Dr. Peter Watts beaten and arrested

[Alareth]

Scifi author Dr. Peter Watts was beaten, pepper sprayed and arrested while crossing the border returning to Canada. He has been charged with assaulting a federal officer.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html

[Piggy]

Been there.

Unfortunately.

No doubt, he did not understand that you do not presume to exit your vehicle and have a peer-to-peer conversation with US law enforcement.

[popscythe]

Ah, America. Land of Liberty.

I really enjoy police brutality. The way it's handled is a nice reminder that I'm not paranoid. It's too bad that authors don't get riots started for them, however. They deserve it ever so much more than Rodney King.

[Piggy]

Btw, my official charge was resisting arrest.

That's right, I was charged solely with resisting arrest.

There was no mention of any other charge for which I might have been being arrested at the time of my alleged resistence.

And this is not unusual. Just this year, I've seen police blotter entries in my local paper which list the sole charge against a defendant as resisting arrest.

Apparently, it's somehow possible for you to be arrested for resisting being arrested for resisting being arrested for resisting being arrested for resisting being arrested for resisting being arrested.... well, you get the idea.

[popscythe]

well, you get the idea.

2cSJQPvsmf4#t=10s

I hear there are few border patrol guys in Antarctica this time of year...

Seriously though, what happened? Secondarily, did you try calling the ACLU? That's what I always figure I'll do if I get screwed over good and properly, is call the ACLU. Isn't that what they're for? :ignorance

[Dan O.]

Right off the bat, somebody is not telling the truth. Peter Watts states that he was leaving the US and returning to his home in Canada. Port Huron police Capt. Jim Jones reading the police report said: "Watts was crossing into Michigan from Point Edward when he was selected at random for a secondary Customs inspection." (link (http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091212/NEWS01/912120305/1002/Writer-faces-assault-charge))

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Right off the bat, somebody is not telling the truth. Peter Watts states that he was leaving the US and returning to his home in Canada. Port Huron police Capt. Jim Jones reading the police report said: "Watts was crossing into Michigan from Point Edward when he was selected at random for a secondary Customs inspection." (link (http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091212/NEWS01/912120305/1002/Writer-faces-assault-charge))

Which sounds more likely?

Jones said Watts was crossing into Michigan from Point Edward when he was selected at random for a secondary Customs inspection. Watts exited his vehicle "angrily" and border officers began checking the black sport utility vehicle he was driving, Jones said.

Border officers ordered Watts back into the vehicle, and when he refused, officers attempted to handcuff him, Jones said. At that point, Watts began to resist and pull away from the officers "and became aggressive toward officers," Jones said.

Jones said a border officer used pepper spray to subdue Watts. Jones said Watts "choked" an officer during the struggle.

Jones said Port Huron police were called to the scene after the scuffle and took Watts into custody.

Or...

He was stopped at the border crossing at Port Huron, Michigan by U.S. border police for a search of his rental vehicle. When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter.

Sorry Peter, your story makes no sense.

[Dan O.]

Do you have some evidence to share?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Do you have some evidence to share?

#7

[Checkmite]

If Peter Watts had been crossing from the US into Canada as he says, it seems to me the secondary customs inspection would be conducted by Canadian officials, not American officials.

Peter Watts is fibbing.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If Peter Watts had been crossing from the US into Canada as he says, it seems to me the secondary customs inspection would be conducted by Canadian officials, not American officials.

Peter Watts is fibbing.

Yep

[Olowkow]

This is Watts' blog:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/

Thanks to whoever posted the link to the Times-Herald story (http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091211/NEWS01/91211010/1002/Science+fiction+writer+charged+after+bridge+strugg le). I have three comments about the allegations therein. Firstly, the story claims that I was entering the US, not leaving it: this is empirically false. Secondly, I find it interesting that these guys characterise “pulling away” as “aggressive” behavior; I myself would regard it as a retreat. And thirdly, I did not “choke” anyone. I state this categorically. And having been told that cameras were in fact on site, I look forward to seeing the footage they provide.

[shadron]

As MIB said, Customs Officers, just like the FBI, the ATF and state troopers, are not issued senses of humor. They expect to be obeyed within their own bailiwicks. They don't see peer-to-peer as being useful; they don't have time, and they need to control the situation, and that implies ruler-to-underling. If that hurts your feelings, then go ahead and make their day.

When Watts insisted on leaving his car, that put him at immediate risk. The agents don't like people who are facing them with both hands free, they prefer them to be in their cars, encumbered by being seated, facing away, and in a relatively confining place while the agent has the freedom of movement. Besides, Watts outside his car is a road hazard; he doesn't know what the procedures are, or when another car might be directed to use the space he is occupying.

According to my pet fed (a member of my family), the cops want to see the driver relaxed in his seat, seatbelt on, with his hands on the top of the steering wheel, ready to listen and obey. Anything other than that sets off alarms to a greater or lesser extent. The cops aren't lawyers; they know enough about the law to cause one a mess of trouble, but they aren't looking for an argument. Those who do what the cops want are down the road quickly unless something unusual comes to light.

If you have a need to impose your right to ask questions of a customs officer, then stay away from borders. Sorry, Piggy.

[shadron]

This is Watts' blog:
(http://www.rifters.com/crawl/) Firstly, the story claims that I was entering the US, not leaving it: this is empirically false.

Empirically? We can set up an experiment to test it? And then, as pointed out above, customs agents look at arrivals, not departures. Empiricism fails.

[Cavemonster]

If Peter Watts had been crossing from the US into Canada as he says, it seems to me the secondary customs inspection would be conducted by Canadian officials, not American officials.

Peter Watts is fibbing.

He states in his blog on December 3rd
I am about to disappear into the dismal Nebraskan winter for a week. There will be few if any postings during that time. I leave you with a few words from our sponsors.

So it seems quite logical that he was crossing back into Canada.

Not knowing the exact layout of this crossing point, I can't say, but when I've crossed in the past at other points, Canadian and American officials were not very far from each other, and since it seems he was a few cars back waiting for a search, it does not seem much of a stretch that he was talking with/ arrested by US officers because they were nearby to where his car was waiting.

I don't really see any possible gain or motive for him to lie about which way he was crossing.

At this point, the police have refused to release the official written police report, and the video from surveillance has not yet been made public.

In all there is the word of one party against another, and until more information comes out, people can pick which they believe acted irrrationally aggressive. My hunch, from law enforcement cases in the past and reports by friends of Watts is that it is very unlikely that he tried to strangle an officer, but all the information should be public before too long, and we'll see.

[Doubt]

I have crossed at that border point a few times. Never heard of US customs checking somebody leaving. You drive up, pay your toll and then get to deal with the Canadian officials on the other side.

ETA:

I travel outside the US a lot. Mostly by plane these days. Never, ever have I seen any sort of stop by US customs on the way out. Only on the way in. Last time I passed through Port Huron was about three years ago. There was not even a place for US customs to stop anyone heading into Canada. Only the toll booths stood between drivers and Canadian customs and immigration.

[rockinkt]

If Peter Watts had been crossing from the US into Canada as he says, it seems to me the secondary customs inspection would be conducted by Canadian officials, not American officials.

Peter Watts is fibbing.

Noticed that too. That was the first thing that set the bells off.
Then I noticed that he did not obey a lawful order. That is so stupid it is beyond comprehension.
Crossing a border is a privilege NOT a right.
If you don't want to obey very simple rules that are there for the officer's safety AND yours - stay home.

I'm thinking that this story contains about the same amount of fiction as his published stories.

[Doubt]

Not knowing the exact layout of this crossing point, I can't say, but when I've crossed in the past at other points, Canadian and American officials were not very far from each other, and since it seems he was a few cars back waiting for a search, it does not seem much of a stretch that he was talking with/ arrested by US officers because they were nearby to where his car was waiting.


At Port Huron, they cannot even see each other. There are bridges crossing the St. Clair river. Same is true at Detroit where you have one big bridge and a tunnel.

[rockinkt]

I have crossed at that border point a few times. Never heard of US customs checking somebody leaving. You drive up, pay your toll and then get to deal with the Canadian officials on the other side.

Exactly.

[Elizabeth I]

As MIB said, Customs Officers, just like the FBI, the ATF and state troopers, are not issued senses of humor. They expect to be obeyed within their own bailiwicks. They don't see peer-to-peer as being useful; they don't have time, and they need to control the situation, and that implies ruler-to-underling. If that hurts your feelings, then go ahead and make their day.

When Watts insisted on leaving his car, that put him at immediate risk. The agents don't like people who are facing them with both hands free, they prefer them to be in their cars, encumbered by being seated, facing away, and in a relatively confining place while the agent has the freedom of movement. Besides, Watts outside his car is a road hazard; he doesn't know what the procedures are, or when another car might be directed to use the space he is occupying.

According to my pet fed (a member of my family), the cops want to see the driver relaxed in his seat, seatbelt on, with his hands on the top of the steering wheel, ready to listen and obey. Anything other than that sets off alarms to a greater or lesser extent. The cops aren't lawyers; they know enough about the law to cause one a mess of trouble, but they aren't looking for an argument. Those who do what the cops want are down the road quickly unless something unusual comes to light.

If you have a need to impose your right to ask questions of a customs officer, then stay away from borders. Sorry, Piggy.

That's very weird - the last time I had my car searched, the Customs agent told me to get out of it.

They didn't help me put all my stuff back when they were through, either. (I was coming back after a long stay in Mexico.)

[Doubt]

For those using Google earth to check the location:


try 43 degrees north, and 82 degrees 25'23' east.

Kind of hard to miss the bridges at the crossing.

[rockinkt]

That's very weird - the last time I had my car searched, the Customs agent told me to get out of it.

They didn't help me put all my stuff back when they were through, either. (I was coming back after a long stay in Mexico.)

Exactly. You stay in your car until you are told to exit your car. You get back in your car when told to as well.
Very simple.

BTW - When one has been physically touched by a peace officer carrying out a lawful arrest - you ARE resisting that arrest by pulling away.
This is also very simple.

[Doubt]

I did get pulled over for a search once entering Canada via Detroit. The Canadian customs officer was rather annoyed at his counterpart who sent me over there since there was not much reason for the search and not much to look at in the vehicle.

[Cavemonster]

For those using Google earth to check the location:


try 43 degrees north, and 82 degrees 25'23' east.

Kind of hard to miss the bridges at the crossing.

Yes, but customs itself is clearly not on the bridges, it is to the east of them, with a broad (5 or six lane) area of I69/I94 going west into Canada, a broad area going east into the US, and a broad area between them that seems to be for trucks entering the US from Canada.

I'd imagine this trucking lane was administered by US officials and if he were pulled over in the leftmost lane of the Canadian bound traffic, he would be very close to American Officials.

Link to border crossing (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.174768,94.921875&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Port+Huron,+St.+Clair,+Michigan&t=h&layer=x&g=Port+Huron,+MI&ll=42.998578,-82.434438&spn=0.002385,0.005794&z=18)

[Doubt]

Yes, but customs itself is clearly not on the bridges, it is to the east of them, with a broad (5 or six lane) area of I69/I94 going west into Canada, a broad area going east into the US, and a broad area between them that seems to be for trucks entering the US from Canada.

I'd imagine this trucking lane was administered by US officials and if he were pulled over in the leftmost lane of the Canadian bound traffic, he would be very close to American Officials.

Link to border crossing (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.174768,94.921875&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Port+Huron,+St.+Clair,+Michigan&t=h&layer=x&g=Port+Huron,+MI&ll=42.998578,-82.434438&spn=0.002385,0.005794&z=18)

You have your east and west screwed up. East is Canada. West is US.

The only thing you do heading into Canada is stop there at the toll both. The person taking your toll fair, if there is even a person there, is not a customs official.

[Cavemonster]

You have your east and west screwed up. East is Canada. West is US.

The only thing you do heading into Canada is stop there at the toll both. The person taking your toll fair, if there is even a person there, is not a customs official.

You're right, I did have my east and west bolloxed, but it is correct that the actual border crossing is not on the bridges, but on the US side. If he were stopped for whatever reason heading from the US into Canada, he could be quite close to the US border agents administering to the west bound truck traffic that runs right next to the eastbound lanes.

[Merko]

I find it extremely unlikely that Watts would lie about which direction he was going. That makes no sense at all.

I don't know why he would end up getting checked, but I'm sure the officers were in their rights to check him, and it seems much more plausible to me that the police would be confused about the direction he was travelling, than that mr Watts would be. After all, the routine is that they check people who are entering, so someone might easily have assumed that this was the case.

[Doubt]

You're right, I did have my east and west bolloxed, but it is correct that the actual border crossing is not on the bridges, but on the US side. If he were stopped for whatever reason heading from the US into Canada, he could be quite close to the US border agents administering to the west bound truck traffic that runs right next to the eastbound lanes.

And those agents would have no reason to stop him. They are dealing with trucks entering the US, and that traffic is non stop.

As I have said, I have crossed there before. Pay your toll and move on. That is what happens. There is no good place for a car to enter the inspection station once you reach the toll booth. And no reason for a car to be stopped there.

[Merko]

Exactly. You stay in your car until you are told to exit your car. You get back in your car when told to as well.
Very simple.

BTW - When one has been physically touched by a peace officer carrying out a lawful arrest - you ARE resisting that arrest by pulling away.
This is also very simple.
It's very simple when you know. It's very bizarre when you don't know and you believe that policemen behave like ordinary people.

This is not intended as police-bashing btw, police have their reasons for being extremely cautious, but for someone who never had much contact with policemen except for the friendly people who take down notes when your bike has been stolen, it can be a bit of a shock.

[The Fallen Serpent]

For those who know the crossing well, is there a way for a driver to get confused and turned around? Especially in heavy traffic it can be possible to end up going in a completely different direction than intended.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of the claims of either side. Of course, as said above, we will not know the truth until the surveillance video comes to light if it shows the confrontation well enough.

[Doubt]

For those who know the crossing well, is there a way for a driver to get confused and turned around? Especially in heavy traffic it can be possible to end up going in a completely different direction than intended.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of the claims of either side. Of course, as said above, we will not know the truth until the surveillance video comes to light if it shows the confrontation well enough.

Trying to turn around there in heavy traffic would be next to impossible unless somebody working there stopped traffic. But the long lines are normally backed up on the bridge but end before the toll booths. Paying the toll takes very little time. The back ups are at the customs and immigration booths on both sides. Normally longer going into the US than Canada.

Even in light traffic, there is no real way to turn around on your own. There are barriers between the entry and exit stations. Having a mechanical breakdown in that area would be a nightmare.

[Cavemonster]

And those agents would have no reason to stop him. They are dealing with trucks entering the US, and that traffic is non stop.

As I have said, I have crossed there before. Pay your toll and move on. That is what happens. There is no good place for a car to enter the inspection station once you reach the toll booth. And no reason for a car to be stopped there.

I'd imagine the truck traffic is not non-stop, as they would occaisionally want to inspect a truck. In fact there appear to be two lanes on the southern side of the truck lanes for just that purpose.

I do believe you that travelers entering Canada are not stopped, this might explain his confusion at actually being stopped for some reason.

Again, I can't see anything he could possibly gain by lying about which direction he was heading. He announced ahead of time to his fans on his blog that he would be in America for the week and thus returning to Canada exactly when he was arrested.

If he was stopped when he shouldn't be, the officers would have something to gain by lying about which way he was headed, he would have nothing to gain and it would be out of synch with his very publicly stated schedule.

Of course he was stupid to exit his car, and pulling away may have justified a resisting arrest charge, I find it hard to believe that he did anything to justify a beating and macing though. We'll see when (or if) the video emerges, who is telling the truth.

Being in Providence which is embroiled in it's own police cover-up scandal, I'm aware that it isn't unheard of for law enforcement officers to lie in order to cover their asses, and since there is no motivation for Watts to lie, my hunch is that the officers are incorrect in this disagreement. But at this point there isn't enough info for anyone to have more than a hunch.
If

[BTMO]

Why would you even want to live in or visit a place where things like this happen??

[The Fallen Serpent]

Why would you even want to live in or visit a place where things like this happen??

