I know it's old news, but this is total bullshit. Don't care if the "100 Mile No Contitution In Effect Area" is their "turf". Fuck'em.

Linky

I have no respect for these guys at all - if you participate in law-abiding citizen harassment, you are part of the problem. If you have to set up roadblocks, just let everyone straight through - they ARE UnConstitutional -PERIOD!!!!!

News Flash!!! Up here in the 'Hood in the Northern Wood, the drug dealers, smugglers, etc don't usually travel the main highway arteres, therre are boo-coo back country roads.

Fucking jackboots and they violated the recent Supreme Court ruling on extending stops for K-9 units.  Of course no one will be fired.

Hey! No cop bashing! They are here to protect and serve, and that's all they ever do!

Thred

More and more its becoming apparent that it's not so much the Officer on the Street as the Supervisor and Senior Leadership: When Officers are not "called on the carpet" for infringement of Rights, disciplined for committing crimes against Citizens, or even being admonished for "questionable" actions, then accountability fails and abuse/corruption occurs.
We are not always taking the brightest & best when they apply.
We are accepting persons with attitudes and agendas not conducive to protecting & serving.
Do not be so foolish to equate all as of one mind or attitude as most are very cognisant of OUR Rights, proper process and procedure; it's when these things are tossed aside is when we have problems, and management in its quest for numbers is not observing and upholding these requirements.
Believe me I see people in Government positions of authority who's only concern is getting what they want and are zealots about doing it "there way" well, that's why we have Laws, Rules, Regulations, and above all else RIGHTS: these are to keep the zealots from taking over and changing everything to reflect the way they  want it irrespective of they way our Freedoms guarantee it.

Please read the attached link, all of it - then judge for yourself where the problem is.

Linky

Unless there is some kind of radical change in the near future then, as I stated in the other thread, the phrase "your papers please" will become the new normal everywhere you go.  I have no objectiom to the border checks at the border and I have gone through them many times on both sides of the U.S/Canadian border.  But I resent the 100-mile "Constitution Free" zone that has been setup which basically says anyone within that zone is subject to being stopped, questioned and searched. all without a warrant.  The ACLU has an excellent article at https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map.  What is truly shocking is that most of New England save for a tiny sliver of western Vermont, as well as most of New York, is within 100 miles of a border and could be considered "Constitution Free".  Maybe Long Island will offer itself up first as a test zone where we are all stopped and checked daily at various locations around the island.  NCPD often sets up checkpoints on the entrances to the LIE and NY-135 to check for expired stickers and seat belt usage.  They can add CBP to the crew and demand everyone's papers too (maybe I should start carrying my passport...).



 

All too true - add in the screwby "economy", a shit-ton of "small wars" of muddied origin (to justify .MIL's imprudent belief that all COIN works?), bizarre terrorist groups that dress like they all shopped the same day at Sportsmans Guide and purchased all their transport at once, and the intellectual wasteland that these benighted disUnited States enjoy, and we're looking right at our very own shiny new version of "1984" at the "Animal Farm".

Enjoy your Facebook and Twitter folks - that's where you'll find out we are no longer a constitutional republic.

See ya, gotta go dig out my Father's WWII stuff - the swastika armband he liberated may be in fashion again.

Even though you have resorted to name-calling, I will not respond in kind. (Please don't misinterpret that statement to mean that I am currently an Agent/LEO, I am not.)

You* can't just refer to something without understanding to what it is you all keep incorrectly citing. The USSC ruling was that delaying the process of a traffic stop to allow the response of a K9 unit was not allowed because it did not fall under their primary mission for that stop; which was to issue traffic violation summonses, verify valid insurance/registration/license, warrants outstanding for the driver, etc. Since the USBP checkpoints are NOT traffic enforcement but Immigration/Customs/BATFE/DEA oriented, it is ABSOLUTELY within their mission to delay the vehicle from departing in order to verify that a properly articulated reasonable suspicion existed to warrant sending them to Secondary Inspection.

I am not saying that I feel it's okay to just have everyone sitting on the side of the road indefinitely until the Agents/LEOs get-around to having a K9 unit respond. What I do believe is that it is not unreasonable to expect that nearly everyone that passes through one of these checkpoints is quickly waved through and that the very slim minority that are sent to Secondary Inspection are inconvenienced as little as possible while still finding that for which the Agents/LEOs are looking.

