4 ms·

A friend was in a similar situation for a while: crossing a CBP checkpoint multiple times every day for work in south Texas. At some point he decided to try to

A friend was in a similar situation for a while: crossing a CBP checkpoint multiple times every day for work in south Texas. At some point he decided to try to stand up for what he considered his rights in a similar way: not being combative, just not cooperating. He was thrown in jail for 3 days, then the charges were dropped. He talked with lawyers and the ACLU. The ACLU were quite frank that they have limited resources, and so they have to prioritize cases that have the ideal defendant and political optics. If he fought it personally, the cost would start at five figures. The folks doing this know there's a high barrier to holding them accountable and leverage it wantonly. The worst thing about these "contempt of cop" style arrests is, despite the charges being dropped, once you're in the system's pipeline, if you mess up about any of the restrictions, paperwork, court appearances, etc, you become a criminal. It's easy to imagine a lot of folks might fall into that trap for innocent and mundane reasons.

djsumdog 8y ago
The biggest problem in trying to stand up against it is US v. Martinez-Fuerte, effectively making these stops legal at the federal/constitution level. The only way to fight it would be a heavily organized protest; enough people that they couldn't arrest everyone/would fill the jails.
- Zak 8y ago
  They usually don't arrest people who refuse to cooperate. There are a large number of videos if you search "checkpoint refusal" on youtube.
  - anaonmous32rt4 8y ago
    As a non-white person, there's no way I would refuse to cooperate with a US police office or other authority figure. The price of refusal can be very high, including being arrested, put in jail for a few days, or even being shot dead. Unless you're rich or connected, the US can be a very cruel place.
    - mud_dauber 8y ago
      One of saddest comments i have ever seen on HN. And I believe every word.
    - nitwit005 8y ago
      It's not like being white magically stops any of that. I'm sure it changes the odds, but that still means you're risking arrest, which most of us are not keen to do. This article is, after all, about a white guy who was arrested for not cooperating. And they clearly wanted to do worse given that they tried to get him fired.
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    That's sounds like a prestigious benefit, where race and class are normally substituted for prestige when all you have is a glance at a stranger.
    - nerdponx 8y ago
      Race, class, and prestige are all intertwined in the US.
      - threatofrain 8y ago
        Which is why opaque discretion in policing is so dangerous.
Spearchucker 8y ago
As a not-American stories like this make the very country itself seem like the blueprint followed by the tech giants. Illegally bullying the public at large, too big to punish, let alone reign in. It's not an ideal image, is it? And most depressing is that there's not a damn thing Joe average can do about it.
- Natsu 8y ago
  Sure there is, just be nice to the cop and identify yourself. The last part is where the guy in the story went wrong, incidentally. It's pretty clear he was deliberately protesting this, though. If you don't know for sure, and you don't want to be arrested, you can just assume that you probably are required to identify yourself [1]. As long as you're not in big trouble (some sort of felony, drugs or DUI), you'll generally get in less trouble for treating them nicely. Most of them have a bias that anyone who hates cops is up to no good and their experience will bear that out more often than not. It will get noted down that they were suspicious of factors X, Y and Z due to their training and experience. That said, if you're part of some big crime, assert your right to remain silent by saying exactly that every time they question you until you have a lawyer. But really, if you're not into drugs or gangs or politics, that's pretty unlikely for a normal person. And the checkpoints in the article? Just identify yourself and don't drink at all (call Lyft if you need one) and you'll be fine. Oh, and watch your speed when driving on the reservations. They make a lot of money on fines. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
  - walrus01 8y ago
    I get that you're probably a nice person and being nice to cops is generally a good idea. If you don't start off confrontational, things will go better. But I think you're severely misunderstanding the fundamental underlying principle that is wrong with these stops, and why people intentionally choose to not comply with them: People have the right to travel freely around without going through "papers, please" type checkpoints. Unless your behavior meets the legal requirements for a "terry stop" (google it), you should not encounter arbitrarily placed law enforcement checkpoints on public roads. The people who are fighting for this are standing up for the constitution and bill of rights. These checkpoints are directly in violation of the supreme Court case Delaware v. Prouse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse
sonnyblarney 8y ago