It still is the oddity rather than the rule. In places where corruption of law enforcement is generally so rampant that it does become the rule, the locals are usually incapable of leaving due to ignorance of how to do so while poor.

[BTMO]

This is the quality of police and government officials we have here...

Safer communities together (http://www.buzzfeed.com/findlayd/always-blow-on-the-pie-safer-communities-51k)

Now, isn't this much better than beating the crap out of someone and spraying them in the face with nasties? Treat your villians like this, and they stop being a problem...

;)

[CptColumbo]

The last time I crossed into Canada was in 2005. I drove to Thunder Bay to see the North American premiere of "Doctor Who." When I told this to the Canadien official I think he thought I was going to see a physician. After I explained it in more detail, he asked me to park at the building and step inside while they checked it out. I sat there for about ten minutes and they told me I could go. On the way back the US border officers didn't understand either and searched the car. They had me stay in the car until they were going to search the trunk and asked me to open it. They gave me back my license (you could still cross with just a DL at the time) and sent me on my way. In all it took less time to search my car then it did going into Canada.

[timhau]

Why would you even want to live in or visit a place where things like this happen??

In my experience, American border and customs officials are probably the most courteous ones I've encountered on my travels. Then again, if they ask to see my return ticket, I'll give it to them; if they say "May I see what's in your bag?", I'll open it without comment. That usually helps.

[The Fallen Serpent]

I like that video BTMO. Am I right in assuming some form of meat/vegetable pie rather than a dessert pie?

I would also agree with always complying with law enforcement. My policy is even if the law officer is in the wrong, mention what you find wrong about the situation politely as you comply. Certainly not before. It is better to be lectured to or even arrested than to be tasered or have your head bashed against the ground. When possible in the US law enforcement video records everything. Obviously if you are in a building or a place inaccessible to car it likely is not, but still. I would rather comply and fight it out in court then fight it out physically with a cop.

[Dan O.]

For those using Google earth to check the location:


try 43 degrees north, and 82 degrees 25'23' east.

Kind of hard to miss the bridges at the crossing.

You get a better view in Google Maps street view. Leaving the US through the toll booth ($1.50 US, $2.00 Canadian), there is a small parking area to the left with a gate to cross over to the west bound lanes and reenter the US through US customs. On the right, there is a larger pull off area with a small booth. The entire area of the toll booths and customs checkpoint is on a raised section of the bridge approach so while it is open, it is not easily observed from the sides.

There are two obvious security camera installations on the outer corners of the toll booth plaza. There appears to be a camera installation to the east of the booth on the right hand pull off and there may be one on the upper structure of the pedestrian elevator from 10th street. A camera on a poll south of the bridge between 10th and Stone streets can see an overview of the bridge approach and the toll plaza.

[not daSkeptic]

I agree with others, somebody is not telling the truth. Even if Watts' version of events is correct, he should not have left his vehicle.

I live a few miles from the US/Canada border, and I've crossed many times with varying degrees of scrutiny. Sometimes they go through the car, sometimes they look at your passport and ask a few questions, and sometimes they just chit chat a bit and wave you through without so much as a glance at your documentation. Every situation is different, but the one constant is that you respect the fact it's a border crossing. You are on their turf and you are their b****. You answer their questions directly and honestly, and you don't give them any reason to think you are not just another one of the many people trying to get through. They are looking for anything out of the ordinary and they are really good at spotting it. You don't mess with them, and unless you have something to hide there is absolutely no reason to do so.

With regard to US agents searching vehicles on the way out of the country, I have seen this. No formal checkpoint or anything like that, it was simply a uniformed agent walking down the line of cars that were still on the US-side and waiting to get across. He did random checks of vehicles, reviewing paperwork and asking questions. It happens.

[rockinkt]

Why would you even want to live in or visit a place where things like this happen??

Why don't you explain why you want to live in a country with such violent officers?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0003/S00034.htm

[Doubt]

You get a better view in Google Maps street view. Leaving the US through the toll booth ($1.50 US, $2.00 Canadian), there is a small parking area to the left with a gate to cross over to the west bound lanes and reenter the US through US customs. On the right, there is a larger pull off area with a small booth. The entire area of the toll booths and customs checkpoint is on a raised section of the bridge approach so while it is open, it is not easily observed from the sides.

There are two obvious security camera installations on the outer corners of the toll booth plaza. There appears to be a camera installation to the east of the booth on the right hand pull off and there may be one on the upper structure of the pedestrian elevator from 10th street. A camera on a poll south of the bridge between 10th and Stone streets can see an overview of the bridge approach and the toll plaza.

I see the opening in the barrier that you are describing. Somebody would have to be stopped before they reached the toll both. Not a normal situation AFAIK.

[fuelair]

It's very simple when you know. It's very bizarre when you don't know and you believe that policemen behave like ordinary people.

This is not intended as police-bashing btw, police have their reasons for being extremely cautious, but for someone who never had much contact with policemen except for the friendly people who take down notes when your bike has been stolen, it can be a bit of a shock.

Only criminals or the falsely accused (outside of police or ex-police)should know well any details about how police/border guards operate. Handling non-criminals like criminals may be good short-term but it leaves long lasting dislike and mistrust of the police among those affected, their friends and relatives. I spent a good 20 years that way thanks to actions of police in Nashville, Tennessee against friends or friend's relatives in situations where the knowledge was clear (and easy court victories/dropped charges showed) that the police were absolutely in the wrong in the initial arrest/questioning. From my late teens to early forties I would almost never trust a police person as far as I could throw the patrol car. That's also the time (counting army) where I worked very strongly on my concealed carry/use of non-gun weapons/fast draw and shooting skills - in case I had to protect myself from either law officers or others. Except in small towns where professionalism often still takes a back seat to local interests, I no longer feel that way but I will never always assume the police are right. Most of the time now, I'll start there but..... Due to the person's very likely non-criminal nature, though, I'm edging on border agents being on the wrong side of things. Regardless of which way he was going (a thing that should be excessively easy to prove).

[Foolmewunz]

Is Parliament in session? If so, I'd expect to hear someone enter this into the record during the question period; it's the kind of thing that's generally done in Canada.

It's also curious that there's no legitimate press coverage that I can locate in a quick google. The first two pages are blogs feeding off of blogs.

The jury at Chez Foolmewunz is still out.

[fuelair]

Is Parliament in session? If so, I'd expect to hear someone enter this into the record during the question period; it's the kind of thing that's generally done in Canada.

It's also curious that there's no legitimate press coverage that I can locate in a quick google. The first two pages are blogs feeding off of blogs.

The jury at Chez Foolmewunz is still out.Cute new avatar!!! One of yours??:):):)

[Bikewer]

I hesitate to comment on this sort of report; as noted someone is fibbing...

I have participated in a number of such incidents over the years; a routine stop ends up with the stopped individual becoming angry and loosing control, and thus being subdued, pepper-sprayed, and booked.
A charge of "resisting" is appropriate for most of these cases. Sometimes, they can be precipitated by an unduly obnoxious attitude on the part of the police, and sometimes exactly the same on the part of the individual.

[Cavemonster]

I hesitate to comment on this sort of report; as noted someone is fibbing...


From recent reports, it has become clear who was fibbing, and it wasn't Watts.
The Times Herald (http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091212/NEWS01/912120305/1002/Writer-faces-assault-charge)
Associated Press(CP) (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gLzlt-V3ssTrCzWJvKFFWIEjpv6Q)

Customs spokesman Ron Smith told The Associated Press that Peter Watts of Toronto was detained Tuesday in Port Huron.

Smith said Watts was travelling into Canada when his vehicle was selected for inspection.

So, those posters who have concluded
A) That Watts was lying
B) That there is no stopping of cars entering Canada
C) That it is logistically impossible for him to have encountered US agents if he was travelling into Canada.

Let's just say that you have shown your critical thinking skills.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From recent reports, it has become clear who was fibbing, and it wasn't Watts.
The Times Herald (http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091212/NEWS01/912120305/1002/Writer-faces-assault-charge)
Associated Press(CP) (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gLzlt-V3ssTrCzWJvKFFWIEjpv6Q)



So, those posters who have concluded
A) That Watts was lying
B) That there is no stopping of cars entering Canada
C) That it is logistically impossible for him to have encountered US agents if he was travelling into Canada.

Let's just say that you have shown your critical thinking skills.

Where in either of those articles does it show Watts isn't lying?

Let's just say that you have shown your critical thinking skills.

[Cavemonster]

Where in either of those articles does it show Watts isn't lying?

Let's just say that you have shown your critical thinking skills.

Re-read the thread Scruty

Peter Watts states that he was leaving the US and returning to his home in Canada. Port Huron police Capt. Jim Jones reading the police report said: "Watts was crossing into Michigan from Point Edward when he was selected at random for a secondary Customs inspection." (link)

and every statement from Watts

Firstly, the story claims that I was entering the US, not leaving it: this is empirically false.

and from your own post

Jones said Watts was crossing into Michigan

From the very beginning Watts stated that he was returning to Canada, and customs officials said otherwise. Customs has now changed it's stance.

You can apologize any time you like.

[Cavemonster]

Where in either of those articles does it show Watts isn't lying?

Let's just say that you have shown your critical thinking skills.

Where Watts and the official statement agree about what direction he was headed in... into Canada- unless the border officials are lying for him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re-read the thread Scruty



and every statement from Watts



and from your own post



From the very beginning Watts stated that he was returning to Canada, and customs officials said otherwise. Customs has now changed it's stance.

You can apologize any time you like.

Where in either of those articles does it show Watts isn't lying?

[Dan O.]

So, what are the US customs agents searching for in a car leaving the US? And why are they allowed to conduct any search without definite surveillance, supervision or witnesses?

This looks like an easy setup for a scam. The shady custom agents get to rifle through the travelers belongings and take anything they like. If the owners try to see or question what's going on they get maced and arrested.

[Foolmewunz]

So, what are the US customs agents searching for in a car leaving the US? And why are they allowed to conduct any search without definite surveillance, supervision or witnesses?

This looks like an easy setup for a scam. The shady custom agents get to rifle through the travelers belongings and take anything they like. If the owners try to see or question what's going on they get maced and arrested.


Are you posting from Indonesia? Do you really think USCBP behave as you've stated? Do you really see this as a threat?

I take it you don't deal with USCBP very often.

[Cavemonster]

Where in either of those articles does it show Watts isn't lying?

Okay, let me walk you through it.

Watts, originally said he was crossing from the US into Canada

Jones, the first spokesman for customs officers stated that Watts was crossing from the Canada into the US

According to this disparity, Checkmite dubbed Watts a liar and you agreed

Originally Posted by Checkmite
If Peter Watts had been crossing from the US into Canada as he says, it seems to me the secondary customs inspection would be conducted by Canadian officials, not American officials.

Peter Watts is fibbing.
Yep

Yet in the articles I linked and quoted, the official statement from the official spokesman backs up Watts' statement that he was crossing into Canada.

Hence, your contention that he was clearly lying about which direction he was headed was premature, unfounded and incorrect. Watts was heading into Canada.

I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer.

[not daSkeptic]

From what I've read, both sides seem to agree with the following general timeline of events:


Watts got out of his car without having been ordered to do so.
He was ordered to get back into his car.
He did not immediately do so.
At some point thereafter, he was subdued.

From what little I know of US Border Patrol operations, events 1 through 3 are enough to legally detain someone. I'm curious to know what happened between 3 and 4.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Okay, let me walk you through it.

Watts, originally said he was crossing from the US into Canada

Jones, the first spokesman for customs officers stated that Watts was crossing from the Canada into the US

According to this disparity, Checkmite dubbed Watts a liar and you agreed



Yet in the articles I linked and quoted, the official statement from the official spokesman backs up Watts' statement that he was crossing into Canada.

Hence, your contention that he was clearly lying about which direction he was headed was premature, unfounded and incorrect. Watts was heading into Canada.

I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer.

Okay, let me walk you through it.

See post #7. I concluded there that Watts is lying.

Then when Checkmite says Watts is fibbing, I agree.

I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From what I've read, both sides seem to agree with the following general timeline of events:


Watts got out of his car without having been ordered to do so.
He was ordered to get back into his car.
He did not immediately do so.
At some point thereafter, he was subdued.

From what little I know of US Border Patrol operations, events 1 through 3 are enough to legally detain someone. I'm curious to know what happened between 3 and 4.

I suspect that at 3.5, Watts started shooting his mouth off.

[Foolmewunz]

Okay, let me walk you through it.

See post #7. I concluded there that Watts is lying.

Then when Checkmite says Watts is fibbing, I agree.

I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer.

But you didn't use any bold type so you couldn't be right.

[Cavemonster]

Okay, let me walk you through it.

See post #7. I concluded there that Watts is lying.

Then when Checkmite says Watts is fibbing, I agree.

I don't know how I can possibly make this any clearer.

Why do you believe Watts was lying about which direction he was headed in when the official statement now agrees with him?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But you didn't use any bold type so you couldn't be right.

You are correct!

[Foolmewunz]

Why do you believe Watts was lying about which direction he was headed in when the official statement now agrees with him?

The direction he was heading has no bearing. The Times Herald mentioned that they had that wrong in their earlier article (which is no longer available). Whether they got the incorrect info from the cops or their reporter got it wrong - they do not state.

The direction being travelled is really insignificant unless you're just harping on Scrut bouncing his comment off of a post that cited the crossing direction. It's the rest that doesn't hold up.

Watts says there were cameras present. It'll be interesting to see if the video is introduced at his hearing on the 22nd.

(From the minor bond - $5000 - it would seem that the Port Huron Police aren't taking it too seriously.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why do you believe Watts was lying about which direction he was headed in when the official statement now agrees with him?

Post #7. You'll see I am not basing my decision on which direction he was travelling. You really need to move past that.

[Dan O.]

Are you posting from Indonesia? Do you really think USCBP behave as you've stated? Do you really see this as a threat?

I take it you don't deal with USCBP very often.

Why should these customs agents be any different than TSA?

[Piggy]

Seriously though, what happened? Secondarily, did you try calling the ACLU?

:D No, it never entered my mind to call the ACLU.

There was a "disturbance" outside my apartment and I went out there to tell these drunks to knock it off. I was out there when the cops arrived and they just picked us all up.

I was wearing a pair of shorts. Nothing else. No shoes, no shirt, no wallet, no keys, no nothing. And they didn't want to hear anything I had to say about, you know, living right there in that apartment and not knowing who any of these other people were, or anything like that.

So I end up in ACDC for the weekend (can't have first appearance til Monday) charged with resisting arrest, when there was no reason to arrest me to begin with.

[Alan]

The person who wrote the piece that was linked to in the OP also wrote the following in the comments section (comment 86):
To clarify: you have to go through a US border checkpoint on the way out of the country at Port Huron, before you go through the Canadian checkpoint to enter Canada. [snip]
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html
Is this true?

[BTMO]

I like that video BTMO. Am I right in assuming some form of meat/vegetable pie rather than a dessert pie?


It'd be a meat pie - but I'd use the term "meat" cautiously...

[Piggy]

A charge of "resisting" is appropriate for most of these cases.

Hold on, now.

If there is no cause to arrest, how can a charge of resisting arrest be valid?

Surely there must be some other prompt for the initial attempt to arrest or restrain.

If the person engages in disorderly conduct, or assaults an officer, well, that's a valid charge.

But to me, it makes absolutely no sense to allow any law enforcement agent to make a sole charge of resisting arrest.

(And btw, my dad was a cop, then Border Patrol agent, then federal investigator, so I have no grudge against law enforcement.)

[Piggy]

Why should these customs agents be any different than TSA?

Border Patrol is in a unique class. TSA are civilian contractors, as I understand it, not even in the same category.

Within a certain distance from the border, BP agents pretty much have the right to do whatever they want to do -- search you, search your vehicle, search your house, etc.

But by and large, the BP has used these rights with a healthy dose of discretion. They know that an act of Congress could change the game, so they've been careful not to abuse the powers they're granted.

[Piggy]

From what I've read, both sides seem to agree with the following general timeline of events:


Watts got out of his car without having been ordered to do so.
He was ordered to get back into his car.
He did not immediately do so.
At some point thereafter, he was subdued.

