time drug offenders is a subject made raw over the recent death of a comrade.

In mid-January, Agent Luis Aguilar was run over in the sand dunes west of Yuma by a Mexican national driving a Hummer loaded with drugs.

"My opinion is that the grandma coming through with the ounce of marijuana — how she got the marijuana is from the Hummer that ran over Luis Aguilar," Schappell says.

The Yuma Sector's spokesman finds it ironic that media focused far more on the January 22 arrest of entertainer Lil Wayne, which happened two days before a memorial service was held for Aguilar. Media calls poured in from all over the world about the rapper, but reporters weren't very interested in the dead agent.

Lil Wayne, whose real name is Dwayne Michael Carter Jr., was riding in an RV with 11 friends when a dog targeted his vehicle at the I-8 East checkpoint. A subsequent search turned up about a quarter-pound of pot, an ounce of cocaine, 41 grams of Ecstasy, and a handgun.

Interest in what happened to Lil Wayne has been running so high that the Yuma Superior Court plans to air live coverage of his upcoming trial (no date for which has been announced) on its Web site.

Another big catch apparently flew under the media's radar: Officials say that in 2006, a dog at the I-8 East checkpoint hit on the tour bus of the Crosby, Stills and Nash band, resulting in an arrest for hashish. It wasn't one of the famous musicians who got nabbed, but a member of their entourage.

Interestingly (because it would make sense to rationalize the huge number of minor drug arrests as a means of keeping impaired motorists off the highway), none of the marijuana users cited at the Yuma Sector checkpoints was busted for driving under the influence.

The Border Patrol's heightened checkpoint activity played a big role in boosting the number of misdemeanor cases handled by the Yuma County Attorney's office from 980 in 2000 to more than 1,500 by 2005.

Then it really got busy. Nelson says his office prosecuted more than 2,500 misdemeanors last year. And that's despite the fact that county attorneys routinely dismiss as many as 20 percent of the marijuana cases as too legally tenuous to bother with.

Not surprisingly, Nelson says it was his office that recommended the partnership between the Border Patrol and the Yuma County Sheriff's Office, which led to the current arrangement of having the federal agents write Arizona tickets.

Before Operation Citation, the Border Patrol agents would make a seizure, then forward the motorist's name to the county attorney's office. Nelson says prosecutors would be forced to send a registered letter to each defendant at the cost of $5 or $6 each. And sheriff's deputies routinely had to schlep out to the Border Patrol stations to pick up the contraband for evidence, then write a slew of citations.

Now, county officers are no longer faced with the dilemma of either doing all that work or ignoring the fine-producing cases.

As for the people busted at the checkpoints who talked to New Times, they are angry that an immigration-enforcement agency caught them in its lair. They believe it's only natural that they had no idea they would be detained, because they weren't carrying a secret cargo of illegal aliens.

"I don't mean to be a conspiracy theory person, but you have to wonder if we are heading for the same things the Germans went through," says Mary, the pot-smoking grandmother. "It's only a matter of time before we see [checkpoints] on I-17 and every other major highway."

"It definitely didn't feel American," a member of a small Texas rock band says about the I-8 East checkpoint, after receiving a citation in June. "Our civil liberties are kind of slowly corroding away."

Normally, a police officer is allowed to pull over a motorist only if a traffic violation (anything from erratic driving to a busted tail light) is observed. Then, the officer has probable cause to, say, shine a flashlight into the car to look for illicit drugs.

Though there was no such probable cause in the Yuma County pot cases, the Border Patrol is exempted from that requirement by the Supreme Court, as noted earlier in this story.

The busted motorists whom New Times interviewed were particularly chagrined that a dog wound up leading officers to the pot they had stashed in their luggage.

"We were stupefied by the whole thing," says a 39-year-old Colorado mother of two teenagers charged with possessing about four grams of marijuana. She'd been on a road trip with a friend from Texas to San Diego, and they'd stopped in Tucson to visit a mutual friend, who gave them the pot. A highway accident temporarily closed I-8 East, diverting traffic north from Yuma onto Highway 95 — right into the northbound checkpoint where a Border Patrol dog was waiting for them.

