Border Patrol Check Point Outside El Paso

[gigag04]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

[Dave2]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

Wait... does that mean the mailman can arrest me now?

[apostate]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

What's the bill number? (and how does it impact the 82(R) SB 530 changes to Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure?)

[The Annoyed Man]

...I guess the trouble I have is what right does a BP agent have to stop someone who is not at the border?

If you have a problem with the reach of the BP, you'll really get your knickers in a knot if you ever experience the authority of a Fire Chief or a Game Warden. BTW, IANAL

Not sure about the Fire Chief but a Game Warden has ALOT of authority, I'm guessing more than most any other LEO.

They probably get paid less than most LE, I wouldnt want to cath him on a bad day, lol.

I wouldn't want to cath him on any day. Eeeeeew!

[smtimelevi]

...I guess the trouble I have is what right does a BP agent have to stop someone who is not at the border?

If you have a problem with the reach of the BP, you'll really get your knickers in a knot if you ever experience the authority of a Fire Chief or a Game Warden. BTW, IANAL

Not sure about the Fire Chief but a Game Warden has ALOT of authority, I'm guessing more than most any other LEO.

They probably get paid less than most LE, I wouldnt want to cath him on a bad day, lol.

I wouldn't want to cath him on any day. Eeeeeew!

Never said I could spell,lol. Dang this thread is getting hypothetical. I guess I'm not helping

[speedsix]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

...so they can legally disarm a CHL during an interview...can they enforce Texas laws and local city ordinances? I'd like to read that, too...

[gigag04]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

...so they can legally disarm a CHL during an interview...can they enforce Texas laws and local city ordinances? I'd like to read that, too...

I would assume so. I'll have to dig it out - I had the legislative update class Wednesday afternoon. I was in court that morning, right after my overnight shift ended. I was far from 100% by the time I got to the class, but I'll find out for you.

[speedsix]

...no hurry...just whenever you can, thanks...

[chlag01]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

What's the bill number? (and how does it impact the 82(R) SB 530 changes to Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure?)

IANAL, though I'd like to be. Here's all I could dig up:

Handy site for finding bills that affect various sections of Texas law:
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/isaf/

Penal Code defines peace officer in Section 1.07, which further references Criminal Procedure Code Section 2.12 and some education code.

Bills affecting PC Section 1.07:
HB 3423 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 03423F.pdf

Bills affecting CPC 2.12:
HB 2702 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02702F.pdf
HB 3815 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 03815F.pdf
SB 601 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00601F.pdf
SB 653 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00653F.pdf

I didn't bother looking up the education code.

As far as I can tell, none of these add "Feds" to the list of Peace Officers as defined in PC 1.07 or CPC 2.12, however, HB 3423 does add "Federal Investigators" to many of the Penal Code paragraphs that pertain to Peace Officers. For Example (new underlined):

Sec.A38.14.AATAKING OR ATTEMPTING TO TAKE WEAPON FROM PEACE
OFFICER, FEDERAL SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR, EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL OF
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, PAROLE OFFICER, COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OFFICER, OR COMMISSIONED SECURITY OFFICER.

I don't find any bills modifying GC411.205 (Require to display), GC411.206 (Seizure of Handgun or License), or GC411.207 (Authority to Disarm), however I am having difficulty finding where "Peace Officer" is defined pertaining to this section of the Government Code other than GC 614.001(3), which refers back to CPC 2.12.

[JSThane]

In reply to the original post (OP):

Addressing first the authority of Border Patrol to conduct checkpoint operations, as long as you are within 100 -air miles- of the border, it's kosher. Road miles do NOT count, as I can attest from personal experience that illegals will often walk sometimes great distances before they get picked up by a vehicle or some other method of conveyance. Some will walk very near to that hundred-mile limit, arbitrarily designated in law and precedent. Agree or disagree with the principle, but it's been held up in court as valid.

Border Patrol checkpoints are usually set up at major choke points for routes of egress from the border into the interior of the United States. Interstate and US highways, state highways, and local back roads are all "fair game" for checkpoints; the checkpoint southeast of El Paso is one such choke point, and well within the hundred air miles of the Mexican border. Under the Immigration and Nationalization Act, BP Agents are authorized to stop all traffic at such checkpoints and conduct a brief "immigration inspection" of the persons within each vehicle. Oftentimes, this amounts to a cursory visual inspection, or a brief "are you an American citizen?" HOWEVER, agents are also authorized to enforce ALL federal laws, and investigate apparent violations of such; in this case, this means evidence, or "reasonable suspicion," of a violation is apparent to the agent conducting the immigration inspection. Such "reasonable suspicion" must, by legal precedent, be sufficient not only in the agent's eyes, but articulable by the agent to a judge, and if necessary, a jury, in a court of law.