From what little I know of US Border Patrol operations, events 1 through 3 are enough to legally detain someone.

You bet.

That's why I again say it's most likely a case of a civilian presuming that he can have a peer-to-peer interaction with US Border Patrol, and being wrong on that count.

[Dan O.]

The person who wrote the piece that was linked to in the OP also wrote the following in the comments section (comment 86):
To clarify: you have to go through a US border checkpoint on the way out of the country at Port Huron, before you go through the Canadian checkpoint to enter Canada. [snip]
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html
Is this true?

What you go through is a toll booth (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.998193,-82.435811&spn=0,359.996663&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.998212,-82.435693&panoid=ubIatW8_jTfHixc3ZsAGrQ&cbp=12,21.85,,0,9.77) that is an extension to the customs building on the inbound lanes.

[not daSkeptic]

Within a certain distance from the border, BP agents pretty much have the right to do whatever they want to do -- search you, search your vehicle, search your house, etc.

That distance is 150-miles if I recall correctly, and that includes inland from shorelines as well. One could be 2/3rds of the way from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and still be within USCBP's jurisdiction.

ETA:

Border Patrol is in a unique class. TSA are civilian contractors, as I understand it, not even in the same category.

I think Dan O may have meant the TSOs that screen people at airports and not the TSA in general which includes, among others, Federal Air Marshals. From what I've read, some TSOs are civilian contractors and some are actually TSA employees.

Regardless, you are correct that the TSA is a vastly different organization than USCBP. For countries like the USA and Canada, border control agents have an insanely serious job. They're not guarding tiny places like Liechtenstein or Monaco. We're talking about nations with massive amounts of land area throughout which people can freely travel. They're going to be damn careful about who they let in because if they're wrong about someone it can be incredibly difficult to find them.

[Dan O.]

Within a certain distance from the border, BP agents pretty much have the right to do whatever they want to do -- search you, search your vehicle, search your house, etc.

Does the fact that they get to act like Gestapo somehow insure that they won't be criminals?

[tesscaline]

Only criminals or the falsely accused (outside of police or ex-police)should know well any details about how police/border guards operate.Really? So... I'm a criminal, or I've been falsely accused of being one?

Maybe I just want to keep it so that I'm never falsely accused of anything. Or, maybe I want to ensure that I don't accidentally become a criminal, like Watts has apparently done.

Being aware of, and well educated about, the laws and regulations that will apply to you under any given circumstance is always a good thing. And pleading ignorance of the law has never been a valid excuse. It is your responsibility to ensure that you remain law abiding. It is not the responsibility of law enforcement do make that happen.

Handling non-criminals like criminals may be good short-term but it leaves long lasting dislike and mistrust of the police among those affected, their friends and relatives. I spent a good 20 years that way thanks to actions of police in Nashville, Tennessee against friends or friend's relatives in situations where the knowledge was clear (and easy court victories/dropped charges showed) that the police were absolutely in the wrong in the initial arrest/questioning. From my late teens to early forties I would almost never trust a police person as far as I could throw the patrol car. That's also the time (counting army) where I worked very strongly on my concealed carry/use of non-gun weapons/fast draw and shooting skills - in case I had to protect myself from either law officers or others. Except in small towns where professionalism often still takes a back seat to local interests, I no longer feel that way but I will never always assume the police are right. Most of the time now, I'll start there but..... Due to the person's very likely non-criminal nature, though, I'm edging on border agents being on the wrong side of things. Regardless of which way he was going (a thing that should be excessively easy to prove).So... You automatically assume that the US border patrol is in the wrong, because of a rather long winded appeal to emotion, and a small sample size?

[tesscaline]

Does the fact that they get to act like Gestapo somehow insure that they won't be criminals?Are you insinuating that the US Border Patrol HAS acted like the Gestapo? If you are, would you please provide evidence of such behavior?

If not, are you trying to say that just because an organization has the power to potentially engage in a certain activity, they must actually be engaging in it?

[Piggy]

Does the fact that they get to act like Gestapo somehow insure that they won't be criminals?

I think that's stretching it.

The reality is that they have been given a very broad writ and they have not, in fact, acted like Gestapo.

[Bikewer]

As I said, I would hesitate to comment unless we had videotape or a published report on the incident. (since this may enter litigation, I doubt this will be forthcoming).

For Piggy's benefit, allow me to relate a scenario: Individual exits car and becomes mouthy and indignant. Individual is ordered back into his car. Individual refuses.

At this point, we have an offense. Trivial, true, but "failing to obey the order of a police officer" is a chargeable offense. Officer places hand on individual and says the magic words..."You are under arrest."
Scuffle, wrestling match, and other going-downhill events occur.

Happens frequently. People, even rational, intelligent people, let their emotions take over. In this case, all the individual would have to do is comply with the initial order.

[Alan]

What you go through is a toll booth (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.998193,-82.435811&spn=0,359.996663&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.998212,-82.435693&panoid=ubIatW8_jTfHixc3ZsAGrQ&cbp=12,21.85,,0,9.77) that is an extension to the customs building on the inbound lanes.
Thanks. I see now the reason for the toll booth discussion earlier. I missed the connection. :o

[Piggy]

As I said, I would hesitate to comment unless we had videotape or a published report on the incident. (since this may enter litigation, I doubt this will be forthcoming).

For Piggy's benefit, allow me to relate a scenario: Individual exits car and becomes mouthy and indignant. Individual is ordered back into his car. Individual refuses.

At this point, we have an offense. Trivial, true, but "failing to obey the order of a police officer" is a chargeable offense. Officer places hand on individual and says the magic words..."You are under arrest."
Scuffle, wrestling match, and other going-downhill events occur.

Happens frequently. People, even rational, intelligent people, let their emotions take over. In this case, all the individual would have to do is comply with the initial order.

Well that's what I'm saying.

In that hypothetical case, there's an original chargeable offense.

What gets my goat is charging people solely with resisting arrest, which happens around here.

But I'm not saying that's what happened in the case cited in the OP, so this is really a tangent.

[Dan O.]

"failing to obey the order of a police officer" is a chargeable offense.

You left out one significantly important word which is the key differentiation between what we are supposed to have and the Gestapo. I believe you made this same mistake before so I wonder if you even understand what the difference is.

[Piggy]

You left out one significantly important word which is the key differentiation between what we are supposed to have and the Gestapo. I believe you made this same mistake before so I wonder if you even understand what the difference is.

I'm sorry, but law enforcement cannot function if there is no requirement that people comply with reasonable requests.

Yes, there are lines.

For instance, you can't be simply ordered to surrender your Constitutional rights. In other words, you don't have to submit to a warrantless search with no probable cause just because a cop tells you to (although they will try that ploy -- they do it all the time).

But if a cop tells you to stay in your vehicle, or keep your hands visible, or be quiet for a minute and stand still, that is a reasonable request, and if you refuse such requests then you're impeding the conduct of law enforcement in the performance of duties.

That has nothing to do with the Gestapo.

[rockinkt]

You left out one significantly important word which is the key differentiation between what we are supposed to have and the Gestapo. I believe you made this same mistake before so I wonder if you even understand what the difference is.

Ooh, ooh Mr.Kotter...I know!! "Lawful".

Or course, in the example we are actually discussing...it is lawful for a peace officer to order someone to either stay in their car or exit their car. Unless you can show that the car was on fire, or filled with scorpions, or had one of those pine fresh air doohickies...

[BTMO]

Hey - look on the bright side. The guy will get an invite to the White House to drink beer and talk it out.

After all - a precedent (president?) has been set...

[not daSkeptic]

In this case, all the individual would have to do is comply with the initial order.

And I know of just such an incident. One of my friends hired a Canadian carpenter to work on his house, and so he was escorting them through the border. He had all of the necessary paperwork, but the carpenter accidentally got in the wrong lane (I gather he was supposed to use the lane for commercial vehicles). My friend got out of his car to inform the carpenter of this and the border agent sprung into action. With his hand on his sidearm, he yelled at my friend to get back in his car, which my friend immediately did. End of situation.

[rockinkt]

Hey - look on the bright side. The guy will get an invite to the White House to drink beer and talk it out.

After all - a precedent (president?) has been set...


:D

[Dan O.]

Ooh, ooh Mr.Kotter...I know!! "Lawful".

Or course, in the example we are actually discussing...it is lawful for a peace officer to order someone to either stay in their car or exit their car. Unless you can show that the car was on fire, or filled with scorpions, or had one of those pine fresh air doohickies...

In the current example it may not actually have been lawful for the officer to order him back into the car. Even foreigners trying to go home still have some rights.

[tesscaline]

In the current example it may not actually have been lawful for the officer to order him back into the car. Even foreigners trying to go home still have some rights.
How do you figure that it "may not have been lawful"? What "rights" were violated?

[Kestrel]

It's rare to be stopped on the US side of the border when entering Canada.

Would it be reasonable to get out of the car to ask why you were being stopped, and expect a polite explanation from the Border Patrol agent?

[SezMe]

Within a certain distance from the border, BP agents pretty much have the right to do whatever they want to do -- search you, search your vehicle, search your house, etc.

That distance is 150-miles if I recall correctly, and that includes inland from shorelines as well.
Hang on. Piggy is saying that various constitutional guarantees have been suspended for BP agents within, apparently, 150 miles of the USA border. That includes well over half the total USA population.

I have never heard of this. Can you provide some support?

And if this is too off-topic, I'd be happy to request a thread split.

[Kestrel]

Hang on. Piggy is saying that various constitutional guarantees have been suspended for BP agents within, apparently, 150 miles of the USA border. That includes well over half the total USA population.

I have never heard of this. Can you provide some support?

And if this is too off-topic, I'd be happy to request a thread split.

From what I understand, the border search exception only applies at the border.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You left out one significantly important word which is the key differentiation between what we are supposed to have and the Gestapo. I believe you made this same mistake before so I wonder if you even understand what the difference is.

I think you'll soon discover that your question to Bikewer will blow up in your face. Should be fun to watch!

[not daSkeptic]

Hang on. Piggy is saying that various constitutional guarantees have been suspended for BP agents within, apparently, 150 miles of the USA border. That includes well over half the total USA population.

I have never heard of this. Can you provide some support?

I too thought it sounded like a load of bull when I first read it. I'll see if I can find the article.

ETA: Found it. It's 100-miles, not 150. My bad.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-assuming-broad-powers-turning-vast-swaths-us-constitut

ETA-2: I'm not sure how much I trust the ACLU to not spin things. While USCBP does claim jurisdiction of 100-miles, I doubt it is really a constitution-free zone.

[popscythe]

I suspect that at 3.5, Watts started shooting his mouth off.

Which, no matter how you slice it, doesn't warrant being pepper sprayed and handcuffed, even if that's the only thing that happened to him, let alone the beating he claims will be verified by the footage of the event.

Since when is the first thing that crosses the mind of people, "Man that guy was probably behaving badly, so he shouldn't complain about having a chemical weapon used on him."

What the hell? If I pepper spray a guy, it's assault. If I get pepper sprayed, I'm a sausage for complaining?

A friend of mine once said, "The problem with tasers and mace is that police were given them so that they had an alternative to shooting someone to protect themselves, and now they're used all the time as a compliance tool." I completely agree. If waterboarding a guy is torture, macing him is definitely torture, if it's done to get him to do what you want, be it confess to something or provide information, or get in a car. And it's blatantly torture if it's used as revenge for you mouthing off after you're already in handcuffs. If he took a swing at, or threatened, or even looked like he was going for a weapon, fine. The border patrol guy was defending himself. Otherwise, that type of uniformed brutality is unacceptable.

[shadron]

Why should these customs agents be any different than TSA?

One other difference is that customs has been an institution for a long, long time. It was established in the 1st congress by the fifth act passed, in 1789. It has a long institutional history and mythos of its own. The latest accident of lumping it in with the upstarts from the INS (1891) and the Border Patrol (1915) has caused lots of institutional flack and unrest, but that is as nothing compared to the institution of the TSA (2001), which cannot yet find its communal backside with both hands (I'm shamelessly overplaying the hate-of-gov card here, if it isn't obvious). One of my close relatives has worked for both.

Seriously, these two institutions, CBP and TSA, are worlds apart in outlook, management, procedures, methods and depth of personnel. They are worlds different.

[rockinkt]

It's rare to be stopped on the US side of the border when entering Canada.

Would it be reasonable to get out of the car to ask why you were being stopped, and expect a polite explanation from the Border Patrol agent?

Why in the heck would you need to exit your vehicle to ask a question?
The second you exit your vehicle - you are acting outside the norm. Tens of thousands of people cross the border each day and do not get out of their car.
Besides - what logical and reasonable person would not comply with a request/order to get back in their vehicle?
What valid and reasonable excuse does Dr. Watts give?

[rockinkt]

Which, no matter how you slice it, doesn't warrant being pepper sprayed and handcuffed, even if that's the only thing that happened to him, let alone the beating he claims will be verified by the footage of the event.

Since when is the first thing that crosses the mind of people, "Man that guy was probably behaving badly, so he shouldn't complain about having a chemical weapon used on him."

What the hell? If I pepper spray a guy, it's assault. If I get pepper sprayed, I'm a sausage for complaining?

A friend of mine once said, "The problem with tasers and mace is that police were given them so that they had an alternative to shooting someone to protect themselves, and now they're used all the time as a compliance tool." I completely agree. If waterboarding a guy is torture, macing him is definitely torture, if it's done to get him to do what you want, be it confess to something or provide information, or get in a car. And it's blatantly torture if it's used as revenge for you mouthing off after you're already in handcuffs. If he took a swing at, or threatened, or even looked like he was going for a weapon, fine. The border patrol guy was defending himself. Otherwise, that type of uniformed brutality is unacceptable.

Did the above happen after he resisted arrest?

He admits in his blog that he did resist arrest. He can try to explains his actions in as many self-serving ways he wants - but he is wrong to think that "pulling away" is not resisting arrest.
Someone resisting arrest is going to find out that such actions are not - and cannot - be taken lightly. Force is going to be used to make you comply.

[Kestrel]

Why in the heck would you need to exit your vehicle to ask a question?
The second you exit your vehicle - you are acting outside the norm. Tens of thousands of people cross the border each day and do not get out of their car.
Besides - what logical and reasonable person would not comply with a request/order to get back in their vehicle?
What valid and reasonable excuse does Dr. Watts give?

Normally someone entering the US by car drives up to a window. It's clear what you are expected to do. If you need to be searched, they explain where to pull over and there are explicit signs telling you the rules, such as stay in your car.

Getting searched while exiting is rare. There isn't a window to pull up to, there don't appear to be signs instructing motorists about the rules. Nothing to inform you that getting out of your car is prohibited.

[tesscaline]

Normally someone entering the US by car drives up to a window. It's clear what you are expected to do. If you need to be searched, they explain where to pull over and there are explicit signs telling you the rules, such as stay in your car.

Getting searched while exiting is rare. There isn't a window to pull up to, there don't appear to be signs instructing motorists about the rules. Nothing to inform you that getting out of your car is prohibited.The problem isn't just that he got out of his car. He got out of his car, and then refused to get back into it when the officer told him to. And then, on top of that, after refusing to follow a lawful order, he resisted arrest by "pulling away".

After all, these same rules apply when dealing with regular police, and there aren't any road signs telling you not to get out of the car when a normal police officer pulls you over, and you're still expected to not get out of your car.

[fishbob]

Exactly. You stay in your car until you are told to exit your car. You get back in your car when told to as well.
Very simple.

BTW - When one has been physically touched by a peace officer carrying out a lawful arrest - you ARE resisting that arrest by pulling away.
This is also very simple.

This is probably routine and common sense to the law enforcement community, probably also pretty obvious to the career criminals. For the rest of us, this is not. We don't know the procedures, we don't know concerns, and first time we ever deal with this is likely a stressful situation where there has been no time for careful planning about how we are supposed to behave. This is NOT simple. Anybody with a badge assuming otherwise has been poorly trained and ill equipped for the job.