"We thought we were going to be thrown in prison or jail or something," she says. "It was one of the scariest things I've ever been through."

She later paid $1,600 for an attorney (to avoid having to fly back to Yuma for a court date) and a $400 fine.

In cases like that of the Colorado woman, leniency figured into the equation, according to Yuma County prosecutors.

Nelson, the chief deputy county attorney for criminal matters, says his office prosecutes minor marijuana cases as misdemeanors to provide "the lenience that we believe these crimes deserve."

Truth is, Yuma County's courts would be swamped if each small-time pot case were handled as the felony that state law declares it, says Lil Wayne's Yuma attorney, James Tilson. The county, like most others in the state these days, is under a major budget crunch.

So, there's a practical reason for dealing with people caught with small amounts of marijuana quickly and efficiently. Doing it otherwise, simply doesn't pencil out.

More arrestees would take felony cases to trial. Even with plea agreements, such cases take a lot more time, money, and effort to prosecute.

On both the financial and human level, "increasing the amount of work you have doesn't make sense if it's not a serious crime," Tilson says.

Unfortunately for those caught on the Arizona side of the state line, a misdemeanor still packs a punch. Besides a fine, it also requires defendants or their lawyers to appear in court, which can get expensive.

Mary, the Phoenix grandma, negotiated a deal in which her misdemeanor charge was dropped in lieu of a $1,200 drug-treatment class. She paid a lawyer $3,500 to help make the deal.

The Texas musician paid a lawyer $3,500 just to see a $738 fine dropped to $400.

Under the current system, an innocent person could easily end up with a ticket just because a pot user left a surprise in the car.

That's what happened to "Joe," a 48-year-old Peoria man who drove his wife's car through the checkpoint on his way back from a job in Yuma. Joe's not a pot smoker and says he fully supports the Border Patrol's mission.

"My daughter, who's in her 20s, forgot to take her goodies out" of the car, Joe says. After a dog gave an alert, agents found two used pot pipes in the trunk.

Rather than place the blame on his daughter, he paid $1,600 in fines, and was embarrassed recently when the arrest showed up in a background check while he was trying to rent a house. He was allowed to move in, but lamented of his new rap sheet: "It just sucks. Period."

The worst part, Joe says, is that he could be fired if his boss ever found out about the conviction.

Ryan Childers, a criminal defense attorney who worked as a prosecutor for Imperial County, California, from 2004 to 2006, was surprised to hear how many checkpoint-related drug cases Yuma County handles.

"What a waste of resources!" the El Centro lawyer says.

In California, Childers explains, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana rates only a $100 fine and is considered a minor infraction rather than a misdemeanor. And forget the rhetoric heard in Arizona that violators would be prosecuted even "if it's a seed." This state's more liberal neighbor requires a "smokable amount" to prosecute the infraction, Childers says.

The law against marijuana paraphernalia in California is so lax that Border Patrol agents in the state who find a pipe or a bong in a checkpoint search can't do anything other than confiscate it, Childers says.

There's no checkpoint along the westbound lanes of I-8 in Arizona, but three months ago, the Border Patrol opened a checkpoint on westbound I-8 just east of El Centro. The agency's El Centro Sector also operates permanent checkpoints on California highways 86 and 111.

Minuscule amounts of marijuana are mostly seen as a waste of time for law enforcement, says Lieutenant George Moreno of the Imperial County Sheriff's Office.

A sheriff's deputy or a California Highway Patrol officer is obliged to drive out to the El Centro-area checkpoint if a case is to be made. Moreno says California law disallows detentions of more than 30 minutes for infractions. So if the amount of pot is just a few grams and no deputy is near the checkpoint, the sheriff's office doesn't send anybody out.

"The Border Patrol knows that we don't have the staffing levels, so they [usually] just let the person go and they destroy the evidence," he says.

And because California's medical-marijuana law is liberal, if such marijuana users show the correct paperwork to the Border Patrol after getting stopped, their pot is seized and they're sent on their way, Moreno says.