If police can stop you randomly for 'drunk driving checks' - and they can stop you randomly if there is an 'active crime scene' (i.e. they are looking for dangerous baddies on the run) then I don't see why spot-checks for other crimes/problems is somehow considered out of bounds. The problem with the argument is that it leans political: I think people are interested in just allowing people across the border willy nilly, without having to be stopped by such checks. Otherwise, the ACLU might be similarly up in arms over DD checks? Wouldn't that be the case? I try to be pragmatic about it: + If there's a high occurrence of Drunk Driving, then cops can do spot checks, esp. on long weekends. + If there are 'escaped dangerous cons' on the run, well, spot checks in a specific zone makes sense. + If there is a specific problem with large numbers of people who are in the country illegally travelling through - then random checks are a reasonable and proportional response to that. Constitutional? Legal? I have no clue. But unless it gets really out of hand I don't see how it's totalitarian. FYI I was never stopped randomly in the 5 years I lived in the US, and I was stopped quite a few times in France by the local Gendarmes. Sometimes obviously for DD checks, but other times I had no idea why but I had to show my passport and visa.
- lwf 8y ago
  The ACLU is similarly up in arms over DD checks: > The ACLU welcomes today's Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the 4th Amendment's privacy protections by rejecting the proposition that states may routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without consent and without a warrant. > We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-supreme-court-finds-drunk-driving-laws-can-be-strictly-enforced https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-suprem... From 1984: > [...] the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop a new sobriety-checkpoint program in California. The ACLU says the program is a "substantial invasion of . . . fundamental constitutional rights." > In its California brief, pending at the state Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the ACLU argues that if sobriety checkpoints are upheld "it will not be long before the police establish roadblocks and checkpoints for investigations of other sorts of serious crimes." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/aclu-sues-on-use-of-roadblocks/48753b6c-0852-4b63-85ef-db0d38d37135/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/a...
spaceman1331 8y ago
> you become a criminal this is why I hate the USA I had coworkers at Google treat me like a criminal the entire USA society is infected with abusing men it is sick and twisted the reality is that USA society is criminal and necrotic it is designed for drug dealers and prostitutes, not people we are witnessing the mexicanization of the usa this is a disgusting time to be alive
Natsu 8y ago
> The worst thing about these "contempt of cop" style arrests is, despite the charges being dropped, once you're in the system's pipeline, if you mess up about any of the restrictions, paperwork, court appearances, etc, you become a criminal. I've always wondered about describing it as "contempt of cop." Isn't that the same as arguing that it should be a crime? If you go to court and flip off the judge, you could get a fine or even prison time because it undermines the criminal justice system. Something like "police brutality" is one thing--getting arrested isn't a reason for the police to beat someone up--but I think "contempt of cop" is something in the wrong direction. Ideally, it would be better if most people and most cops did not start every conversation being afraid of each other and expecting to fight. Then it would be easier to de-escalate the situation. And just for the record, yes, I've been on the wrong side of an angry cop. If you actively work to calm things down, you'll find that things go much better. It's funny that showing a little respect goes a long way. Apparently it really stands out these days for being rare.
- jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
  You're overthinking this. I used the phrase "contempt of cop" in a mocking sense, obviously not because I think it's a valid thing that should be a crime. > And just for the record, yes, I've been on the wrong side of an angry cop. If you actively work to calm things down, you'll find that things go much better. It's funny that showing a little respect goes a long way. Apparently it really stands out these days for being rare. The problem with your anecdotal reasoning is very clearly, some people fully cooperate and are dead anyhow. Phillip Castillo was respectful and proactive in his interaction. Dead. Watch the Tamir Rice video footage. They literally drove up the curb, jumping out of the still moving police car, and immediately shot him. Poor kid didn't even have a chance to be "respectful" as you're demanding.
  - Natsu 8y ago
    It's weird that you counter anecdotal reasoning with more anecdotes. I never 'demanded' anything, though, I said it was usually useful and I'm hardly the only person with the same experience. Yes, sometimes things go uncontrollably wrong. There are bad cops out there, but it's hardly the average case. Those incidents made the news for how bad they were, not how common they are. There are hundreds of millions of people in the USA. There are millions of people interacting with the police in some capacity. How many incidents can you name?