[fishbob]

Why in the heck would you need to exit your vehicle to ask a question?
The second you exit your vehicle - you are acting outside the norm. Tens of thousands of people cross the border each day and do not get out of their car.
Besides - what logical and reasonable person would not comply with a request/order to get back in their vehicle?
What valid and reasonable excuse does Dr. Watts give?

Long, long ago, in my driver's ed class we were specifically instructed that you were supposed to get out of your car if stopped by the police. The policy has apparently changed, but how is the public supposed to keep up with what is normal in police procedures?

[SezMe]

I too thought it sounded like a load of bull when I first read it. I'll see if I can find the article.

ETA: Found it. It's 100-miles, not 150. My bad.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-assuming-broad-powers-turning-vast-swaths-us-constitut

ETA-2: I'm not sure how much I trust the ACLU to not spin things. While USCBP does claim jurisdiction of 100-miles, I doubt it is really a constitution-free zone.
See #89. If wiki is correct, it only applies to travelers at the border. That I am ok with.

[fuelair]

This is probably routine and common sense to the law enforcement community, probably also pretty obvious to the career criminals. For the rest of us, this is not. We don't know the procedures, we don't know concerns, and first time we ever deal with this is likely a stressful situation where there has been no time for careful planning about how we are supposed to behave. This is NOT simple. Anybody with a badge assuming otherwise has been poorly trained and ill equipped for the job.What I said way earlier - Only criminals and police/ex-police have any reason to know that. Operating purely that way with non-criminal civilians makes them enemies of the police very often.

[not daSkeptic]

... we don't know concerns ...

You don't recognize the significance of an international border?

[Euromutt]

So, those posters who have concluded
A) That Watts was lying
B) That there is no stopping of cars entering Canada
C) That it is logistically impossible for him to have encountered US agents if he was travelling into Canada.

Let's just say that you have shown your critical thinking skills.

Jeez, Cavemonster, you don't have to be an ******* about it. The Port Huron Times-Herald itself states (http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091212/NEWS01/912120305/1002/Writer-faces-assault-charge) that it initially incorrectly reported in which direction Watts was traveling, and it is unusual for any customs service to inspect while you're leaving the country. You can hardly accuse anyone of lacking critical thinking skills for drawing conclusions that would have been correct were it not for the fact that the information on which they were based turned out to be incorrect.

So, what are the US customs agents searching for in a car leaving the US? And why are they allowed to conduct any search without definite surveillance, supervision or witnesses?
The legal code of most countries--not just that of the US--consider the act of crossing an international border to form sufficient probable cause to conduct a stop and search, and allow stops and searches within a certain distance of a border. For example, in 1998, some friends and I were traveling from the Netherlands to Austria in two cars, and our lead vehicle was stopped by two Bavarian plainclothes cops (in an unmarked BMW) still a good 12-15 kilometers short of the Austrian border. As we later found out, German law allows (or did at the time, prior to the entry into force of the Schengen Agreement) stops and searches within 20 kilometers of any international border, even when it doesn't particularly make sense (as we were clearly headed out of Germany at the time).

As to what BCP is looking for... military technology? State secrets? Most likely, parents involved in custody battles who are trying to do a runner with the kid.

[tesscaline]

See #89. If wiki is correct, it only applies to travelers at the border. That I am ok with.The problem here is what the definition of "at the border" is. The US definition of "at the border" is anywhere within 100 miles of any border or shoreline.

I would also point out that the article you cited did not address, as far as I could tell, anything about the above issue of "what is the definition of the border?". If you think it does, would you mind citing the passage?

[tesscaline]

As to what BCP is looking for... military technology? State secrets? Most likely, parents involved in custody battles who are trying to do a runner with the kid.Or drugs, or weapons, or (as in the case of a friend of ours) smuggled avocados. Yes, I'm serious, avocados.

Simply put, they're looking for anything that might be illegal. Anything. Be that state secrets, or avocados.

[rockinkt]

This is probably routine and common sense to the law enforcement community, probably also pretty obvious to the career criminals. For the rest of us, this is not. We don't know the procedures, we don't know concerns, and first time we ever deal with this is likely a stressful situation where there has been no time for careful planning about how we are supposed to behave. This is NOT simple. Anybody with a badge assuming otherwise has been poorly trained and ill equipped for the job.

It is common sense to obey the simple command of a police officer to get back in your vehicle.

Just out of curiosity - what part of "Please get back in your vehicle, sir" would you find difficult to comprehend? What sort of planning would it take for you to follow such a request?

Having had a badge for quite a number of years - I very, very rarely had to deal with somebody that did not understand that one should obey the police officer when told to get back in the vehicle. After all - a certain level of intelligence is needed to drive a vehicle.
Now, people who thought that they were special because they had some sort of self important thing going on - those were the ones that had to argue and escalate the situation. (Like maybe a professional athlete, politician, or writer of Science Fiction books)

Also - things might have gone from bad to worse if the officer(s) involved in the OP situation did not try and defuse the situation and immediately upped the ante by becoming belligerent.
Seen this happen and the person goes from being an argumentative fool to criminal under arrest very quickly.

Personally - I would always try and de-escalate such situations before arrest became the only alternative. However, there may have been extenuating circumstances that put the officers in a position where they had to act quickly.

[rockinkt]

What I said way earlier - Only criminals and police/ex-police have any reason to know that. Operating purely that way with non-criminal civilians makes them enemies of the police very often.

Nonsense.

I ask you the same question: What part of "Please get back in your vehicle, sir" would you find difficult to comprehend?
What sort of planning would it take for you to follow such a request?

[rockinkt]

Long, long ago, in my driver's ed class we were specifically instructed that you were supposed to get out of your car if stopped by the police. The policy has apparently changed, but how is the public supposed to keep up with what is normal in police procedures?

I am absolutely certain that that same class told you to obey the orders of a police officer when you are stopped by one.

So...you get out of your car. No big deal. The police officer tells you to get back in your car.
Why would any sane person not obey that simple request?

[gambling_cruiser]

I have never been a member of any police force or anything similar, never been charged at any criminal activity, offense or misdemeanor.
I never had a problem to unterstand the procedures when confronted with officers.
Maybe I watched enough US tv/movies to know how to act in this case?
I find it hard to believe an average US or canadian citizen hasn't seen many more hours about police than I have watched.
What's so complicated about comply with the commands?
You can complain afterswards or file a lawsuit or whine on the internet, that's your choice.

[Foolmewunz]

Why should these customs agents be any different than TSA?

Having been through customs in numerous truly corrupt countries, I can assure you that they are quite different. If you have a need to believe that all Customs and all governments are equally corrupt, be my guest, but you're deluding yourself.

[Merko]

I was once stopped by an extremely aggravated policeman. He immediately starting insulting me and even more so my passenger. He did an alco test for obviously no other reason than to harass me (obviously I complied without protest, but that is beside the point). Then he wanted to check with the registers to see if the car was stolen etc, again for absolutely no other reason than harassment, and while constantly shouting abuse at us.

During all of this I made a point of being extremely calm and polite, basically just one notch below outright mockery (I did not want to pick a fight).

At that point he started rummaging through some documents lying in the wind screen. Since the car wasn't mine, I had no idea if some of those papers were important, and I did not trust this officer to not just simply grab the papers and walk away with them. So I had to stop him, which I did by pointing out that unless he had a search warrant he had no right to do this (which appeared to be true as he backed off).

However, I was extremely lucky, because this officer was accompanied by a colleague who, although mostly passive, was still clearly showing a professional attitude. He was chatting away in a friendly way with my passenger, who was the main target of abuse from the other one. If the angry officer had been alone, or there had been two angry ones, or the other one just didn't give a damn either way, I think anything could have happened.


Anyway, my point is simply this: Police have a monopoly on the right to use violence. This is problematic.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Which, no matter how you slice it, doesn't warrant being pepper sprayed and handcuffed, even if that's the only thing that happened to him, let alone the beating he claims will be verified by the footage of the event.

I'm guessing the "shooting his mouth off" at 3.5 was followed by police ordering him to put his hands behind his back at 3.6, and him pulling away and behaving belligerently at 3.7 and 3.8. It's been known to happen.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Long, long ago, in my driver's ed class we were specifically instructed that you were supposed to get out of your car if stopped by the police. The policy has apparently changed, but how is the public supposed to keep up with what is normal in police procedures?

All of which is irrelevant. It's not the getting out of the car that got him in trouble. It's the refusing to get back in that did.

I think I learned around age 5 that you are to follow police orders.

[Howie Felterbush]

:D No, it never entered my mind to call the ACLU.

There was a "disturbance" outside my apartment and I went out there to tell these drunks to knock it off. I was out there when the cops arrived and they just picked us all up.

I was wearing a pair of shorts. Nothing else. No shoes, no shirt, no wallet, no keys, no nothing. And they didn't want to hear anything I had to say about, you know, living right there in that apartment and not knowing who any of these other people were, or anything like that.

So I end up in ACDC for the weekend (can't have first appearance til Monday) charged with resisting arrest, when there was no reason to arrest me to begin with.

This was your biggest mistake, Piggy. Haven't you ever seen COPS? The guy with no shirt always gets the most hassle from the fuzz. It's like a rule or something. :)

[Piggy]

Hang on. Piggy is saying that various constitutional guarantees have been suspended for BP agents within, apparently, 150 miles of the USA border. That includes well over half the total USA population.

I have never heard of this. Can you provide some support?

And if this is too off-topic, I'd be happy to request a thread split.

I can call my dad and ask him if he remembers the precise mile range. He probably does, he's got a good memory. That would tell you what it was in the '50s and '60s.

Of course, that's just one man's recollection, but if you like I can ask.

[roger]

Hang on. Piggy is saying that various constitutional guarantees have been suspended for BP agents within, apparently, 150 miles of the USA border. That includes well over half the total USA population.

I have never heard of this. Can you provide some support?

And if this is too off-topic, I'd be happy to request a thread split.
Well, yall can search for all the links you want, but I was in El Paso Tx and the surrounding area in NM, and they had a border patrol checkpoint set up on the interstate. This means there was a paved exit off of the interstate with built in gates allowing them to shut down the interstate, shunting you off onto this exit. No, it wasn't an exit for a town, just a bit of pavement that left the interstate then went back onto it down the road.

I went through several others which were not manned at the time.

I also passed quite a few BP sitting and watching at regular exits.

So yes, BP stops people outside the physical border (one dimensional line).

[I Ratant]

Long, long ago, in my driver's ed class we were specifically instructed that you were supposed to get out of your car if stopped by the police. The policy has apparently changed, but how is the public supposed to keep up with what is normal in police procedures?
.
I would, and have, waited in the car for the nice officer to explain why he has stopped me. Never had to get out. Or get off the motorcycle.
On an occasion where I was driving and Sweet Thang had loosened her seat belt to get to her cell-phone that had fallen between the seats, the passing CHP officer noticed her not being belted in, and at the stop, she was requested to get out of the vehicle.
Just checked the license, registration and insurance cards from me. And she got the ticket.
Watching any of the COPS shows, it's easy to see why remaining in the car is safest for all concerned, with the number of crazies that get riled up when stopped.

[I Ratant]

This was your biggest mistake, Piggy. Haven't you ever seen COPS? The guy with no shirt always gets the most hassle from the fuzz. It's like a rule or something. :)
.
Those types tend to be mouthy. And with no ID.... whadda they expect?
Call the nice law enforcement officials, that's what any number of us pay our taxes for... they take the heat.

[I Ratant]

What I said way earlier - Only criminals and police/ex-police have any reason to know that. Operating purely that way with non-criminal civilians makes them enemies of the police very often.
.
A friend is frequently stopped for DWB... Driving While Black.
Hassled to the point of "resistance", arrested, and released at the next court session, for no evidence.
As an aspiring paralegal, with offers from both the DA and Public Defenders offices for work when he graduates in February, the dim bulb racist sheriffs that pick on him might just be surprised.
He was conversing with a fellow student, sitting in his car, in a residential neighborhood. The sheriff that rousted him told the woman with him she could get away and request assistance, he'd protect her... she is white.
That cop is a douche-bag.

[screensnot]

Piggy, I obviously don't know what happened the night you got arrested for resisting arrest.

But, I have seen a friend get arrested for resisting arrest.

I was at a party, and a fight broke out. Neighbors called the police. My friend showed up to the party after the fight, but before police arrived. The police decided they need to pat everyone down, and check IDs. My friend was trying to tell the cop that there was no reason to be hassling him, as he wasn't even there when the fight happened. The cop wasn't listening to that at all. My friend must have took that to mean that the cop couldn't hear him, so he kept getting louder. The cop asked him to put his hands behind his back. My friend insisted on hearing an explanation for this request before he would comply. That only drew the attention of the rest of the officers, and within a minute he was face down and cuffed. It was explained to him that even though he was in cuffs, he was not currently under arrest, only being detained. He demanded that they remove the cuffs. According to him it was illegal to detain somebody that was not under arrest. After he made that statement a few dozen times, the cops decided to go ahead and arrest him on the charge of resisting arrest.

I don't know if what he did was technically 'resisting arrest', because the cops were only trying to detain him when they cuffed him. And he was never really physically aggressive against the cops. He simply refused an order to put his hands behind his back, then he tensed up as the cops try to do it for him.

He tried to fight the case in court, but lost. He ended up with fines and community service.

Nobody else got arrested that night (the fighters were long gone before the cops got there). The rest of us did have to suffer the indignation of having our pinky fingers squeezed together with our hands behind our back, while a cop patted us down (including the people that didn't witness the fight).

[Dan O.]

What's so complicated about comply with the commands?
You can complain afterswards or file a lawsuit or whine on the internet, that's your choice.

So you say you lost your new digital camera when your car was searched crossing the border? Did you see who took it? Did you get their names? You haven't got a case but we're going to put your name into the database for special attention on any future crossings. Have a nice day. [/sarcasm]

[TjW]

So you say you lost your new digital camera when your car was searched crossing the border? Did you see who took it? Did you get their names? You haven't got a case but we're going to put your name into the database for special attention on any future crossings. Have a nice day. [/sarcasm]

Is there a lot of money in smuggling straw?

[Doubt]

So, those posters who have concluded
A) That Watts was lying
B) That there is no stopping of cars entering Canada
C) That it is logistically impossible for him to have encountered US agents if he was travelling into Canada.

Let's just say that you have shown your critical thinking skills.

And we can add construction of straw man arguments to your display of critical thinking skills.

[theprestige]

Well, obviously the police should not take any action at all until every civilian on the scene has had their say.

And of course if any civilian declares that the police can't tell them what to do, the police should back off and let them go on their way.

[qayak]

He was stopped by U.S. border guards when trying to re-enter Canada? How does that work? Having driven across the border many times and, having been stopped and searched many times by both sides, I have to say that I have never been stopped by US authorities when entering Canada or Canadian Authorities when entering the US.

Something ain't right here.

[qayak]

This was your biggest mistake, Piggy. Haven't you ever seen COPS? The guy with no shirt always gets the most hassle from the fuzz. It's like a rule or something. :)

That's right and, if you find yourself in a Star Trek episode wearing the red shirt, never volunteer to go on a landing mission! :D

[Doubt]

He was stopped by U.S. border guards when trying to re-enter Canada? How does that work? Having driven across the border many times and, having been stopped and searched many times by both sides, I have to say that I have never been stopped by US authorities when entering Canada or Canadian Authorities when entering the US.

Something ain't right here.

We already covered that. Not common but apparently, but it happens. Although the crossing is not very well set up for it.

[Whiplash]

This thread reminds me of events between myself and a friend regarding police.

He is someone who is very idealistic about how police should operate. He knows what his rights are, and he thinks that he is going to stand up for those rights and argue with cops and all that.. and that they can't do anything.. and that if they do, he'll nail them to the wall..

I'm a pragmatist about it. I realize that that simply isn't reality. Cops, officers, agents.. they have stressful jobs and they don't know who the heck you are and what the heck you are capable of. Do I like that cops sometimes act like the King's Private guard? Where they think they can do whatever they want ("Hey, did I say you could SPEAK?"). No, I don't like it. But standing against them obstinately.. especially when they are already in that defensive mode.. it's a recipe for a disaster.