In the Yuma Sector, low-level busts of people with marijuana are staving off boredom for Border Patrol agents.

Spokesman Schappell talks almost wistfully of the days when the sector was hopping with illegal immigrants. Now, agents don't spend much time chasing down border crossers and hauling in big loads of drugs, he admits.

On a sunny February day, Schappell cruises a sandy road on the northern side of the imposing security fence that runs from San Luis to just past the distant Tinajas Altas Mountains on the horizon. Not a footprint can be seen for miles in the soft earth.

"Anybody who says a fence doesn't work, I say, 'Come to Yuma,'" Schappell says.

The number of Border Patrol agents nationally stands at more than 15,000 and is expected to grow to 18,000 by the end of the year. The push toward greater enforcement against illegal immigrants is gaining momentum, and agents from Texas to California insist that checkpoints are a crucial part of the system.

Checkpoints running north from Tucson and ports of entry in New Mexico and Texas caught the bulk of the nearly 2 million pounds of marijuana, seven tons of cocaine, and sizable loads of other drugs seized by the Border Patrol last year.

In the Yuma Sector, though, the agency's mission has changed with time. Now, it's the small-time drug offender feeling the most heat, and the illegal immigrants and smugglers — who are far more aware of the checkpoints than the average American citizen — are going elsewhere.

The Border Patrol attributes this to the addition of the 300 new Yuma Sector agents in three years and to the new fence along the non-mountainous parts of the sector's 125-mile southern border.

The drop in apprehensions has been the Border Patrol's biggest success story. In 2006, Yuma Sector agents caught 118,000 people trying to gain entry into the United States from Mexico. But last year, only 39,000 people were apprehended in the sector.

Rock-throwing by Mexicans south of the border has become more common — agents believe it's a sign of frustration with the new situation.

Still, most Yuma-area Border Patrol agents are now watching over a relatively quiet border.

Most of the action takes place at the checkpoints, where agents busy themselves busting the likes of pot-smoking grandmas and musicians.

Many of the busted marijuana users interviewed by New Times wondered whether Border Patrol agents had too much time on their hands, considering that agents expend so much effort to catch people carrying mostly minuscule amounts of pot. Others wondered whether Operation Citation was just a clever way to pour money into the Yuma County coffers.

"It's like a toll booth," says a New Mexico man busted for marijuana possession last year at the I-8 checkpoint with his two sons, in their 20s.

Whatever the frustrations of motorists who like to imbibe in a little pot, drug-sniffing dogs at the Yuma-area checkpoints are here to stay.

Lloyd Easterling, an assistant chief at the Border Patrol's Washington headquarters, says the agency is proud of the Yuma Sector's ongoing effort to nail drug violators.

"Whether it's small-time offenders or much-larger-time smugglers, those drugs are still coming in and out of the neighborhoods," Easterling says. "At some point, the likelihood is that they came across the border."

In Arizona, a misdemeanor conviction for pot means hundreds of dollars in fines. It's not uncommon for defendants to fork over thousands of dollars in attorney fees trying to keep from getting a drug record.

Nothing shows how differently small-time pot possession is viewed in California compared to Arizona than the checkpoint busts this side of the state line. Such Border Patrol busts are rarely pursued by California authorities. When they are, only a small fine is levied.

Of 1,052 people cited for small amounts of marijuana last year at the checkpoints near Yuma, 40 percent were Arizonans, presumably on their way back from California. Of these, most were from the Valley.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-03-1...from-the-beach/
 
Quote:
See, that's the problem I have with the whole Border Patrol theory of operation. Setting up checkpoints 40 miles from the border isn't going to get the job done. Stopping everyone on the highway, when you're at a known position, isn't going to catch any but the stupidest illegal.



First of all almost no illegals get caught by BP right on the border. I would say all get caught north of the border but life is full of surprises. Catching them on the border presents a significant problem in the fact that if they are south of the border they are Mexicans and if they are north they are illegals. Catching Mexicans has the potential to cause an international incident.

"tac·tics (tktks)
.......
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal."