How many will chastise the BP when something happens that could have been prevented by one of these checkpoints or during other border-adjacent operations? They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Considering I've had the unfortunate experience of being a first responder to acts of terror, I'll take a little inconvenience over death & destruction any day.


* = "You" is being used in the general sense, as to everyone in this thread and those on similar subjects, not directly solely at you as an individual.

All normal people know that it's not okay to suspend the constitution of the United States for the majority of the US population just because they happen to be within an arbitrary 100 mile zone regardless of police or "law."

Therefore, all border patrol agents, supervisors, etc. who ignore this fact are scum. They deserve nothing but contempt. If you defend their actions, you are an accomplice who also deserves nothing but contempt.

It's really that simple. Stop making it more complicated than it has to be.

...then thank you very much. You're part of the problem and the reason of how we got here.

Security Theatre.

Hyperbole.





Fucking jackboots.

Something about sacrificing freedom for security and deserving neither or something like that....

Gimme a break! You're speaking in absolutes and there are none except death. Should all law be abandoned? Just return to the days of everyone for themselves?

Part of living in an organized society is sacrificing some of your freedom for security. Turn those pointing fingers back at yourselves. You are all just as guilty as I am; every time you've obeyed a speed limit, NOT yelled "fire" in a movie theater, etc. We have all made sacrifices of liberty for the benefit of security but have you done anything to serve the public good?

Here a quote by another Founding Father.
In service to society, one must share the expense of it's protection. If you think Adams means solely the monetary kind, you need to read more about his point of view. Typing out quotes is one thing, actually doing something to make the world a better or safer place is another. I'm not saying that none of you have, I'm quite certain that many of you have done things from those for the benefit of this Country all the way down to helping your local community. All I'm trying to convey is that unless you have an alternative that serves the same ends, this is what they're stuck doing to protect America.

There is a monumental difference between "protecting people" and just straight fucking with them. Anyone who thinks the interior border checkpoints are in any way about protecting you from "bad guys" is clearly delusional.


And I can't speak for anyone else but what I can tell you is that I personally do not hold John Adams in any real regard, seeing was he was a federalist, who clearly felt that people needed to be "protected" from themselves.

But more to the point, the idea that we are constantly at risk of an attack is a tool used to take everything resembling personal freedom away from us. Fear is the tool of those who wish to control. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. I didn't serve my time to come home and see everything I was supposed to have been defending ripped out from underneath my family and and friends because someone, somewhere might be looking to kill me. Well there are plenty of people here In our country with no affiliation to a terrorist organization who would kill me in a heartbeat , just for the fun of it. I'll keep my freedoms and I'll personally accept the risk associated with it. Never needed government to hold my hand.

Every time someone complains about cops (or BP), someone invariably comes along and says, "Would you rather there be no cops!??!?! Would you rather we just abandon all law!?!?"

As though the only choice we have is between shit cops and no cops. Like there's nothing in between that the rest of the Western world enjoys but we somehow claim is impossible.

For clarity, I will spell out our options:

a) Our current scum BP.
b) No BP.
c) BP agents that are not scum and don't violate people's rights while protecting our borders...at the border.

......and people wonder why we are losing are rights.......scary how many people in the comment section of that article approve of these checkpoints.......and those people vote.

So basically "only people who think like me are granted "normal people" status
Can't all you guys keep threads like this in GD where it belongs?
What you're referring to is a personal OPINION, and everyone has one of those, and someone having one that differs from you doesn't make them any less of a normal person or wrong.

My opinion is that they struck a compromise. The 100 miles is what it is, that's the number they agreed upon for whatever reason.
If you don't like it work to get it changed.
The gov't agreed that for whatever reason the BP had a jurisdictional interest within a certain distance of the border, most likely because of the southern border but once policy was  created it applied to the entire national border
I would agree with them because just because a drug runner, illegal runner etc manages to slip a few miles inside the country doesn't make it any less a border issue.
Is 100 miles too big? Probably so..but like I said, if you don't like it, work to get it changed

"Intent" does not always equate in Legislation. I cannot help but wonder IF the 100 mile limitation wasn't intended to cover the Oceans ie 100 miles from the shore out to sea. (at least that's what I though it was when we learned about it in High School) Course most of those involved in the conception are dead, out of Office, or no longer concerned.