They can and will take you down, and you won't easily just walk out of the jail exonerated. Piggy demonstrated that with his own story. THAT's reality. You push your luck with the cops, you are going to get in trouble, and it's going to come down to your word against theirs. You can't win in that situation. It's not ideal. It's not perfect. But it is reality.

When a cop gives me an order, I shut up and take it. Because I think to do otherwise is arrogant and asking for trouble.

[Kestrel]

We already covered that. Not common but apparently, but it happens. Although the crossing is not very well set up for it.

Congressmen from northern states lobbied for more Border Patrol agents on the Canadian border because they wanted the jobs in their district. Searching traffic leaving the US might be a sign that they don't have enough real work for BP agents on that border.

[qayak]

We already covered that. Not common but apparently, but it happens. Although the crossing is not very well set up for it.

Yes, it was covered in the very first article posted.

Chief Ron Smith, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said today that Watts was crossing into Canada when he was selected at random for an inspection after paying the bridge toll.

Sorry, my mistake.

[Dan O.]

I can call my dad and ask him if he remembers the precise mile range. He probably does, he's got a good memory. That would tell you what it was in the '50s and '60s.

Of course, that's just one man's recollection, but if you like I can ask.

The rules changed since your dad's time:

UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873)
ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=413&invol=266)

These cases limit the rights of roving patrols requiring reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause to search outside of the actual border.

[Dan O.]

Is there a lot of money in smuggling straw?

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

gambling_cruiser asked a question and I answered by way of an example. There was no argument forwarded to be misrepresented so no straw man could be advanced.

[Dan O.]

Yes, it was covered in the very first article posted.

Actually, the article was updated on Saturday to correct the mistake. There has still not been any explanation of where the mistake originated. Although it could have been misread by the police or misheard by the reporter, I blame the police for not releasing the hardcopy as requested by the reporter.

[Cavemonster]

And we can add construction of straw man arguments to your display of critical thinking skills.

Really? No one put forward any of those arguments I listed?

What is the straw man you're accusing me of?

[Doubt]

Really? No one put forward any of those arguments I listed?

What is the straw man you're accusing me of?

Arguments B and C.

Nobody said they never stop cars entering Canada. What was stated by me and others was that we had never seen or heard of it being done.

Also it was not stated that it was logistically impossible to stop the cars.

[gambling_cruiser]

So you say you lost your new digital camera when your car was searched crossing the border? Did you see who took it? Did you get their names? You haven't got a case but we're going to put your name into the database for special attention on any future crossings. Have a nice day. [/sarcasm]
What do you mean by this sarcastic post?
a) it's likely the costums officer is stealing my digital camera
or
b) i am invited to make a frivious lawsuit claiming they did steal my camera and it's not true?
if a) i would have bad luck (similar things happend to me, but in Egypt not the USA)
if b) no, i would not make a false accusation.

[Dan O.]

What do you mean by this sarcastic post?
a) it's likely the costums officer is stealing my digital camera
or
b) i am invited to make a frivious lawsuit claiming they did steal my camera and it's not true?
if a) i would have bad luck (similar things happend to me, but in Egypt not the USA)
if b) no, i would not make a false accusation.

I am only saying that the customs agent has an opportunity to steal your property and if you don't employ due diligence to watch what is going on, you will have no recourse later.

[dudalb]

Actually, the article was updated on Saturday to correct the mistake. There has still not been any explanation of where the mistake originated. Although it could have been misread by the police or misheard by the reporter, I blame the police for not releasing the hardcopy as requested by the reporter.

You seem to want to blame the Police anyway.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am only saying that the customs agent has an opportunity to steal your property and if you don't employ due diligence to watch what is going on, you will have no recourse later.

As does the luggage handler at the airport, the coworker in the next cube, the mechanic who works on your car, etc, etc, etc.

It must be sad to live in such a state of paranoia.

[Dan O.]

You seem to want to blame the Police anyway.

ETA: After seeing that you haven't contributed to this thread (probably haven't even read it), You don't deserve an answer. Go back to your movie threads where you can atleast be entertaining.

[qayak]

I am only saying that the customs agent has an opportunity to steal your property and if you don't employ due diligence to watch what is going on, you will have no recourse later.

Actually, when I got searched going across the US border I wasn't permitted anywhere near the vehicle. I was told to remain inside in a room with only one entrance/exit and all my identification was taken. My vehicle was parked more than 100 feet away and behind another vehicle.

A young border patrol officer then came in and played a game of 1001 questions with me before apologizing for taking so long and sending me on my way.

[Dan O.]

Actually, when I got searched going across the US border I wasn't permitted anywhere near the vehicle. I was told to remain inside in a room with only one entrance/exit and all my identification was taken. My vehicle was parked more than 100 feet away and behind another vehicle.

A young border patrol officer then came in and played a game of 1001 questions with me before apologizing for taking so long and sending me on my way.

Are you saying that they didn't tell you what was going on? Were you afraid that they would punch you in the face, spray you with mace and arrest you if you asked any questions? Is this the way you want the border patrol to act?

[fuelair]

Are you saying that they didn't tell you what was going on? Were you afraid that they would punch you in the face, spray you with mace and arrest you if you asked any questions? Is this the way you want the border patrol to act?

No, I suspect he was saying they were wasting his time playing some sort of idiot game because they could. Some people in authority do this on occasion.
I would love to see them fired for it and replaced with people who actually have a vague notion of how to handle security and a decent sense of when and how handling is needed.

[fishbob]

You don't recognize the significance of an international border?

That was not what I was talking about.
Pay attention.

[not daSkeptic]

That was not what I was talking about.
Pay attention.

From what you posted, I gather you were talking about understanding a law enforcement situation. From the section I quoted, I gather you were arguing that someone approaching such a situation for the first time is unaware of the concerns involved. My question was to ask whether this is true of an international border crossing. Is one really completely unaware of the issues involved? Do they not at least have some basic understanding of what's at stake?

[fishbob]

Just out of curiosity - what part of "Please get back in your vehicle, sir" would you find difficult to comprehend? What sort of planning would it take for you to follow such a request?


The part where failing to comply with a request is a violation.
Especially in a situation where I might be hurrying to an appointment and I had done nothing wrong and I might want an explanation. Those sorts of things might be further up my list of priorities. Your assumption that everybody knows what you know and would react as you would react is egocentric.

And it has been my experience that sometimes law enforcement personnel are the ones who up the ante.

[fishbob]

From what you posted, I gather you were talking about understanding a law enforcement situation. From the section I quoted, I gather you were arguing that someone approaching such a situation for the first time is unaware of the concerns involved. My question was to ask whether this is true of an international border crossing. Is one really completely unaware of the issues involved? Do they not at least have some basic understanding of what's at stake?

Sure - when I have crossed the border, I followed instructions. The first time, I waited in a long line and watched how others went about the process. However, in this case, something out of the ordinary apparently happened. The approach was not the usual one.

[fishbob]

I am absolutely certain that that same class told you to obey the orders of a police officer when you are stopped by one.

So...you get out of your car. No big deal. The police officer tells you to get back in your car.
Why would any sane person not obey that simple request?

It is an order, not a request if you can be arrested for failing to comply.
If can be confusing if it sounds like a request, and isn't.

[screensnot]

It is an order, not a request if you can be arrested for failing to comply.
If can be confusing if it sounds like a request, and isn't.

You should watch a few episodes of Cops.

Near as I can tell, cops don't think there is any difference between an order and a request.

I can tell you from experience that if a cop requests you to do something, it's best to immediately comply first, then as calmly as possible (after you've demonstrated that you will comply with what he wants) ask why it was necessary to do the thing he told you to do. Even if he asks you to do something that you believe to be unreasonable, you won't get anywhere by debating it before you comply. Nor will you be able to force an explanation from him, if he doesn't want to give one.

Take it up with his supervisor later, tell your story to the press, call the ACLU, etc.

That is the way it is.

In an ideal world, any request a cop makes of you, would seem fair and reasonable to you, and you'd understand why he was asking you to do it. But, of course, we do not live in an ideal world.

[qayak]

Are you saying that they didn't tell you what was going on? Were you afraid that they would punch you in the face, spray you with mace and arrest you if you asked any questions? Is this the way you want the border patrol to act?

No, I am saying there was no way for me to exercise due diligence to protect my property should one of the border people have decided to take it. I was too far away and confined to a room.

[not daSkeptic]

Sure - when I have crossed the border, I followed instructions. The first time, I waited in a long line and watched how others went about the process. However, in this case, something out of the ordinary apparently happened. The approach was not the usual one.

This does not answer my question. Is it unreasonable to expect that a person who has never dealt with an international border has at least a basic idea of the concepts involved?

[popscythe]

It's been known to happen.

Yes, police brutality has been commonly known to happen. Say he did everything you mentioned, that still doesn't come close to warranting being maced, let alone the beating that he claims will be proven by the footage at the scene. If a civilian were to say, demand that you leave their seven eleven, and then mace, handcuff and attempt to make a citizen's arrest on you, that citizen would be charged with assault. But because the person making the unjust arrest is a border patrol agent, this man needs to go to court to defend himself against felony charges for getting beaten in response to non-violent behavior. Pulling away from someone who's arresting you unjustly is not violent, even if it is "resisting arrest". Saying words does not deserve a beat down, no matter what words are said. Refusing to stand somewhere or sit somewhere when you're not under arrest is not worth physical harm. In fact,that's what under arrest means, it's the difference between being forced to comply or receive additional charges, or being a free person.

I'm intrigued by your statement about the age at you learned ""that you are to follow police orders". You realize that you've been indoctrinated with a cultural shame that's as strong as any put forward by religion. You're afraid of fellow citizens and believe that you are required to follow those people's orders. You are not, unless you're under arrest. They can illegally beat and arrest you for not doing so, but you're not required by law to obey the orders of a police officer unless your state/town has specific statutes requiring it, or you're under arrest.

You are an American, are you not? If not, I apologize for presuming to educate you on the laws of your country. I only know the laws of mine.

[roger]

You realize that you've been indoctrinated with a cultural shame that's as strong as any put forward by religion. You're afraid of fellow citizens and believe that you are required to follow those people's orders. You are not, unless you're under arrest. They can illegally beat and arrest you for not doing so, but you're not required by law to obey the orders of a police officer unless your state/town has specific statutes requiring it, or you're under arrest.
Er, evidence?

This textbook (http://books.google.com/books?id=vzHQUDvsPr4C&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=police+officer+lawful+order&source=bl&ots=OoXg4IBGhL&sig=GEhJvr7_nezynZvg1YhH-mgUiSA&hl=en&ei=ZL8lS9LvAomWtge89eDZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=police%20officer%20lawful%20order&f=false), used in law schools, appears to disagree.

[Piggy]

The rules changed since your dad's time:

UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873)
ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=413&invol=266)

These cases limit the rights of roving patrols requiring reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause to search outside of the actual border.

Thanks for the cites. Very helpful.

[Piggy]

No, I suspect he was saying they were wasting his time playing some sort of idiot game because they could.

I can assure you that they were not doing this.

They don't have the time.

It's not like they're sitting out there playing dominoes until the lone car happens to drive up.

Pulling folks out to the room is SOP. The barrage of questions might seem nonsensical to the person being questioned, but there are years of experience behind those questions.

And in this case, obviously, the procedure worked as it is supposed to.

[fishbob]

This does not answer my question. Is it unreasonable to expect that a person who has never dealt with an international border has at least a basic idea of the concepts involved?

Are you suggesting that there is special training available for border crossing etiquette?

[not daSkeptic]

Are you suggesting that there is special training available for border crossing etiquette?

No, I'm suggesting that most people (in the United States anyway, and I assume in other parts of the world as well) are taught in school that different countries have different laws, and that one country's laws do not apply in another. I'm suggesting that the average person has been provided with enough education to understand that much more is at stake when crossing an international boundary than when going to another state or province. Is it unreasonable to assume these things?

[not daSkeptic]

The barrage of questions might seem nonsensical to the person being questioned, but there are years of experience behind those questions.

Absolutely. They're looking for anything that might suggest someone should be denied entry/exit.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wow. Where do I even begin?

Yes, police brutality has been commonly known to happen.

It has been known to happen. Although, it is far from "common".

Say he did everything you mentioned, that still doesn't come close to warranting being maced, let alone the beating that he claims will be proven by the footage at the scene.

OK. What does warrant being maced?

If a civilian were to say, demand that you leave their seven eleven, and then mace, handcuff and attempt to make a citizen's arrest on you, that citizen would be charged with assault.

Yes they would. Most likely. Unless I was a threat to their safety, then it might be considered self defense.

But because the person making the unjust arrest...

How do you know it was unjust? Were you there? Sounds like you've already found the police guilty. Sorry, but in the US (where I am from), even the police get a fair hearing.

...is a border patrol agent, this man needs to go to court to defend himself against felony charges for getting beaten in response to non-violent behavior.

Again, how do you know his behavior was non-violent? Where you there?

Pulling away from someone who's arresting you unjustly is not violent, even if it is "resisting arrest".

Again, it sounds like you have reached a conclusion without all the evidence. You do know this is a skeptics forum, right?

Saying words does not deserve a beat down, no matter what words are said.

You're correct. Who said otherwise?

Refusing to stand somewhere or sit somewhere when you're not under arrest is not worth physical harm.

You're right. So why didn't Watts get back in the car when so ordered?

In fact,that's what under arrest means, it's the difference between being forced to comply or receive additional charges, or being a free person.

Huh???

I'm intrigued by your statement about the age at you learned ""that you are to follow police orders". You realize that you've been indoctrinated with a cultural shame that's as strong as any put forward by religion. You're afraid of fellow citizens and believe that you are required to follow those people's orders. You are not, unless you're under arrest. They can illegally beat and arrest you for not doing so, but you're not required by law to obey the orders of a police officer unless your state/town has specific statutes requiring it, or you're under arrest.

Wow. I would estimate there is about 200 years of case law which says otherwise. In the US, that is. The US located on planet Earth.

You are an American, are you not? If not, I apologize for presuming to educate you on the laws of your country. I only know the laws of mine.

Which country are you from? You're location says Oregon. We have one of those in the US!

[Cavemonster]

Er, evidence?

This textbook (http://books.google.com/books?id=vzHQUDvsPr4C&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=police+officer+lawful+order&source=bl&ots=OoXg4IBGhL&sig=GEhJvr7_nezynZvg1YhH-mgUiSA&hl=en&ei=ZL8lS9LvAomWtge89eDZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=police%20officer%20lawful%20order&f=false), used in law schools, appears to disagree.

Yes, most states do have a broad law that covers something like "Obstructing, resisting, or opposing officers"

But most courts do not interpret these laws to mean that anything other than immediate following all orders is an arrestable offense. In practice, these statutes apply to people who place a real impediment to police and repeatedly refuse to comply.

You'll notice that in your law textbook, only one of the case studies was actually charged with failure to obey a lawful order, the death penalty protestors in Georgia, and they were refusing to stop disrupting the legislature, which was itself a chargeable offense.

The bar for an actual charge of whatever the state's particular version of this law is tends to be pretty high, courts tend to want to see that someone is unquestionably stopping officers from keeping the peace.

For instance, in this case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mi&vol=appeals\031700\6543&invol=2).
The defendant lies outright to an officer asking for his name and age, but since it can't be shown to have interfered in a meaningful way, he is not convicted.

According to law enforcement officers on the forum Realpolice two verified officers had this to say, Link (http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/84742-lawful-order.html)
If I make a totally consensual ped check, and I have no articulable facts to believe you have committed a crime, or are about to committ a crime, and I ask you to sit on the curb, and you decide you do not want to, you don't have to. If I tell you you HAVE to and it is merely a consensual encounter, it becomes an illegal detention.
Emphasis mine


AS long as my order is for a person to return to full compliance to a law that they are now breaking ( slow down or I'll give you a ticket) or to not commit some act or you will be arrested. ( If you drive drunk, I will arrest you).

That said, is it wise to fail to obey an officer? Nope.

[popscythe]

This textbook, used in law schools, appears to disagree.