djsumdog 8y ago

The biggest problem in trying to stand up against it is US v. Martinez-Fuerte, effectively making these stops legal at the federal/constitution level. The only way to fight it would be a heavily organized protest; enough people that they couldn't arrest everyone/would fill the jails.

Zak 8y ago
They usually don't arrest people who refuse to cooperate. There are a large number of videos if you search "checkpoint refusal" on youtube.
- anaonmous32rt4 8y ago
  As a non-white person, there's no way I would refuse to cooperate with a US police office or other authority figure. The price of refusal can be very high, including being arrested, put in jail for a few days, or even being shot dead. Unless you're rich or connected, the US can be a very cruel place.
  - mud_dauber 8y ago
    One of saddest comments i have ever seen on HN. And I believe every word.
  - nitwit005 8y ago
    It's not like being white magically stops any of that. I'm sure it changes the odds, but that still means you're risking arrest, which most of us are not keen to do. This article is, after all, about a white guy who was arrested for not cooperating. And they clearly wanted to do worse given that they tried to get him fired.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  That's sounds like a prestigious benefit, where race and class are normally substituted for prestige when all you have is a glance at a stranger.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    Race, class, and prestige are all intertwined in the US.
    - threatofrain 8y ago
      Which is why opaque discretion in policing is so dangerous.

Spearchucker 8y ago

As a not-American stories like this make the very country itself seem like the blueprint followed by the tech giants. Illegally bullying the public at large, too big to punish, let alone reign in. It's not an ideal image, is it? And most depressing is that there's not a damn thing Joe average can do about it.

Natsu 8y ago
Sure there is, just be nice to the cop and identify yourself. The last part is where the guy in the story went wrong, incidentally. It's pretty clear he was deliberately protesting this, though. If you don't know for sure, and you don't want to be arrested, you can just assume that you probably are required to identify yourself [1]. As long as you're not in big trouble (some sort of felony, drugs or DUI), you'll generally get in less trouble for treating them nicely. Most of them have a bias that anyone who hates cops is up to no good and their experience will bear that out more often than not. It will get noted down that they were suspicious of factors X, Y and Z due to their training and experience. That said, if you're part of some big crime, assert your right to remain silent by saying exactly that every time they question you until you have a lawyer. But really, if you're not into drugs or gangs or politics, that's pretty unlikely for a normal person. And the checkpoints in the article? Just identify yourself and don't drink at all (call Lyft if you need one) and you'll be fine. Oh, and watch your speed when driving on the reservations. They make a lot of money on fines. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distr...
- walrus01 8y ago
  I get that you're probably a nice person and being nice to cops is generally a good idea. If you don't start off confrontational, things will go better. But I think you're severely misunderstanding the fundamental underlying principle that is wrong with these stops, and why people intentionally choose to not comply with them: People have the right to travel freely around without going through "papers, please" type checkpoints. Unless your behavior meets the legal requirements for a "terry stop" (google it), you should not encounter arbitrarily placed law enforcement checkpoints on public roads. The people who are fighting for this are standing up for the constitution and bill of rights. These checkpoints are directly in violation of the supreme Court case Delaware v. Prouse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_v._Prouse