If we were of all one mind, we would be mindless.

There are some here who outright hate Cops, others that have them for best Friends, while the middle has no beef with them so long as they do their duty enforcing the Laws, and Protecting those under it so long as they do not violate the Rights, principals, and ethics its supposed to be based upon.

We must not alienate our Brothers wearing a Badge & Gun, nor allow them to become our masters.  

I recall learning about territorial waters and various coastal distances back in middle school the mid-1970's.  It was especially relevant at that time because Canada claimed an economic zone that encompassed the Grand Banks giving them exclusive fishing rights, so it because a Social Studies topic.



I just did a Google search and I found that the territorial limit now is currently 12NM and the economic zone limit is 200NM based on a 1982 treaty.  Prior to that time, nations were establishing territorial claims of any arbitrary distance they saw fit which caused a lot of international grief.  That was the issue with Canada's claim in the 1970's since the distance was not codified in a treaty as it is now.  Interesting story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War.



 

So, the BP agents are just following orders?

These stops are BS plain and simple. Having an opinion that evil is acceptable is not an opinion, it is wrong both morally and legally.

Yes, pretty much so: You have Supervisors dictating things like so many interviews per shift.
Why do you think they have these "check points"? because the Federal Govt. supplies funds to pay overtime, but if they don't make arrests, they don't get picked up again for OT.
Do you not think the Supervisors and higher up leaders are the ones behind the pseudo "public safety" pushes for click-it or ticket? Cell Phones, expired registrations/inspection, or other road side robberies under the guise of serving & protecting? It's all about the money.
OK, the people they cite are often guilty of breaking some V&T infraction that's going to cost them hundreds if not thousands in fines, surcharges, court costs, etc. and most of the ones penalized can afford it the least. How about the "Asset forfeiture" where a Cop can just claim the money you have was illegally obtained (through criminal activity) all without probable cause or due process. I'm not advocating for illegal activity only those accused have their fair chance.
Again, not every Cop is guilty or abusive; the ones I know absolutely are on "our side" however to keep their job and not be replaced with someone who will blindly follow orders, they have to balance the equation and pull details: sometimes they nab some real scum, and believe me there's no shortage of pure evil people out there that need to be taken out of circulation, but if we do not allow them their day in Court then what's to stop them from dragging you out of the house for that report of an evil baby killing rifle in your home.

Ironic: You'd think Customs would be more interested in stopping what on the outside edges of our largely Coastal Waters, instead of miles and miles inland.  

I would disagree that its pseudoscience
They've shown that certain things contribute to highway safety problems.
So laws get passed and enforcement to minimize those activities take place

I would also contest that fines get racked up in the thousands of dollars unless you're talking commercial trucking or your die-hard repeat drunk drivers, who shouldn't be on the road at all
Since we don't see most of the money from tickets and for local agencies tickets tend to be  a net loss, it is NOT about the money for the officer on the street.

The people being penalized through imposed fines are being penalized for activities THEY chose to engage in.
Those fines and any resulting financial pain could have been avoided by choosing to NOT to the activity for which they were cited.

I finally brought myself to watch the video of Jessica Cooke getting assaulted by some guy who got beaten up too much as a kid in gym class.  Oh yeah he happened to be wearing a uniform at the time and acting under the "color" of authority.  Where is the public outcry for body cams for the BP agents?  Why isn't the President sending the new AG to Watertown to investigate this incident and the many like it?  Here we actually have video of abuse as opposed to the innuendo of wrongdoing in Baltimore and nothing is being done because regular middle class, law abiding people don't matter apparently.  This "agent" is a disgrace to LE and humanity in general.

So please explain the last part? Take seat belts for instance. Are you saying it's necessary to protect someone from themself? Because as far as I can see if I don't wear my seat belt I get fined for the possibility of getting hurt in an accident (me, not anyone else) but it's perfectly acceptable to end my own life by assisted suicide. It would seem to me that the whole "protecting" thing is a joke, because the only thing that gets protected by a seatbelt law is the coffers of that municipality.