Checkpoints serve more than one purpose. An additional goal of checkpoints is to keep aliens and dope loads from loading out into vehicles at a certain point. The more time they spend in the desert the more time agents in the desert have to track them down. They also serve to shut down smuggling activities in certain corridors. Yes the interstate is a smuggling corrider. Hang out at the Big Horn exit on I-8 and you'll learn a few things. Loads don't just travel north and south. If they did there wouldn't be so many illegals in the Carolinas.

Like I said before how successful of a defense would a football team have if they had all of their defenders on the line of scrimmage? I'll simplify it, I'll even give you the answer: NOT VERY! They'd stop some plays but anything that got through would be home free. Would you rather live surrounded by illegals or have BP work at and away from the border?

For informational purposes stem also means "to stop or hold back by or as if by damming; stanch. Or to plug or tamp." Checkpoints STEM illegal activity on those routes.

Quote:
I resent the fact that my tax money is being used in such an impotent manner. IF (and that's a big if, from the history and evidence) the Border Patrol's intention is to "stem" illegal entry into this country, they need to do that AT THE BORDER.



Your if is a load of crap. Millions of illegals have been caught by the BP. They don't catch 100% but they do very well with the odds they face. I would guess that every country has at least one illegal immigrant. If you resent your tax dollars going to help the effort to secure the border fine, consider your dollars spent on health care and welfare for illegal immigrants. Then you don't have to lose any sleep over your money going to the BP. As far as your utopian idea of BP just being at the border I have the answer to that too. If you've studied your history as I'm sure you have from your comment that "(and that's a big if, from the history and evidence)" you already know that the original title of the original agents was "mounted guard." Just think of us under that title and it should eliminate the confusion. The US Border Patrol is the largest law enforcement entity in this country. They have jurisdiction over all of the fifty states as well as U.S. territories. They are even used world wide. There are currently several agents working in Iraq. They have worked at the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and every major hurricane including and since Katrina.

Quote:
See why people might have a slight problem with being stopped 40 miles from the border by a bunch of Border Patrol employees (and from the video, that was a highly over-staffed checkpoint) , with the supposed "right to pass" being answering the question "Are you a citizen of the US?". In the meantime, their charter, in writing, is "the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States."



Do a google search on Azrak Newton and you'll find out why checkpoints are staffed with the numbers they are. It's required by the union for safety reasons. Also, the people that have a problem being stopped a short distance from the border (yes 40 miles is a short distance considering the size of America) are very few in number. Most are content if not happy to see us. Additionally what you are claiming as the Border Patrols charter is incorrect. That is not the BP mission statement. Where ever you're getting your information is wrong. That might have been the purpose of the fence but you are confusing live human beings (agents) with a fence. That is wrong.

Quote:
Well, nobody is entering the United States 40 miles from the border.



Sheer genious. You are absolutely correct. No one is entering 40 miles from the border unless they are airborn or have tunneled that far. FYI the people that cross the border aren't stopping and living at the border. They move further inland. Considering the number of Oregon and Washington drivers licenses I pull off of illegals that have been here a while I would think you would realize that. Drive through Yakima, Washington. Your confusion about illegals vanishing after crossing the border should be cleared up.

Quote:
How's that project coming along? It's completed, correct? If not, why not, and who broke the law?



Ask the contractors. My job isn't to build a fence. The failure of construction companies to complete a contract isn't my responsibility. You are blaming the BP for things that are out of it's realm of control. The BP also is not responsible for the wall street bonuses, Detroit motor companies going belly up, or the Somali pirates. Just in case you wanted to spread the blame. Drive north and ask the guys from Boeing how SBI is coming along. Again, nothing the BP could do about it. I love to bash BP management as much as anybody but the fence is out of their control.

Quote:
This is criticism of the scam I'm paying for, and many people feel the same way I do.



The real scam is millions of dollars being spent to support illegal aliens in this country. If you want to say BP failed fine. You want to take away enforcement tools, great. But don't reward the guys that snuck by for accomplishing their goal. That's just stupid.

Quote:
Stem, huh? There's more than there were last year, the opposite of "stem". With that trend, I'm not open to seeing anyone that works for the Border Patrol unless I'm crossing the border, because that's where they belong.



