Border Patrol tasers pastor IN THIS COUNTRY

[Young Republican]

You say IN THIS COUNTRY as if there are no cops who over step their limits.

No cop has ever done that. Nope.

Not until Obama anyway!!!!!

Read my above post, pal. They have the higher right to do so, like I said, Patriot Act at its best performance.

[NewC]

Rodney King was assaulted by THE PATRIOT ACT

TYRANNY

[Young Republican]

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
- The pastor was stripped of these rights and the higher authority who has been given the higher right to do so totally violated the fourth amendment. So in that case, the Patriot Act wasn't so much abused, it was clearly USED.

[NewC]

Poor Rodney King. His injustice will never be forgotten.

[Young Republican]

Poor Rodney King. His injustice will never be forgotten.

Funny thing is, is that that's all you got.

[NewC]

THERE WERE NEVER BAD COPS BEFORE THE PATRIOT ACT

TYRANNY

[Young Republican]

THERE WERE NEVER BAD COPS BEFORE THE PATRIOT ACT

TYRANNY

Of course there was, and there still is, thing though about nowadays is that this poor pastor might not even have a case with this.

[Bullseyed]

There are exceptions to the 4th amendment as well. In this case you have to look at:

I think this guy was just a jerk who was just asking for trouble and once he got it all he wanted to do was exploit it. In my own personal opinion .... we don't need jackasses out there like him attempting to make an issue in defense of anyone's rights. Of course they immediately label him as a right wing activist. He's about as much help as a heart attack.

This wasn't Customs though, unless I misread something. He was not going to and from Mexico, he was staying in the US the entire trip.

As for labeling him a right wing activist, he was an outspoke conservative and that was why he was doing what he was doing. I can't see the videos at work unfortunately.

The URL in your citation is:
United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008), is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.

We're talking about a vehicle, on what I read as a checkpoint on a state to state boarder, not an international one. Maybe I misread something earlier, but it sounded like it was a check stop on the interstate.

Furthermore, the boarder clause:

The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that exempts searches of travelers and their property from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, is permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American border without probable cause or a warrant. These searches are therefore exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Pursuant to this authority, CBP may generally stop and search the property of any traveler entering or exiting the United States at random, or even based largely on ethnic profiles. However, CBP may only conduct searches of the traveler's body — including strip, body cavity, involuntary x-ray, and in some jurisdictions, patdownsearches — if the Customs officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the traveler is concealing contraband.

Although border-searches are exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment's reasonableness requirement. Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search. In reviewing the reasonableness of border-searches under the Fourth Amendment, many courts have distinguished between "routine" and "nonroutine" searches. CBP may conduct "routine" searches without any level of suspicion, while "nonroutine" searches must be supported by "reasonable suspicion". Under this analysis, searches of a traveler's property, including luggage, briefcases, wallets, and other containers are "routine," while searches of a traveler's body, including strip, body cavity and involuntary x-ray searches, are considered "nonroutine."

It seems this is particularly written for airline travel, since it never once makes mention of a vehicle, but repeatedly references luggage. And again, this only applies on the boarder when entering the country, which I did not think was the case in this story.

The article does say:
It should be noted that in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Federal checkpoints near border areas to enforce laws prohibiting illegal immigration. This U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint along Interstate 8 is in compliance with federal law.

I doubt this ruling would be overturned, but it definitely is being abused to harass innocent people in this case.

[NewC]

Keep focused on the fact that there may not have been a reason for him to be stopped.

[Bullseyed]

Keep focused on the fact that there may not have been a reason for him to be stopped.

He was stopped for exercising his right to remain silent based on all accounts so far.