You must protect me from myself... It's for my own good. I've heard that line before

People are not islands. If they choose not to wear their seat belts they aren't affecting only themselves when they get ejected out of the car and killed
Seat belt fines in my state  go to the state general funs and don't stay local. Even if they did, tickets are a net loss to the agency writing the tickets
I think assisted suicide under very limited conditions where the terminal person would otherwise face a decline in their final days and no quality of life should be legal, but that's a topic for a different thread

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This, exactly - the same lame excuse the Nuremberg Tribunal wouldn't accept - now, in the name of "greater security for less freedom" it is considered a moot point, or even a "reasonable" alternative to how the USA is supposed to work.

If this is discussed at all, all the apologists have to say is either "He's got to earn a living for his family" or "He/she should get home safely every night."

People usually pick their "career field", and being a "Law Enforcement Officer" (What ever happened to "Peace Officer"? Hmmmmmmmmm.....) is just not that dangerous:

Linky

THE POINT IS THAT THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - END OF STORY. Screw SCROTUM, they are NOT there to "Make Law" but to determine whether "laws" are passable under the Constitution - that is all they are supposed to do.

Maybe the fact that posts and threads like this always go off the rails so fast is because this "constitutional republic" is in it's death throes and no one really knows where we're going.

We're approaching the bottom of the "slippery slope" we've all discussed at terminal velocity, and when we hit the bottom of the inevitable abyss (train coming at you or whatever....) it isn't going to be pretty. The bullshit in the "news" every day is just a reminder of  how incredibly advanced the institutionalized insanity has gone.

These threads go off the rails because people like you bring up the same old personal opinions that you think that various things are unconstitutional, or that law enforcement isn't that dangerous etc

Just for context, the this 100 mile BULLSHIT was put into effect in the 1950's when the BP has 1/20 of the manpower they had now.  It was about illegal immigration, not a catchall to ignore the Constitution, and all major Court rulings on the subject have upheld that the scope of the BP's 100 mile "extra-Constitutional" authority is severly limited in scope to immigration violations.  This thug overstepped and did so because he's had a gun, a taser and lots of backup to enforce his will.  The minute that Ms. Cooke told him that he couldn't touch her, he had to prove what a big boy he was and go hands on.  He acted like a thug, not a professional in what has historically been considered a very professional organization.(Think Bill Jordan)  BTW  If you live up there and have a problem with the unlawful conduct of any LEO, contact your DA(he wants to keep getting elected) and encourage him to investigate, charge, etc.

Wait so this is all constitutional in your eyes then?

Interesting answer, and I find it hard to actually write this, since your posts have always been well thought out. It seems the "us vs. them" mentality wished for by the statists between "the public" and "the poo-lice" has reached fruition.

Facts are facts and I am NOT "people like that", in fact, quite the opposite - so, not really giving a rat's ass anymore  - GET STUFFED YOU POMPOUS ASS!!!!.

And no, I won't be answering any further of your insults.

Seat belt laws are two things...bought and paid for legislation (by insurance companies) and opportunist politicians exploiting tragedy for votes.

Or do you really believe that it is your job to take people's money at gun point because you have to save them from risking their own lives so that their loved ones don't get sad and the state is spared the miniscule cost of cleaning up the body?



Ticket revenues don't go to the agency writing the tickets. They go to the state (via surchages) and the municipality that governs that agency. Most town cops, who make shit money, can pay for their salary and equipment expenses by writing one ticket a day. The NY DCJS bends over backwards to help towns make police departments for this very reason.

Show me where the courts have ruled otherwise


Quite simply, there are a group of people LIKE YOU who continually post the same personal opinions about what is or is not Constitutional and are pretty quick to expect people whop are "right thinking" to jump on their bandwagon and brand anyone else ( as you did) as "statists" or other meaningless terms.
You're the one fostering the us vs them in the things you post.
Go ahead; don't answer. I really don't care

Unless the officer is writing on a  local law the municipality isn't seeing any money for most tickets other than the surcharge
One ticket a  day? The fine for most tickets is less than $100. Many equipment tickets get dismissed with no fine imposed  if the defect is corrected in a timely manner
What "equipment expenses"?
NY isn't encouraging dept creation. if anything the State gov't is preaching consolidation of existing agencies to cut costs

The surcharge is called a "state surcharge" and goes to the state. Where do you think the rest of the money goes if not to the town in which the violation occurred?