I cannot argue from a position of strength at this time, as I do not have any evidence to back up my claim at this juncture. I've got a few nits to pick with the document you presented, but that variety of argument is weak indeed. I'll bone up and get back to you with something solid. That being said:

The book, where you cited it, cites several instances where police officers arrested citizens on other charges besides "refusal to obey a police order" or another charge, such as unlawful use of public property, in the new mexico case. The reason why it says "probably illegal in all states" in the first paragraph is because of a cited example from florida that makes it a misdemeanor to obstruct an officer from doing his lawfully assigned duties. Then, of course refer to the arrests given as precedent, where nobody was charged for the actual crime of failure to obey a police order, if that is in fact a crime. It appears that police are making arrests and then justifying them afterwards in many cases, which is not unusual. "They didn't do what I said, but as not doing as what I said won't stand up in court, I had to hit them with a more common charge and put the ball in their court to prove their innocence, contrary to the fundamentals of our legal system." seems to be the common practice here. That's egregious, certainly, but not uncommon. Off the top of my head, I'd say that you'd have a case, in any of these cases.

[popscythe]

Sorry about the double post. TCS:
Wow. Where do I even begin
Where most of these begin, with a point by point refutation based mostly on the phrasing of the point being "refuted". Then I'll do my little response bit, and we can go back and forth a few times, then both of us will say to someone else in the house "Well this isn't going anywhere." Or, perhaps not.

It has been known to happen. Although, it is far from "common".
I disagree. Charges of police brutality are less than "common" of course, but, as an example, the police department in Eugene, Oregon nearby is under scrutiny once or twice a year at minimum for "use of excessive force". I would be interested to find statistics on this matter, as neither of us appear to have any, and I shall. If you would care to submit some, I would be interested in seeing what you come up with as well.

OK. What does warrant being maced?
A direct or perceived threat to the safety of the officer. Using mace as a compliance tool may not be legally considered torture, but I fail to personally see the difference, especially in cases where someone is maced after they are already in custody. Unless, of course they have actually physically assaulted the officer and the officer needs to mace because he's unable to get a hold of you in the back of the police car, or some such, because you're trying to do him/her direct harm.

How do you know it was unjust? Were you there? Sounds like you've already found the police guilty. Sorry, but in the US (where I am from), even the police get a fair hearing.
Forgive me for how I sounded. I do not know the specifics, and am simply arguing the opposite point to yours. This is why I twice referenced the film he claims will corroborate his story. I spoke strongly on the incident and I can see where you might assume I automatically believe the Doctor's claims. Rather, I was using the opportunity to take a side in this debate against the unjust use of force and unlawful (and then reverse-justified) arrests. Any examples of conditions of the event were given (I believe clearly, forgive me if they were not) as alternatives to a situation in which he was guilty, as, if he were guilty he would be guilty and I wouldn't start a discussion about unjust use of force. You try to assault someone, citizen in uniform or not, and you're the bad guy. Justifiable use of force laws are of particular interest to me.
Now, the question, "Why didn't Watts get back in the car when he was ordered." I don't believe that the circumstances for his exit of the car, or refusal to get back in, are important, as, if a crime was committed at his refusal to obey, he was guilty at that point already, and any mitigating circumstances would be irrelevant. The position I represent in this discussion is that of assuming that as a person who is not under arrest, I am free to do as I wish, until the time at which I am placed under arrest. Don't get me wrong, I don't imply that I am free to commit crimes, simply that I am free to be unrestrained by officers of the law as long as I am not committing a crime. Such as, if I am submitting to a legal search, and I feel the need to stretch my legs, but I am not attempting to cross the border, or leave the scene of the legal search, it is not illegal to stretch my legs as long as doing so does not involve the commission of a crime. Now then, as other members have pointed out, the doctor is charged with "Resisting Arrest".
If he committed no crime with which to be arrested, (this of course assumes that refusal to obey the order of an officer is not a crime, which the legal textbook that is presented seems to indicate that though you will be fallaciously charged with other crimes if you do, the actual "crime" of refusal to obey an order is not applied to people) then clearly he was being unlawfully arrested, and resisting unlawful arrest is not a crime that will stand up in court. Hopefully he has a better lawyer than Piggy did. If the case law you spoke of is such as was submitted by Cavemonster, I believe that with proper application of legal chicanery, you could definitely "get off without soaking that one", so to speak. It's just when you take the rap without making a big clamor about it that you end up being charged. So amongst chemical and electrical weapons being used as compliance tools, police for "200 years" as you've stated have been drumming up charges on people who don't listen to them for revenge for non-compliance.
The reality of enforcement (especially when not fought back against in court) is always less pristine in it's protection of our rights than the letter of the law.

In that regard, you're right. The police, by precedent, have been running roughshod over our rights as citizens for a number of years. However, I still insist that with a good lawyer, one could probably avoid serving a fallacious charge such as "resisting arrest" when no other charge was levied. Sorry Piggy... I'd have called the ACLU with my one phone call.

Which country are you from? You're location says Oregon. We have one of those in the US!

I'm from Oregon, US, if I didn't make that clear. Though I assume you're just taking a swipe at me because "refuting" my argument wasn't satisfying enough. Let me help you out. I'm an alien, the kind from Alien Nation (the worst kind). (salt water) Wicked Buuuuurrrrrrn.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sorry about the double post. TCS:

Where most of these begin, with a point by point refutation based mostly on the phrasing of the point being "refuted". Then I'll do my little response bit, and we can go back and forth a few times, then both of us will say to someone else in the house "Well this isn't going anywhere." Or, perhaps not.


I disagree. Charges of police brutality are less than "common" of course, but, as an example, the police department in Eugene, Oregon nearby is under scrutiny once or twice a year at minimum for "use of excessive force". I would be interested to find statistics on this matter, as neither of us appear to have any, and I shall. If you would care to submit some, I would be interested in seeing what you come up with as well.


A direct or perceived threat to the safety of the officer. Using mace as a compliance tool may not be legally considered torture, but I fail to personally see the difference, especially in cases where someone is maced after they are already in custody. Unless, of course they have actually physically assaulted the officer and the officer needs to mace because he's unable to get a hold of you in the back of the police car, or some such, because you're trying to do him/her direct harm.


Forgive me for how I sounded. I do not know the specifics, and am simply arguing the opposite point to yours. This is why I twice referenced the film he claims will corroborate his story. I spoke strongly on the incident and I can see where you might assume I automatically believe the Doctor's claims. Rather, I was using the opportunity to take a side in this debate against the unjust use of force and unlawful (and then reverse-justified) arrests. Any examples of conditions of the event were given (I believe clearly, forgive me if they were not) as alternatives to a situation in which he was guilty, as, if he were guilty he would be guilty and I wouldn't start a discussion about unjust use of force. You try to assault someone, citizen in uniform or not, and you're the bad guy. Justifiable use of force laws are of particular interest to me.
Now, the question, "Why didn't Watts get back in the car when he was ordered." I don't believe that the circumstances for his exit of the car, or refusal to get back in, are important, as, if a crime was committed at his refusal to obey, he was guilty at that point already, and any mitigating circumstances would be irrelevant. The position I represent in this discussion is that of assuming that as a person who is not under arrest, I am free to do as I wish, until the time at which I am placed under arrest. Don't get me wrong, I don't imply that I am free to commit crimes, simply that I am free to be unrestrained by officers of the law as long as I am not committing a crime. Such as, if I am submitting to a legal search, and I feel the need to stretch my legs, but I am not attempting to cross the border, or leave the scene of the legal search, it is not illegal to stretch my legs as long as doing so does not involve the commission of a crime. Now then, as other members have pointed out, the doctor is charged with "Resisting Arrest".
If he committed no crime with which to be arrested, (this of course assumes that refusal to obey the order of an officer is not a crime, which the legal textbook that is presented seems to indicate that though you will be fallaciously charged with other crimes if you do, the actual "crime" of refusal to obey an order is not applied to people) then clearly he was being unlawfully arrested, and resisting unlawful arrest is not a crime that will stand up in court. Hopefully he has a better lawyer than Piggy did. If the case law you spoke of is such as was submitted by Cavemonster, I believe that with proper application of legal chicanery, you could definitely "get off without soaking that one", so to speak. It's just when you take the rap without making a big clamor about it that you end up being charged. So amongst chemical and electrical weapons being used as compliance tools, police for "200 years" as you've stated have been drumming up charges on people who don't listen to them for revenge for non-compliance.
The reality of enforcement (especially when not fought back against in court) is always less pristine in it's protection of our rights than the letter of the law.

In that regard, you're right. The police, by precedent, have been running roughshod over our rights as citizens for a number of years. However, I still insist that with a good lawyer, one could probably avoid serving a fallacious charge such as "resisting arrest" when no other charge was levied. Sorry Piggy... I'd have called the ACLU with my one phone call.



I'm from Oregon, US, if I didn't make that clear. Though I assume you're just taking a swipe at me because "refuting" my argument wasn't satisfying enough. Let me help you out. I'm an alien, the kind from Alien Nation (the worst kind). (salt water) Wicked Buuuuurrrrrrn.

Is there some reason you put your response in a "spoiler" tag?

[Beady]

You're right, I did have my east and west bolloxed, but it is correct that the actual border crossing is not on the bridges, but on the US side. If he were stopped for whatever reason heading from the US into Canada, he could be quite close to the US border agents administering to the west bound truck traffic that runs right next to the eastbound lanes.

Enough of this. I have two qualifications for butting in, here. First, I'm an Immigration Officer. Second, I've been crossing the border for personal business at Port Huron/Sarnia at least once a year for the last quarter-century (and third, just coincidentally, I was Corpsman aboard the Coast Guard icebreaker/buoytender stationed just downstream from the single (at that time) bridge.

The border is at the mid-point of each bridge. Each bridge is approximately a mile long; one bridge is for eastbound (to Canada) traffic, one bridege is for westbound (to US). In either direction, you pay a toll before crossing the bridge. In either direction, you go through Customs after you cross the bridge, Canadian going east and American going west. It's not unusual for a line of cars to be backed up all the way across a bridge, although the direction of the backup can vary according to the day of the week, the time of day, etc, and it can take at least an hour to go from the back of the line to the front (unless you are a Trusted Traveler, which gets you express treatment - less than five minutes from one end of the bridge to out the other side of Customs).

Against that physical description, all I will say about the OP is that the last thing the CBP officers needed or wanted was for some nutbar to jump out of his car for an extended argument about his rights.

Which brings up another thing: CBP's authority is absolute at the crossings. The only rule for refusing entry is that they can articulate a reason for why they weren't satisfied that the alien wasn't qualified for entry. For example, if a Canadian tourist says or does something that makes the officer suspicious that the tourist is actually going to get a job while in the United States; that suspicion, as long as it is founded on something solid, is enough to turn the tourist back to Canada (or put him on the next plane back to wherever he came from, as appropriate).

[Kestrel]

Against that physical description, all I will say about the OP is that the last thing the CBP officers needed or wanted was for some nutbar to jump out of his car for an extended argument about his rights.

Peter Watts was indeed leaving the US for Canada, but he was stopped by US Border Patrol agents. The confrontation was with these US BP dudes, not their Canadian counterparts.

Have you ever been stopped and searched by US agents while leaving the country?

[Beady]

Peter Watts was indeed leaving the US for Canada, but he was stopped by US Border Patrol agents. The confrontation was with these US BP dudes, not their Canadian counterparts.

Which side of the border was he on?

Have you ever been stopped and searched by US agents while leaving the country?

No, but I've seen it happening.

You do know, don't you, that it is illegal to take certain things out of the United States?

While we're at it, you do know, don't you, that Federal officers can be deputized by State and local authorities? It is thereby possible for them to, say, stop a drunk driver from leaving the country. It's for precisely that reason that the CBP officers are deputized in Vermont.

I don't know why a searchpoint was operating at this particular time and place, but I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't at the mere whim of the officer in charge of the station; the orders/authority almost certainly came down from at least the district office, if not higher. Maybe there was a breakout from the prison near Flint; maybe it was just a scheduled drill; maybe there'd been a bank robbery... Who knows?

[Steve]

I have crossed at that border point a few times. Never heard of US customs checking somebody leaving. You drive up, pay your toll and then get to deal with the Canadian officials on the other side.

ETA:

I travel outside the US a lot. Mostly by plane these days. Never, ever have I seen any sort of stop by US customs on the way out. Only on the way in. Last time I passed through Port Huron was about three years ago. There was not even a place for US customs to stop anyone heading into Canada. Only the toll booths stood between drivers and Canadian customs and immigration.

Well, you can really never say "never". I have crossed the Canada-US border hundreds of times with out any significant incident. On one occasion, many years ago, the US Customs had set up a road-block on the US side of the border. The road-block was in a location where it was impossible to turn off and your only option once you had cleared it was to continue on to Canadian customs. It turned out that they were looking for persons that may have been trying to carry large amounts of US currency into Canada. I recall a figure of $10,000 being mentioned. We were questioned briefly and quickly sent on our way. So, it can happen but appears to be very rare.

[roger]

Yes, most states do have a broad law that covers something like "Obstructing, resisting, or opposing officers"

But most courts do not interpret these laws to mean that anything other than immediate following all orders is an arrestable offense. In practice, these statutes apply to people who place a real impediment to police and repeatedly refuse to comply.

You'll notice that in your law textbook, only one of the case studies was actually charged with failure to obey a lawful order, the death penalty protestors in Georgia, and they were refusing to stop disrupting the legislature, which was itself a chargeable offense.

The bar for an actual charge of whatever the state's particular version of this law is tends to be pretty high, courts tend to want to see that someone is unquestionably stopping officers from keeping the peace.

For instance, in this case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mi&vol=appeals%5C031700%5C6543&invol=2).
The defendant lies outright to an officer asking for his name and age, but since it can't be shown to have interfered in a meaningful way, he is not convicted.

According to law enforcement officers on the forum Realpolice two verified officers had this to say, Link (http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/84742-lawful-order.html)

Emphasis mine



That said, is it wise to fail to obey an officer? Nope.I don't intend to get into this in detail for several reasons. First, I am not a LEO, lawyer, or judge, nor trained in same, and the track record of people that don't know exactly what they are talking about reading documents and making sweeping judgements is poor indeed. Second, it's a bit of a derail. But, you do have to obey lawful orders. That's a different statement then you have to obey orders.

In the context of a border crossing, yes, an order as to behavior by an officer is lawful, I suggest. No, if you were ordered to give him a BJ you would not have to do that, as it would not be a lawful order. But in terms of where you place your person or your belongings (such as the vehicle)? Yes, immigration officials orders are lawful in that regard. (again, I suggest). Good luck to you if you choose to think otherwise and test that theory. :)

If you google lawful order, pretty much all the first hits are in regards to police stopping you for traffic offenses. You'll see that the law requires you to comply. Just one example:
http://www.cityofhubbard.com/Ordinances/NewTraffic1/page0066.asp


As for the link you provided, I think you stopped quoting replies before the relevant bit. Allow me:
If I feel that I Need to "get control over a situation" in the lawful performance of my duties, then I DO have the authority to demand an action or inaction from another person. [snip] Try looking up (Googling) the differences between a consentual contact, a detention, and an arrest - and what is "required" for each.Again, IANAL, but a border officer is performing his duties in regards to a crossing, a so it seems pretty obvious he needs to be obeyed.

Of course, I agree both with you and the original raiser of an objection that not all orders need to be obeyed, in that they are not necessarily lawful.

However, I strongly disagree with the claim that you only need to follow orders if arrested. You also need to follow orders if you are detained. (cite (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_being_detained_by_a_poli ce_officer)).

The reality of the situation is that there will be times when you and the officer don't see eye to eye as to whether you are lawfully detained. However, the courts are the place to take that up, not the street. Unfortunately at that moment the authority, and best trained person in the encounter is the officer. Trying to argue is not going to go well, not for any stupid reason, but because the police need to be able to do their job. "You are under arrest". "No, I think you are wrong about arresting me, so I'm just going to saunter away". "Darn, foiled again!" Uh, no.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Against that physical description, all I will say about the OP is that the last thing the CBP officers needed or wanted was for some nutbar to jump out of his car for an extended argument about his rights.