Without the BP how many more would have come in last year? That's exactly why I didn't say stop the flow. If you want to argue semantics fine you win. There's more to the definition as I quoted above but I'll give that to you. For the record that wasn't a real quote. I'm sure some guy said it, or something like it, but I have no proof. It was me joking hoping to lighten things up. I stopped being too serious about this somewhere around page 5. Also, you aren't seeing Border Patrol Agents when you cross the border that's Customs. Yeah, yeah I get it, we belong at the border because we changed our name a few years ago. Except of course when it comes to helping flood victims in North Dakota, then we should ignore that pesky title.

Java, I like the article. I just found out the story on how that came about recently. Yuma is one of the few stations that will issue citations for personal use. It stems from an incident involving a spoiled high school kid that led to a policy of calling the locals to ticket everyone with any trace of drugs. The locals got tired of driving out to the checkpoints and presto. Cross designation and ticket books. Those old hippies have a punk kid to thank for their difficulties. Ain't life grand.

Nate
 



He got what he deserved !!!!!!!! THUMP THUMP !!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Quote:

I'm not sure that doing away with random check stations is a viable idea unless open borders are your goal. A quick stop and check isn't much of a inconvenience , not really any more than stopping to pay a toll. It is quite obvious to me that not all foreign invaders and drug dealers cross the border at the regular check stations.



Ditto !!
 
It's only a real inconvenience if you have something to hide or something to prove , like this guy/baby did !! I Never had a problem ever being stopped or pulled over . Never been searched never gave anyone a reason . Being a truck driver and in 27 of driving i have been stopped at many many a check station , no problem !! I have taken soooo many random drug test over the years and i don't use drugs or drink never have . Just stop winning show them your darn ID, BE NICE and be on you way . It's that simple . BOY ITS SOOO HARD !! Give me a brake !!
 
Last edited:
Quote:


My comment was for the 'pastor' if that is what he really is.



Never seen a pastor or bishop act like that !!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
As I stated: "You talk out of one side of your mouth and seemingly would defend the 2nd ammendment tooth and nail - But when it comes to the 4th ammendment, where's your fervor? Nothing like going through the Constitution buffet style...I'll take this, leave that, little of this, none of that..."
 
The second amendment unconditionally gives the right to bear arms. The fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This is not unreasonable, therefore the fourth amendment isn't being violated.

Nate
 
Quote:
The second amendment unconditionally gives the right to bear arms. The fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This is not unreasonable, therefore the fourth amendment isn't being violated.

Nate



Exactly....
 
Quote:
Additionally what you are claiming as the Border Patrols charter is incorrect. That is not the BP mission statement. Where ever you're getting your information is wrong. That might have been the purpose of the fence but you are confusing live human beings (agents) with a fence. That is wrong.




H. R. 6061

Sec. 2(b)

I wrote up a reply to some of your other points, but deleted it. Nevermind. Have a good week and be careful out there.
 
That's the Secure Fence Act. That expenditure and it's shortcomings has to do with congress and the contractors that are doing the work. It's not the Border Patrol's Charter. Nobody familier with the border situation would have made those promises.

I deleted some stuff from my original response also. No harm was meant. Take Care.

Nate
 
Quote:
The second amendment unconditionally gives the right to bear arms. The fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This is not unreasonable, therefore the fourth amendment isn't being violated.

Nate



Yeah, that's really key here, I think. The SCOTUS has upheld these kinds of checkpoints if they are established by the BP and not other LE agencies. The BP has some special latitude because it is really targeting foreign law breakers and nabbing the pot heads and other domestic druggies criminals is just kind of a by-product of these checkpoints, not their primary focus.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Nate, but from my reading on this it does not look like people's cars are searched at all unless a K-9 indicates human or drug cargo. That would seem to easily meet the standard as a perfectly 'reasonable' search. I've read nothing to indicate they are randomly searching people.

As to the Pastor, I do have some real mixed feelings about his situation, however I think he would make a much more sympathetic character if he did not have numerous videotapes of himself challenging LEOs. For example, one of his tapes shows him accosting an officer at an airport because that officer was carrying an AR-15 platform rifle. The officer didn't do anything but refer the pastor to his sergeant, but I found the Pastor's demeanor highly provocative.