Note that "reasonable suspicion" does NOT equal "probable cause."

Bloodshot eyes and/or odd behavior certainly can qualify as reasonable suspicion. Under this, agents can "detain" persons appearing at their checkpoint. HOWEVER, standard 4th Amendment probable cause rules still apply. If no probable cause for an arrest can be made, nor permission to search voluntarily given, agents may NOT conduct such an invasive search.

Visual inspections do not count as searches, so long as what's being inspected is visible to the naked eye, with or without a flashlight. Xray, backscatter, and the like are not covered under this, as they reveal things not apparent to "plain view," and are more intrusive. Drug-sniffing dogs are counted the same as visual inspections, as odors are immediately apparent to the dog without any sort of physical intrusion upon a person or property. For purposes of search and seizure, a dog alert is judged in court to be the same as if the agent himself had seen a giant doobie sitting in the ashtray, as they're both immediately apparent to each without physical intrusion.

What it comes down to is, if the agents searched your car without your permission, they either A) Believed they had enough probable cause to conduct the search, that a judge would uphold said search and any discoveries therein, OR B) They were careless, forgot their law training, and went nuts. The little asides spoken to you by the agents, such as "you know weed is illegal," were most probably calculated not to be accusatory, but rather investigatory, trying to gauge your reactions more than the actual content of the questions.

One other note: drug dogs can and do give "false hits." I've seen dogs hit on drugs; I've also seen them hit on food items. While they are generally trained NOT to give alerts to non-drug items, occasionally a dog will give a false positive. And as has been stated, they usually do NOT bark; instead, each dog has its own body language cues that they've discovered contraband, whether it be sitting, sudden excessive wagging, pawing at the vehicle, or some other cue. Each dog is different; what may be a "holy smokes, look at the amount of dope here!" reaction for one dog, may be another's indication that it's hungry. The dogs are also trained to alert to hidden humans; while a person is harder to hide than a brick of marijuana or a bag of cocaine, one might be surprised to see exactly where and how people have concealed themselves.

On the firearms, I've no idea why they unloaded them. But while there may well be some "firearms database," and I certainly do not trust the ATF to not have one somewhere, we have no access to such a filing system. Most of us would spit on it, if we did. I imagine whoever unloaded it was probably instructed to do so by some journeyman, who might have received the same instruction himself when he was new, stretching back to whoever first said it was a good idea "for officer safety." My take on it: if you're a crook, and separated from the gun, then you can't shoot me anyways. If I'm going to arrest you for some crime, I'll unload the gun for transport. But if I'm just going to cut you loose, tell you to have a good day, well, you already HAD opportunity to shoot me when you pulled up to the checkpoint, and didn't. I'm not worried about firearms as some people, both agent and non, seem to be.

---

Please note, this is NOT an attempt at justification of the whole concept of checkpoints, nor a defense of the agents' actions in your case; it is simply the way such things are currently legally held. I have my own thoughts about whether probable cause did exist, but in all honesty, had this gone to court, had they found contraband, you probably would have lost the case due to testimony of a dog alert, unless it could be established that such probable cause for the search was NOT present, that the dog had NOT alerted.

I personally don't like the checkpoints, but it's the current legal reality that both you and I have to deal with.

[DEB]

In reply to the original post (OP):

Addressing first the authority of Border Patrol to conduct checkpoint operations, as long as you are within 100 -air miles- of the border, it's kosher. Road miles do NOT count, as I can attest from personal experience that illegals will often walk sometimes great distances before they get picked up by a vehicle or some other method of conveyance. Some will walk very near to that hundred-mile limit, arbitrarily designated in law and precedent. Agree or disagree with the principle, but it's been held up in court as valid.