I think the whole thing pretty much comes down to this.

I suspect Watts felt as if he, a "famous writer" (even though no one has ever heard of him), was above being questioned, searched, or detained.

Just a hunch.

[roger]

CBP has this to say about border crossings:

To keep our borders secure, we must inspect everyone who arrives at a U.S. port of entry. We pledge to treat you courteously and professionally. We do not assume that you have done anything wrong - because very few travelers actually violate the law. As part of your inspection, you may be asked questions on:

Your citizenship,
The nature of your trip, and
Anything you are bringing back to the United States that you did not have with you when you left.

We may also examine your baggage, including electronic equipment,or your car, which we have the legal authority to do. If we are checking your baggage, you will need to place it on the exam station and open it. (After the exam is completed, you will be asked to repack and close the baggage.) If at any point you are unhappy with the way you are being treated, ask to speak to a CBP supervisor.source
(http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/your_inspection.xml)


As for being able to search and detain you, Title 19, sec 162.6 states



Sec. 162.6 Search of persons, baggage, and merchandise.

All persons, baggage, and merchandise arriving in the Customs
territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to
inspection and search by a Customs officer. Port directors and special
agents in charge are authorized to cause inspection, examination, and
search to be made under section 467, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19
U.S.C. 1467), of persons, baggage, or merchandise, even though such
persons, baggage, or merchandise were inspected, examined, searched, or
taken on board the vessel at another port or place in the United States
or the Virgin Islands, if such action is deemed necessary or
appropriate.Which pretty much gives them the authority to tell you what to do. Any order in relation to a search would be a lawful order as far as I can figure it.

162.7 states
A Customs officer may stop, search, and examine any vehicle, person,
or beast, or search any trunk or envelope wherever found, in accordance
with section 3061 of the Revised Statutes (19 U.S.C. 482).[T.D. 72-211,
37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 90-34, 55 FR 17597, Apr.
26, 1990]

[Cavemonster]

Roger,
You are completely right that whether or not you have the legal right to disobey an officer, disobeying isn't generally a useful thing to do.

I was exploring the question from a legal standpoint, specifically, was Watts guilty of an offense by getting out of his car and refusing to get back in.

The standard for border stops may be different, but for a conviction under failure to obey, there seem to be some standards beyond just plain not doing what you're told.

The charge seems to only stick if it can be shown that the defendant is an impediment to officers doing their job after repeated requests. Or for refusing certain standard specified requests like stopping a car and producing ID at a traffic stop. Unless border stops have a special standard, it seems likely that there isn't a valid charge for the original arrest. But he is clearly guilty of resisting arrest by stepping away.

Of course he could have avoided all this by getting back in his car, but too many people seem to feel that behavior around police is comparable to behavior around wild animals.

People who get close to bears and feed them should have known better, they'll get mauled.

People who are rude to cops should know better, they'll get arrested, and possibly beaten. But there's an important distinction. We can't reason with bears or discipline them. Bears don't work for us, we can regard them as a force of nature. Police do work for us. They are human beings who we can hold accountable.

So while Watts could have avoided all this by getting back in his car, the officers could have avoided this by answering his question. I can't imagine answering his question would have taken more time and energy than arresting him.

[Cavemonster]

Roger,
You are completely right that whether or not you have the legal right to disobey an officer, disobeying isn't generally a useful thing to do.

I was exploring the question from a legal standpoint, specifically, was Watts guilty of an offense by getting out of his car and refusing to get back in.

The standard for border stops may be different, but for a conviction under failure to obey, there seem to be some standards beyond just plain not doing what you're told.

The charge seems to only stick if it can be shown that the defendant is an impediment to officers doing their job after repeated requests. Or for refusing certain standard specified requests like stopping a car and producing ID at a traffic stop. Unless border stops have a special standard, it seems likely that there isn't a valid charge for the original arrest. But he is clearly guilty of resisting arrest by stepping away.

Of course he could have avoided all this by getting back in his car, but too many people seem to feel that behavior around police is comparable to behavior around wild animals.

People who get close to bears and feed them should have known better, they'll get mauled.

People who are rude to cops should know better, they'll get arrested, and possibly beaten. But there's an important distinction. We can't reason with bears or discipline them. Bears don't work for us, we can regard them as a force of nature. Police do work for us. They are human beings who we can hold accountable.

So while Watts could have avoided all this by getting back in his car, the officers could have avoided this by answering his question. I can't imagine answering his question would have taken more time and energy than arresting him.

EDIT: As for your last post, that's pretty explicitly referring to people entering the US from another country. Watts was leaving the US.

In addition it said:
If at any point you are unhappy with the way you are being treated, ask to speak to a CBP supervisor.

And the regulations you quoted just said that all his belongings were subject to search, no one's denying their right to search his vehicle, person and luggage, just their right to arrest him for asking them why.

And since many posters here seemed surprised that anyone would be stopped and searched while leaving the US, much less by US border agents rather than Canadian, it seems pretty reasonable that he would be curious as to why he was stopped?

[Beady]

So while Watts could have avoided all this by getting back in his car, the officers could have avoided this by answering his question. I can't imagine answering his question would have taken more time and energy than arresting him.

However, by answering his question as a means of getting him back into his car, the officer would be surrendering control of the situation to Watts. The last thing any police officer wants to do is to surrender control.

*ALSO*, and directly related to the first point, Watts' behavior was highly unusual. Unusual, until proven otherwise, equals dangerous.

[theprestige]

The last thing any police officer wants to do is to surrender control.
I'd take it a step further: The last thing any policy officer should do is surrender control.

I don't employ police officers to surrender control of situations. I employ them to retain control, on my behalf, of situations where I think retaining such control is necessary to preserve the peace, maintain civic order, and uphold the law.

Any argument that a border patrol officer should cede control of a border crossing to Peter Watts, on Watts's say-so, is epic fail in my opinion.

[roger]

EDIT: As for your last post, that's pretty explicitly referring to people entering the US from another country. Watts was leaving the US.The first sentence was about leaving. The second was about inspections in general. But look at 161.2. They have the right to enforce laws relating to import and export.

Are you seriously arguing that customs cannot stop you from leaving the country? You could fill your car, say, with fissionable material, drive into Canada, and they would have no legal way to check your vehicle? Neither of us are lawyers (so far as I know), but does that seem remotely possible to you? Come on.

And the regulations you quoted just said that all his belongings were subject to search, no one's denying their right to search his vehicle, person and luggage, just their right to arrest him for asking them why.He was not arrested for asking a question. He failed to follow an order to stay in the vehicle, he failed to follow multiple orders to return to the vehicle, and he failed to comply when they put their hands on him.

edit: just as one example, here is the policy relating to electronic equipment. It is expressed in terms of "crossing the border", not entering the country.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ice_border_search_electronic_devices.pdf

Wikipedia, admittedly not a legal resource, states that CBP can search anyone entering or leaving the States, and provides reference to case law (which I did not pursue).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

And then there is common sense. I've been searched upon leaving the country, so have others, this has been going on forever. Is it reasonable to argue that this has been going on for decades illegally?

This pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf), written by a legislative lawyer, states Two statutory provisions confer border search powers on agents of the United States: 19 U.S.C. §
482, which allows customs officials to conduct searches of persons, vehicles, and mail at the
border; and Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 287, which gives immigration officers
broad powers to interrogate, detain, and search individuals and vehicles. Both statutes have been
interpreted such that these agents may conduct searches and arrests at the border without warrant
or probable cause. However, the exercise of these powers still must comport with the
requirements of the Fourth Amendment.and
They may also conduct some searches without a warrant. The INA expressly authorizes
immigration officers, within “a reasonable distance” from the external boundary of the United
States, to search any land-based vehicle or conveyance, and any vessel within U.S. territorial
waters.16

[Cavemonster]

The first sentence was about leaving. The second was about inspections in general. But look at 161.2. They have the right to enforce laws relating to import and export.

Are you seriously arguing that customs cannot stop you from leaving the country?
That's not at all what I'm arguing. Of course they have every right to stop and inspect him for whatever reason.

What I'm saying is that the text you quoted does not support this statement:
Which pretty much gives them the authority to tell you what to do. Any order in relation to a search would be a lawful order as far as I can figure it.


And from your quote:
We pledge to treat you courteously and professionally.

Responding to a question 'Why am I being searched" with no answer and an order to return to your car is not courteous in my book.

[Cavemonster]

However, by answering his question as a means of getting him back into his car, the officer would be surrendering control of the situation to Watts. The last thing any police officer wants to do is to surrender control.

*ALSO*, and directly related to the first point, Watts' behavior was highly unusual. Unusual, until proven otherwise, equals dangerous.

I can agree that it's very important for any officer to remain in control of a situation.

I've taught middle schoolers, I have a visceral understanding of how much easier it is to lose order than to get it back once you have lost it.

What I question is that answering a question is surrendering control in a meaningful way.

[roger]

Here's an abstract that talks about application of search during exits. The abstract states that the supreme court has not addressed whether these laws apply to exits, but that lower courts have upheld this interpretation.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1152769

Here's another link about legally searching materials leaving the country.
http://volokh.com/posts/1156897163.shtml

Here's a blog about it:
http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-border-search-directives.html

In short, searching on "border search exception" yields a huge number of legal and non-expert statements to the effect that border searches are legal for both entrance and exits. Naturally, a supreme court case could change that.

[Cavemonster]

Here's an abstract that talks about application of search during exits. The abstract states that the supreme court has not addressed whether these laws apply to exits, but that lower courts have upheld this interpretation.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1152769

Here's another link about legally searching materials leaving the country.
http://volokh.com/posts/1156897163.shtml

Here's a blog about it:
http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-border-search-directives.html

In short, searching on "border search exception" yields a huge number of legal and non-expert statements to the effect that border searches are legal for both entrance and exits. Naturally, a supreme court case could change that.

I'm not sure who you're talking to, no one is denying the right of border agents to search anyone for any reason.

[roger]

I can agree that it's very important for any officer to remain in control of a situation.

I've taught middle schoolers, I have a visceral understanding of how much easier it is to lose order than to get it back once you have lost it.

What I question is that answering a question is surrendering control in a meaningful way.
He was told to stay in the car. He disobeyed, got out of the car, and starting asking why he was being stopped. The surrender in control is allowing an order to be disobeyed.

[roger]

I'm not sure who you're talking to, no one is denying the right of border agents to search anyone for any reason.It seems to me that it establishes whether they have the right to issue lawful orders. If you look up thread, you'll see fishbob questioning if it is a violation to not follow these orders. And post 85 by Dan O questions whether it was a lawful order. Also, there were many other posts back in that vicinity questioning issues of what constitutes the border, how far it extends, and what can be lawfully done within that region.

And then there was that Cavemonster guy: quote=Cavemonster;5411680]I was exploring the question from a legal standpoint, specifically, was Watts guilty of an offense by getting out of his car and refusing to get back in. :)

I'm arguing that yes, the officials issued an lawful order in pursuit of their duities, and that makes it an offense to disobey. To argue that I would think I'd have to show that they have the legal right to do searches at the border.

[Beady]

What I question is that answering a question is surrendering control in a meaningful way.

If you answer one question without the guy getting back in his car, you may well have to answer a second, third, fourth... Sounds like losing control to me.

And I've also taught middle schoolers. Whatever happened to the axiom that you shouldn't smile for the first six weeks?

And, since we're likening Watts to a middle schooler, have you ever known a middle schooler who didn't take an opening, no matter how small, and run with it?

[Cavemonster]

If you answer one question without the guy getting back in his car, you may well have to answer a second, third, fourth... Sounds like losing control to me.

And I've also taught middle schoolers. Whatever happened to the axiom that you shouldn't smile for the first six weeks?

And, since we're likening Watts to a middle schooler, have you ever known a middle schooler who didn't take an opening, no matter how small, and run with it?

Why couldn't the officer say
"Sir, if you do not return to your car immediately, I will have to arrest you. You are being detained for a standard random search."

[roger]

And, don't forget, the Port Huron police stated that he was "angry" when he exited the car. And Watts himself admits that he did not follow orders.

[tesscaline]

Why couldn't the officer say
"Sir, if you do not return to your car immediately, I will have to arrest you. You are being detained for a standard random search."Maybe the officer did say such a thing. I haven't seen any transcripts of the conversation that may, or may not, have taken place between Watts and the officers. Nor has the "video evidence" that was claimed to have existed been released for public view. The USCBP report on the incident is also unavailable.

By the same token, it's also entirely possible that Watts, instead of asking politely why his car was being searched, mouthed off in an aggressive way that made the officers believe he was capable of becoming violent.

There are many questions to be answered, and not quite enough information to go about answering them.

[Cavemonster]

Maybe the officer did say such a thing.

...

There are many questions to be answered, and not quite enough information to go about answering them.

It's entirely possible that the officer did.

But it would be odd not to include that in official statements to the press, since that would clarify the situation immensely.

You're completely right that, at the moment we don't have enough information to know what happened and whether Watt's treatment was called for or unjust.

But while we're having a conversation about Watts, we're also talking about police procedure in general. Several posters seem to feel that the officer answering a question in a situation like this would be giving away his control and that arresting someone based on the bare bones of the situation we're looking at, is the logical and justified move.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above, there isn't legal grounds for a charge of "Obstructing, resisting, or opposing officers". And there are ways to maintain strict control with resorting to arrest or violence.

[tesscaline]

But while we're having a conversation about Watts, we're also talking about police procedure in general. Several posters seem to feel that the officer answering a question in a situation like this would be giving away his control and that arresting someone based on the bare bones of the situation we're looking at, is the logical and justified move.

I disagree, for the reasons stated above, there isn't legal grounds for a charge of "Obstructing, resisting, or opposing officers". And there are ways to maintain strict control with resorting to arrest or violence.He was charged with resisting arrest. He was not charged with failing to follow a lawful order. He was, however, by way of his behavior obstructing and opposing officers. They were attempting, through normal course of their job duties, to search his car. He was obstructing and opposing that search.

Now... An angry ranting man at a border crossing (or anywhere really), who is refusing to comply with officer's orders, is a risk to the officer's safety. He is a threat. They have no way of knowing if he's behaving the way he is just because he's in a bad mood, or if he's behaving the way he is because he has a gun stashed somewhere and is afraid it will be found, or if he's hopped up on drugs and is capable of physical violence. It is not unreasonable for an officer to attempt to reduce that threat by physically removing it (i.e. by putting the guy under arrest) until the situation can be safely clarified. If the officer attempts to physically remove the threat, and encounters resistance, it is even more reasonable for the officer to assume that the threat is not just a "potential" anymore, and is "clear and present".

In the time it takes to provide the explanation you seem to think is necessary (when any rational person would comply with a lawful order and ask for the explanation afterwards), if they are in the midst of a confrontation, the other party would have the time to pull a knife, or a gun, or launch a physical attack. If the person is already behaving irrationally... The risks of that happening are much, much higher.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your posts, but you seem to think that a LEO should sacrifice his/her own safety for what? Appeasing someone's curiosity?

[Kestrel]

If you answer one question without the guy getting back in his car, you may well have to answer a second, third, fourth... Sounds like losing control to me.

And I've also taught middle schoolers. Whatever happened to the axiom that you shouldn't smile for the first six weeks?

And, since we're likening Watts to a middle schooler, have you ever known a middle schooler who didn't take an opening, no matter how small, and run with it?

When a middle schooler talked back to you, did you throw the kid to the floor and beat him up? Or did you find a non-violent way to deal with the problem?

In this kind of situation, explaining the situation and answering questions in a calm voice would lead to better results than simply barking out orders.

[Piggy]

I suspect Watts felt as if he, a "famous writer" (even though no one has ever heard of him), was above being questioned, searched, or detained.

I'm willing to give the guy some slack.

My (admittedly uniformed) bet would be that he simply had very little experience with law enforcement and thought he was within his rights to argue about things while passing through an international border crossing.

He was, of course, wrong.

[Piggy]

I'd take it a step further: The last thing any policy officer should do is surrender control.