As for the rest, here are some facts:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-statistics/

Interesting facts from the above:

The average annual speeding ticket revenue PER COP in the US is $300,000 (the average salary for a cop in the US is $48,000)
New York is number 3 in the country for issuing traffic tickets.

When investigating corruption, such as what's going on with Silver, Skelos and Cuomo, you follow the money, right? Well the same applies for figuring out the primary purpose of police in the US. Follow the money. Everything else is bullshit. You can say whatever you want, I can say whatever I want. But numbers don't lie. Follow the money.

There are various surcharges
I was referring to the court surcharge
Most fine money for V & T offenses goes into the State general fund.
There are a couple of exceptions like 1110A and obviously tickets written on local law violations.
Some DWI fine money comes back to the agency, but even then the amounts are not great.
I was looking over the monthly printout of ticket dispositions the other day and DWI fines being imposed were in the low three figures.
Many moving violation fines barely broke 3 figures
NOT a lot of money in the greater scheme of things, and partly why I say that tickets are a net loss to the agency issuing them.

If the courts in this country are you compass for what is constitutional at this point, then I'm guessing we are already fucked six ways from Sunday. The courts have ruled that murder is a right, that taxes on those without health care coverage are a-ok, that DWI checkpoints are somehow not a violation of the 4th amendment, that the NFA act is for the children, etc etc.

I'm personally am not going to side with a group of elite ivy league people who have never worked a real day in their lives

Ok, let's follow the money.

If what you say is true, then how is it that so many towns make so much of their annual budget from ticket revenues? We're not talking agencies here, we're talking towns. Do you know how much of the revenue from a ticket goes to the town?

Rather than me posting links, just google "town budget traffic tickets" and read some of the results.

The courts are the final say on what constitutes Constitutional actions. You can disagree all you want but your personal opinion has no legal weight behind it


Off the top of my head, I believe the towns get anything other than the surcharge or fine money from local law convictions.
Does the court take in all sorts of fine money? Sure. Most of that money doesn't STAY local though, and I don't believe that division of funds or disbursement/ return- to -the -state- of- funds broken down in whatever documents you might find.
Feel free to prove it to be otherwise. Every town justice I've talked to over the past 20-plus years on the issue has said essentially the same thing, that they aren't keeping the vast amount of whatever fines they levy. That's partially why they really don't care about imposing huge fines in most instances, at least around here.

edit: as to your suggestion of google links, the stuff I found in the last few minutes supports what I said in that it talks about gross revenue from all fines surcharges, bails etc without an actual breakdown of what stays local.
One story cited a state law I am unfamiliar with that caps local revenue from tickets at $ 5 per resident. So if that is accurate that means in one of the typical local villages here with 2500 residents,  revenue could be no more than $12500, not exactly a huge sum

Well then, that answers so many questions.

I know of a few guys who's personal opinions had no legal weight, in fact their personal opinions were illegal.

That, is until they made their own country.

Good luck with that course of action if that's what you're planning on
The useless chest beating inherent in such suggestions is a waste of time.
We aren't going to go to civil war over differences of opinion on every-day court decisions.

Seatbelt laws are bought and paid for by the insurance lobby.  If my insurance company wants to penalize me for failing to use due diligence in the event of an accident I'm OK with that.  Using LEAs to enforce personal safety at the point of a gun on the side of the road at O' dark thirty is not something I covet.  The holiday weekend enforcement details are about revenue and numbers generation to justify positions and equipment.  If enforcement were merely about "keeping us safe" why would quotas be in place (I know they are called something entirely different by each agency but they surely exist.  Why else would they be part of an LEO's performance evaluation?).  That's how government works.  TC556 may not see every dollar to his agency from every ticket, but surely they receive grants and other benefits from the State and Feds, think numbers generated may have influence??  I think we can get beyond the "safety thing". With health insurance and death benefit coverage the only liability to the government for scraping up our remains is local E.S. coverage and that's already budgeted for........whether used or not.  Are we ticketing homeowners who fail to install smoke detectors in their house??  It's for the children right?  I wear my safety restraints and helmets as appropriate BTW, because I like my body parts just the way they are.