Border Patrol checkpoints are usually set up at major choke points for routes of egress from the border into the interior of the United States. Interstate and US highways, state highways, and local back roads are all "fair game" for checkpoints; the checkpoint southeast of El Paso is one such choke point, and well within the hundred air miles of the Mexican border. Under the Immigration and Nationalization Act, BP Agents are authorized to stop all traffic at such checkpoints and conduct a brief "immigration inspection" of the persons within each vehicle. Oftentimes, this amounts to a cursory visual inspection, or a brief "are you an American citizen?" HOWEVER, agents are also authorized to enforce ALL federal laws, and investigate apparent violations of such; in this case, this means evidence, or "reasonable suspicion," of a violation is apparent to the agent conducting the immigration inspection. Such "reasonable suspicion" must, by legal precedent, be sufficient not only in the agent's eyes, but articulable by the agent to a judge, and if necessary, a jury, in a court of law.

Note that "reasonable suspicion" does NOT equal "probable cause."

Bloodshot eyes and/or odd behavior certainly can qualify as reasonable suspicion. Under this, agents can "detain" persons appearing at their checkpoint. HOWEVER, standard 4th Amendment probable cause rules still apply. If no probable cause for an arrest can be made, nor permission to search voluntarily given, agents may NOT conduct such an invasive search.

Visual inspections do not count as searches, so long as what's being inspected is visible to the naked eye, with or without a flashlight. Xray, backscatter, and the like are not covered under this, as they reveal things not apparent to "plain view," and are more intrusive. Drug-sniffing dogs are counted the same as visual inspections, as odors are immediately apparent to the dog without any sort of physical intrusion upon a person or property. For purposes of search and seizure, a dog alert is judged in court to be the same as if the agent himself had seen a giant doobie sitting in the ashtray, as they're both immediately apparent to each without physical intrusion.

What it comes down to is, if the agents searched your car without your permission, they either A) Believed they had enough probable cause to conduct the search, that a judge would uphold said search and any discoveries therein, OR B) They were careless, forgot their law training, and went nuts. The little asides spoken to you by the agents, such as "you know weed is illegal," were most probably calculated not to be accusatory, but rather investigatory, trying to gauge your reactions more than the actual content of the questions.

One other note: drug dogs can and do give "false hits." I've seen dogs hit on drugs; I've also seen them hit on food items. While they are generally trained NOT to give alerts to non-drug items, occasionally a dog will give a false positive. And as has been stated, they usually do NOT bark; instead, each dog has its own body language cues that they've discovered contraband, whether it be sitting, sudden excessive wagging, pawing at the vehicle, or some other cue. Each dog is different; what may be a "holy smokes, look at the amount of dope here!" reaction for one dog, may be another's indication that it's hungry. The dogs are also trained to alert to hidden humans; while a person is harder to hide than a brick of marijuana or a bag of cocaine, one might be surprised to see exactly where and how people have concealed themselves.

On the firearms, I've no idea why they unloaded them. But while there may well be some "firearms database," and I certainly do not trust the ATF to not have one somewhere, we have no access to such a filing system. Most of us would spit on it, if we did. I imagine whoever unloaded it was probably instructed to do so by some journeyman, who might have received the same instruction himself when he was new, stretching back to whoever first said it was a good idea "for officer safety." My take on it: if you're a crook, and separated from the gun, then you can't shoot me anyways. If I'm going to arrest you for some crime, I'll unload the gun for transport. But if I'm just going to cut you loose, tell you to have a good day, well, you already HAD opportunity to shoot me when you pulled up to the checkpoint, and didn't. I'm not worried about firearms as some people, both agent and non, seem to be.

---

Please note, this is NOT an attempt at justification of the whole concept of checkpoints, nor a defense of the agents' actions in your case; it is simply the way such things are currently legally held. I have my own thoughts about whether probable cause did exist, but in all honesty, had this gone to court, had they found contraband, you probably would have lost the case due to testimony of a dog alert, unless it could be established that such probable cause for the search was NOT present, that the dog had NOT alerted.

I personally don't like the checkpoints, but it's the current legal reality that both you and I have to deal with.

Great answer, very logical and to the point.

[apostate]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

What's the bill number? (and how does it impact the 82(R) SB 530 changes to Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure?)

Any new information?

[gigag04]

As of September fed's are now peace officers in Texas.

What's the bill number? (and how does it impact the 82(R) SB 530 changes to Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure?)

Any new information?

Grandad passed away, been off all week. I'll follow up when I get back. I too am curious what it is that I heard.