There are many compelling arguments against LEOs wearing tactical gear and using military-style arms, but if I were deeply concerned about that I'd contact elected officials over the issue or write letters to the editor, etc., I would never grab my video camera and confront some officer doing his job as assigned. Why would I? The LEO doesn't make the policy, he just follows it. Why pick on the officer? Unless, of course, one is hoping the officer will slip up and say or do something on camera that could be used to create a Youtube scandal.

As to the Pastor's beating, I have to reserve judgement until the surveillance tapes are released. We just have his side of the story at this point and given his track record of seeming to look for trouble like this with camcorder in hand, I find his credibility a little iffy. Yes, he did have some scratches on his face, etc., but I just really need to see what actually occured.

While I am very concerned about invasive government and I do value the 4th Amendment, I guess in my mind the AZ DPS and BP have the benefit of the doubt until or unless the Pastor's version of what happened is confirmed via videotape.
 
Quote:
Quote:
The second amendment unconditionally gives the right to bear arms. The fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This is not unreasonable, therefore the fourth amendment isn't being violated.

Nate



Exactly....




That's the way i looked at it !! Some people just like to challenge everything !! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif These guys are just trying to, do their job !!!
 
Quote:
As I stated: "You talk out of one side of your mouth and seemingly would defend the 2nd ammendment tooth and nail - But when it comes to the 4th ammendment, where's your fervor? Nothing like going through the Constitution buffet style...I'll take this, leave that, little of this, none of that..."



YAWNING !!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
 
javafour Quote:

We just have his side of the story at this point and given his track record of seeming to look for trouble like this with camcorder in hand, I find his credibility a little iffy.


That's how i see it !!!!
 
Last edited:
You're pretty much right on the money Java. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif The latitude that BP gets does come from immigration and customs (anti-smuggling) concerns. It started with the first congress and was viewed as a necessity for national security.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here Nate, but from my reading on this it does not look like people's cars are searched at all unless a K-9 indicates human or drug cargo.



That's more or less the way it works. If a K9 alerts the vehicle is searched every time. Anything less would be dereliction of duty.

Every sector and station does things a little different but where I was we usually did a quick walk around of the vehicle. An exterior look that doesn't qualify as a search under the reasonable expectation of privacy "test." That builds suspicion for a search if anything looks out of place(i.e. a honda civic with what appear to be 1 ton truck shocks in the rear /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif). This is usually done by a second agent while the "primary" agent is talking to the occupants. That expedites the process and gets cars through faster. If anything is amiss we would run a dog if available or do the search ourselves.

I don't recall a single time that I or anyone I worked with didn't ask for permission to search unless there was a ridiculous over abundance of PC. The requests weren't really made out of necessity it just makes things that much easier to build a prosecution case. If the driver consents to a search it is one less thing for a defender to try to fight. Even with PC we'd still ask. Also, from my experience almost everybody is willing to consent to a search. Even the smugglers. Out of thousands of cars I checked at the checkpoint I can't recall ever being denied consent to search.

For the record I'm not a jack booted thug and do support the fourth amendment and not just the bill of rights buffett that I've been accused of. I wouldn't support law enforcement kicking in every door in Phoenix and ransacking houses looking for illegals. That is obviously unreasonable. Checkpoint searches, in my opinion, are an entirely different thing.

Nate
 
Quote:
Quote:






I did 6 months in Superior Court, as a sworn LEO, before moving to patrol. Through that experience and my time on patrol I've learned what will stand up in court.

You can claim I'm incorrect, but it's the judge that matters, and I don't need to convince you.



I don't usually reply to threads of this nature, but does your response mean that you've learned what rights that you can trample and get away with doing so without getting into trouble? I think that you would get one [beeep] of a suprise if you escalated from words to hands to weapons without just cause with myself or a member of my family. If you are not professional enough to difuse a situation that a citizen has not escalated then perhaps you should..........move on.
 
Back
Top