sonnyblarney 8y ago

If police can stop you randomly for 'drunk driving checks' - and they can stop you randomly if there is an 'active crime scene' (i.e. they are looking for dangerous baddies on the run) then I don't see why spot-checks for other crimes/problems is somehow considered out of bounds. The problem with the argument is that it leans political: I think people are interested in just allowing people across the border willy nilly, without having to be stopped by such checks. Otherwise, the ACLU might be similarly up in arms over DD checks? Wouldn't that be the case? I try to be pragmatic about it: + If there's a high occurrence of Drunk Driving, then cops can do spot checks, esp. on long weekends. + If there are 'escaped dangerous cons' on the run, well, spot checks in a specific zone makes sense. + If there is a specific problem with large numbers of people who are in the country illegally travelling through - then random checks are a reasonable and proportional response to that. Constitutional? Legal? I have no clue. But unless it gets really out of hand I don't see how it's totalitarian. FYI I was never stopped randomly in the 5 years I lived in the US, and I was stopped quite a few times in France by the local Gendarmes. Sometimes obviously for DD checks, but other times I had no idea why but I had to show my passport and visa.

lwf 8y ago
The ACLU is similarly up in arms over DD checks: > The ACLU welcomes today's Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the 4th Amendment's privacy protections by rejecting the proposition that states may routinely compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without consent and without a warrant. > We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-supreme-court-finds-drunk-driving-laws-can-be-strictly-enforced https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-suprem... From 1984: > [...] the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop a new sobriety-checkpoint program in California. The ACLU says the program is a "substantial invasion of . . . fundamental constitutional rights." > In its California brief, pending at the state Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the ACLU argues that if sobriety checkpoints are upheld "it will not be long before the police establish roadblocks and checkpoints for investigations of other sorts of serious crimes." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/aclu-sues-on-use-of-roadblocks/48753b6c-0852-4b63-85ef-db0d38d37135/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/a...

spaceman1331 8y ago

> you become a criminal this is why I hate the USA I had coworkers at Google treat me like a criminal the entire USA society is infected with abusing men it is sick and twisted the reality is that USA society is criminal and necrotic it is designed for drug dealers and prostitutes, not people we are witnessing the mexicanization of the usa this is a disgusting time to be alive

Natsu 8y ago

> The worst thing about these "contempt of cop" style arrests is, despite the charges being dropped, once you're in the system's pipeline, if you mess up about any of the restrictions, paperwork, court appearances, etc, you become a criminal. I've always wondered about describing it as "contempt of cop." Isn't that the same as arguing that it should be a crime? If you go to court and flip off the judge, you could get a fine or even prison time because it undermines the criminal justice system. Something like "police brutality" is one thing--getting arrested isn't a reason for the police to beat someone up--but I think "contempt of cop" is something in the wrong direction. Ideally, it would be better if most people and most cops did not start every conversation being afraid of each other and expecting to fight. Then it would be easier to de-escalate the situation. And just for the record, yes, I've been on the wrong side of an angry cop. If you actively work to calm things down, you'll find that things go much better. It's funny that showing a little respect goes a long way. Apparently it really stands out these days for being rare.

jasonwatkinspdx 8y ago
You're overthinking this. I used the phrase "contempt of cop" in a mocking sense, obviously not because I think it's a valid thing that should be a crime. > And just for the record, yes, I've been on the wrong side of an angry cop. If you actively work to calm things down, you'll find that things go much better. It's funny that showing a little respect goes a long way. Apparently it really stands out these days for being rare. The problem with your anecdotal reasoning is very clearly, some people fully cooperate and are dead anyhow. Phillip Castillo was respectful and proactive in his interaction. Dead. Watch the Tamir Rice video footage. They literally drove up the curb, jumping out of the still moving police car, and immediately shot him. Poor kid didn't even have a chance to be "respectful" as you're demanding.
- Natsu 8y ago
  It's weird that you counter anecdotal reasoning with more anecdotes. I never 'demanded' anything, though, I said it was usually useful and I'm hardly the only person with the same experience. Yes, sometimes things go uncontrollably wrong. There are bad cops out there, but it's hardly the average case. Those incidents made the news for how bad they were, not how common they are. There are hundreds of millions of people in the USA. There are millions of people interacting with the police in some capacity. How many incidents can you name?