OK, beat that horse.  The extra Constitutional BP check points in the hinterlands are an abuse of power at worst, a misappropriation of resources at best.  Highway interdictions on Route 81 in Central Square can surely be handled by NYSP and the Oswego county Sheriffs Office can't they?  Who's covering the border entry points when these guys are sitting on an interstate median 80 miles away from the border?  If they have so many agents they can afford to cover 90% of the northeastern states maybe they could withstand some downsizing, or relocate them to the southern border.  Use of the BP at interior checkpoints is an avenue for local agencies to play fast and loose with the fourth amendment, hence the use of such for the war on drugs.  The pursuit of drug runners using these tactics may not impact us directly until you're caught up in the snare and someone doesn't like your attitude.  Government agencies should be guided by the intent of the statutes that empower them, not by what they think they can get away with.......

Rant over

No, those are about safety because not using the equipment has been shown to increase death and injury in crashes
Performance evaluation?
No such thing at any agency I've worked for
As long as you're answering your calls, writing good reports etc you're good
Of course you need to show activity for shifts covered by grant money; that's the whole reason for the grant

Problem is many of these same people end up elected to Office and proceed to dictate to us how to live our lives while legislating as though "Sons of Anarchy" was a reality series. Really, many of these people that have truly never worked a day of their lives have no idea how the "rest of the folks" live-work-love-behave in this world....I remember a video clip where G. Bush Sr. went to the Grocery Store and was marveled, having no idea what bar-code scanners were.....think about it.

Please do not equate my comments to be inclusive of all, if all Cops were as those we find reprehensible in their behavior then the wars would be raging, leaving those who pitted us against ourselves laughing their demonic asses off.

tc556guy,

If the state gets the majority of ticket revenues, then yes, that certainly explains the state police and why they troll the roads like sharks ready to pounce on anyone for the slightest offense and protect and serve the shit out of their bank accounts.

What it does not explain is why small towns with no crime create police departments that then spend almost all of their time writing traffic tickets, or why town traffic courts are fully staffed from morning to evening turning over traffic cases and making what should be illegal deals to get people to not contest the fines. If there was no money in it, or not enough money to make a profit, then the expense wasted on police and the staff for the traffic courts would be allocated towards more useful purposes. No law says a town has to have a police department or a full time traffic court. Many towns don't.

It also wouldn't explain why most police are active during the day, when there are more motorists out and about, rather than at night, when there is more crime.

Of course, he hadn't personally gone shopping in forever, so in the late 80s he hadn't seen that technology that around that time had only been around a few years
IIRC the Dems made quite a bit of political hay out of his familiarity with something that by then was viewed as day-to-day technology
I'm not sure that it really shows anything other than that you get to a certain point in economic status you are freed from doing stuff that others have to do. I bet George had likewise not mowed his own grass or changed his own oil in years

The Staties are out and about doing that because its been tasked to them as one of their primary jobs. They'll jump on a DWI call lickety split but refuse to handle any number of more routine calls that wont result in an arrest or ticket stat for them.
I've heard that there is a huge insurance break for villages with their own PD. Also , having worked a couple of them, I've found the locals prefer to have an officer on site for reasons like response time and local accountability for local concerns

I can't speak for other counties, but I have yet to see a small village hall that is fully staffed to handle only traffic issues. Yes there is court staff on duty but its usually a single clerk handling ALL of the business that goes on in village and town courts. That's not just tickets...its criminal and civil cases as well.

Every court would prefer a plea over a trial because there isn't enough staff or judges to take every ticket to trial. It saves money for the defendant to plea out.

If you factor in officers time, staff time, processing time, DAs time, there isn't a ticket out there other than maybe FMCR tickets that actually turns a profit, and most officers don't write Federal Motor Carrier tickets

The information you are presenting conflicts with the statistics I posted earlier. Remember, the average cop in the U.S. grosses 300,000 dollars a year in traffic fines. That is a fact.