Exactly. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

Your interaction with an officer of the law, or with the military, is never peer-to-peer, and by definition cannot be.

Where I fault the cops who ran me in is simply that they wouldn't even begin to listen when I explained (quite rationally) that I lived in the apartment we were standing in front of and had come out there to tell these guys to shove off. The fact that I was in nothing but shorts should have actually been a clue that I was telling the truth.

On the other hand, the last time I was stopped for speeding (one of only 3 times in my life) I was courteous, I didn't deny speeding -- I was in an unfamiliar area looking for a street, so wasn't watching my speed, but I didn't offer that as an excuse, since it didn't matter -- I alerted the officer that I was going to open my glove box to look for my registration, and I asked to get out of the car when I needed to get my insurance card out of my wallet (which was in my coat on the back seat).

As a result, the cop actually shaved a few MPH off my actual recorded speed so that I would not get any points on my license.

Like they say at Straight Dope: Don't be a jerk.

[ddt]

This does not answer my question. Is it unreasonable to expect that a person who has never dealt with an international border has at least a basic idea of the concepts involved?

Just today, I went to Belgium. I crossed the border at 75 mph. In the very hypothetical case that I had been stopped at the border for a check, I had been fully in my rights to tell the border control to FO because it's illegal. (Hypothetical because the border between Holland and Belgium has been open way longer than Schengen).

Younger European generations grow up with the notion that you can drive from Copenhagen to Rome or from Lisbon to Prague without a single border control. The notion of a land border check may be completely alien to them.

[theprestige]

When a middle schooler talked back to you, did you throw the kid to the floor and beat him up? Or did you find a non-violent way to deal with the problem?

In this kind of situation, explaining the situation and answering questions in a calm voice would lead to better results than simply barking out orders.
While I am all in favor of treating Peter Watts like a misbehaving child, if I thought that border crossings were an appropriate place for middle school negotiation methods, I would hire middle school teachers to staff them.

[popscythe]

Is there some reason you put your response in a "spoiler" tag?

What I wrote was so mind blowing that I didn't want to make anyone defecate accidentally. Plus, it's impolite to monopolize a page with massive double posting. Marginally akin to picking apart something someone said, then going "Disqualified for formatting" when someone responds.

[Dan O.]

And post 85 by Dan O questions whether it was a lawful order.

The link you provided also showed that travelers have a right to be present during searches. Ordering the traveler to remain in their car while the search is conducted outside could be an illegal order.

[Whiplash]

What I wrote was so mind blowing that I didn't want to make anyone defecate accidentally.


Oh my.

Removed breach of Rule 12

[not daSkeptic]

Younger European generations grow up with the notion that you can drive from Copenhagen to Rome or from Lisbon to Prague without a single border control. The notion of a land border check may be completely alien to them.

Out of sight, out of mind I suppose. I cannot vouch for things in Europe, although I can see how Schengen might create a situation similar to that here in America. Due to the geographic size of our country, many (perhaps most) never go anywhere near a guarded border in their whole lives. Despite the basic understanding of international concepts we are taught in school, I guess the lack of any practical need for that knowledge causes it to be forgotten.

[Kestrel]

Out of sight, out of mind I suppose. I cannot vouch for things in Europe, although I can see how Schengen might create a situation similar to that here in America. Due to the geographic size of our country, many (perhaps most) never go anywhere near a guarded border in their whole lives. Despite the basic understanding of international concepts we are taught in school, I guess the lack of any practical need for that knowledge causes it to be forgotten.

The border between Canada and the USA has often been referred to as the longest unguarded border in the world. Do we now think of it as a guarded border?

[roger]

The link you provided also showed that travelers have a right to be present during searches. Ordering the traveler to remain in their car while the search is conducted outside could be an illegal order.I'm not sure which link you are referring to. This link (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ice_border_search_electronic_devices.pdf) states merely that law enforcement should try to have the person present, if possible, and that Permitting an individual to be present in the room during a search does not necessarily mean that the individual will be permitted to witness the search itself.

I'm not going to go back through all the links to try to suss this out though. As I originally posted, I am highly dubious about untrained people googling law and coming up with anything close to the right answer.

[roger]

When a middle schooler talked back to you, did you throw the kid to the floor and beat him up? Or did you find a non-violent way to deal with the problem?

In this kind of situation, explaining the situation and answering questions in a calm voice would lead to better results than simply barking out orders.That's an extraordinarily pertinent analogy, except it was not a middle schooler but an adult, not a teacher but a LEO, not an educational situation but a lawfully conducted border search, not an undangerous situation but one where armed drug and human trafficers are often encountered, and not an incident of talking back but one of refusal to follow several direct lawful orders followed by an attempt to thwart arrest.

Otherwise it's spot on.

[popscythe]

Oh my.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have no sense of humor, rather than assuming you're so desperate to get a dig in that you'd take any possible opportunity to post something you thought up while reading another thread and just now had the "chance" to apply. Towards an obviously tongue-in-cheek statement. Directed towards someone else.

one where armed drug and human trafficers are often encountered
Because there's often shoot-outs involving drugs and human trafficking on the US/Canada border in Michigan. Dr. Dre comes up from Detroit with Snoop and seventeen thousand kilos of Human, six nines and some "malt liquauh" and proceeds to "pop" eleven "cops" before speeding off to Candyland where the "po po" can't find him. Beating a Doctor and saying "What's in your trailer full of crying children and opium poppies, please remain in the car while I check this out" are two entirely different things.

[not daSkeptic]

The border between Canada and the USA has often been referred to as the longest unguarded border in the world. Do we now think of it as a guarded border?

It is not unguarded, it is non-militarized. There may not be land-mines or electrified razor-wire fences but there are definitely people with guns who patrol it, and they will make one's life difficult if they try to cross without going through the proper channels.

[Hamradioguy]

Interesting thread. My 2 cents: I've crossed the U.S.-Canada border dozens of times...maybe close to a hundred crossings. Before 9/11 it was rare to even be asked to show a driver's license. The Canadians were primarily interested in firearms, alcohol and tobacco. Going back into the U.S. it was, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" and "What did you buy in Canada?" Only once, returning to the U.S., was the car searched. A fast once-over with many apologies: "Sorry, the computer makes these decisions for us. It's random, nothing you did."

After 9/11 it's a little tougher. Not going into Canada but returning. Coming back a few years ago from doing a ham radio microwave contest in Canada I crossed at a very rural crossing. The stuff was laid out in plain sight, but-no surprise- eyebrows were raised at the pile of exotic gear and dish antennas. "Let me show you what this stuff is." I said as I started to get out of the car. The Customs fellow dropped his voice a couple of octaves and increased the volume 10 db. "Sir-stay-in-the car! Do NOT get out of the car!" Polite but firm, and the message was VERY clear. Other ICE personnel began to appear. One of whom said, "Oh heck, he's one of those ham radio guys. Let him proceed."
Years of working in public safety and I-temporarily-forgot that you stay in your vehicle until or unless directed to get out. But how hard it is to not understand a command to stay in your vehicle?

(A final observation: in 45 plus years of driving I think I may have been stopped 3-4 times for speeding. In two cases the speed limit signs were either missing or completely obstructed by brush. I went to Traffic Court in both cases, and both times the officers who wrote the tickets perjured themselves about the signs. And in both cases the judge said, "Two conflicting stories, Mr. Hamradioguy. I believe the police officer and not you." So yeah, sometimes cops lie for whatever reason.) We'll see how Dr. Watts does with HIS story.

[not daSkeptic]

After 9/11 it's a little tougher. Not going into Canada but returning.

My experiences are consistent with yours. Going into Canada is almost always a breeze. The one exception was shortly after moving here to northern Washington. They grilled the hell out of my girlfriend and I about guns and pepper spray, neither of which we had. I later learned the most likely cause of this was the fact we still had California plates on the car. Evidently there's a big problem with drug trafficking between BC and California. Once we got Washington plates it was back to normal.

Returning to the US is a different matter. Not considerably tougher, but there's a noticeable difference in attitude. They're not as laid back, and sometimes I feel like they're looking down on me for having left the country. That's completely irrational, but I don't know how else to describe it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When a middle schooler talked back to you, did you throw the kid to the floor and beat him up? Or did you find a non-violent way to deal with the problem?

In this kind of situation, explaining the situation and answering questions in a calm voice would lead to better results than simply barking out orders.

And what if Watts didn't like the answer? Then what? Another question? And another? And another? And another?

Where does it end? (I'm even ignoring how ridiculous your premise is)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What I wrote was so mind blowing that I didn't want to make anyone defecate accidentally. Plus, it's impolite to monopolize a page with massive double posting. Marginally akin to picking apart something someone said, then going "Disqualified for formatting" when someone responds.

Huh????

[Beanbag]

The simple fact of life for anywhere in the world is that your rights at any given moment are whatever the police officer on the scene thinks they are. Sure, you might be able to prove later on that the officer was in the wrong, but that's after the fact.

The Houston police back in the '70's had an enlightening saying: you might beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

Welcome to reality.

Beanbag

[popscythe]

Welcome to reality.

That reality is what I was earlier calling a far stronger indoctrination than any religion. The practicing members of that doctrine can even beat you up and mace you to enforce it, completely aside from it's legal context.

TCS: What part of that don't you understand? The joke? The double posting etiqu-Ah, gotcha. Sorry, perhaps that's just me, I'm from the school of "since everyone is going to be reading everyone's posts to see what they are saying when everyone talks to them, it's less work for readers to grasp what you're saying if you keep it in one post, even if you're responding to multiple people. Thus, when I double posted, rather than taking up 5x space, I minimized the damage to 2x by hiding my response behind a "click here if you want to read it".

[Kestrel]

And what if Watts didn't like the answer? Then what? Another question? And another? And another? And another?

Where does it end? (I'm even ignoring how ridiculous your premise is)

Slippery slope fallacy.

[popscythe]

Slippery slope fallacy.

Not to mention that asking "another question and another and another" doesn't warrant being arrested, or anything else.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

TCS: What part of that don't you understand? The joke? The double posting etiqu-Ah, gotcha. Sorry, perhaps that's just me, I'm from the school of "since everyone is going to be reading everyone's posts to see what they are saying when everyone talks to them, it's less work for readers to grasp what you're saying if you keep it in one post, even if you're responding to multiple people. Thus, when I double posted, rather than taking up 5x space, I minimized the damage to 2x by hiding my response behind a "click here if you want to read it".

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Slippery slope fallacy.

Not even close.

Care to try again?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not to mention that asking "another question and another and another" doesn't warrant being arrested, or anything else.

It does when you are asking those questions outside of a car you were ordered to return to.

[Kestrel]

Not even close.

Care to try again?

You were not implying that answering one question would always lead to a never ending series of questions?

[Beady]

Why couldn't the officer say
"Sir, if you do not return to your car immediately, I will have to arrest you. You are being detained for a standard random search."

You are arguing as if you have some reason to believe he didn't.

And there are ways to maintain strict control with resorting to arrest or violence.

Yup. and if they don't work, as they apparently didn't in this instance, you resort to arrest and violence.

When a middle schooler talked back to you, did you throw the kid to the floor and beat him up? Or did you find a non-violent way to deal with the problem?

I threw him to the floor and beat him up.

That's an extraordinarily pertinent analogy, except it was not a middle schooler but an adult, not a teacher but a LEO, not an educational situation but a lawfully conducted border search, not an undangerous situation but one where armed drug and human trafficers are often encountered, and not an incident of talking back but one of refusal to follow several direct lawful orders followed by an attempt to thwart arrest.

Otherwise it's spot on.

I can't top that. :)

[Damien Evans]

It'd be a meat pie - but I'd use the term "meat" cautiously...

Bit of camel, bit of rabbit, some feral pig if you're really lucky...

[Rogue1stclass]

From what I understand, any time an LEO attempts to restrict your movement (generally by putting cuffs on you), you are being arrested. When they say you are being "being detained", it actually means that you are being arrested for the purposes of detainment, which means they are just temporarily controlling your movements with no intention of hauling you off and booking you. However, you are still being arrested, and any attempt to resist that can bring charges, even if you were perfectly in the right up to that point.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You were not implying that answering one question would always lead to a never ending series of questions?

Nope. Although it could. And I was wondering what would happen then.

[Dan O.]

You are arguing as if you have some reason to believe he didn't.

It's called "fair notice" and is typically included in the police report when it is applied. So he actually does have reason to say that didn't happen.

[Beady]

It's called "fair notice" and is typically included in the police report when it is applied. So he actually does have reason to say that didn't happen.

Perhaps. If he's seen the police report.

[SonOfLaertes]

Why is this so difficult to understand? It's not as if border agents have never before been killed by desperate, nasty people, people who may have looked innocent. The U.S. border has become an increasingly dangerous line to cross, whichever direction one is heading. Drug traffic puts extremely dangerous, crazy people on the road, people with a hell of a lot on the line (and in their trunk).

Any fool who steps out of his car in this circumstance should realize that they have just become a dangerous fool. Any encounter these days can instantly become an encounter with an angry, pitiless, desperate person, no matter how innocent and wholesome they look. Law enforcement personnel owe it to their wives, husbands, and especially their children to assume the worst and hope for the best.

There is no reasonable excuse for any adult who lives in America or Canada, in this day and age, not to realize this. None. Step out of the car, and you become a threat to the security of the officers family. Simple as that. Stay in the car, and law enforcement still has a big advantage, though not a sure advantage.

Refuse to get back in the car after you have stepped out, and you should be teaching apprentice fools in the finer points of nitwitery.

[roger]

From what I understand, any time an LEO attempts to restrict your movement (generally by putting cuffs on you), you are being arrested. When they say you are being "being detained", it actually means that you are being arrested for the purposes of detainment, which means they are just temporarily controlling your movements with no intention of hauling you off and booking you. However, you are still being arrested, and any attempt to resist that can bring charges, even if you were perfectly in the right up to that point.
I think maybe you are mixing terminology a bit, but yes, you can be detained by police but not arrested. If you resist the detainment, you will be brought up on charges of resisting arrest. According to the stuff I googled, IANAL and IANALEO.

[roger]

Because there's often shoot-outs involving drugs and human trafficking on the US/Canada border in Michigan. Yes, believe it or not, people do try to move illegal things across the border (source (http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/08/man_arrested_at_border_with_27.html) source (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99304790.html) source (http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/34080--man-charged-with-smuggling-drugs)). Even in Michigan. People shoot at police. Even in Michigan (source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351501,00.html)). Heck, criminals even end up accidentally on the bridge and arrested (source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529982,00.html)).


I'll ignore the rest of the hyperbole.


What a stupid thread.

[theprestige]

In law enforcement, as in warfare, the presumption is always that the order is lawful. Refusing such an order, on the battlefield and at the border station, is a "get into jail free" card, not a "do whatever I want because I disagree with the policeman" certificate.

[Rogue1stclass]

I think maybe you are mixing terminology a bit, but yes, you can be detained by police but not arrested. If you resist the detainment, you will be brought up on charges of resisting arrest. According to the stuff I googled, IANAL and IANALEO.

It's possible to be detained without being formally arrested (which is the whole ritual you see on TV), but a detainment is still an arrest. The standards for probable cause are lower and the reading of rights is not required, but resisting it carries the same penalties for resisting a formal arrest.

[Matthew Best]

Did he do a cartwheel?

[Alan]

In law enforcement, as in warfare, the presumption is always that the order is lawful. Refusing such an order, on the battlefield and at the border station, is a "get into jail free" card, not a "do whatever I want because I disagree with the policeman" certificate.
I don't think you should have used the word "always".

[theprestige]

I don't think you should have used the word "always".
I chose the word very carefully.

Consider that on the battlefield, swift, sure execution of orders is paramount. It is not an appropriate time or place for debate. It is not within the authority of the subordinate to countermand the orders of their superior. If, however, the subordinate's conscience compels them to disobey an order, then they are, by definition, disobedient. That is a crime, and it carries immediate consequences in the form of arrest and confinement. Later, outside the heat of battle, a court-martial is convened to hear the matter out, and determine whether or not the subordinate made the right choice. If, at that later time, it is determined that the order was unlawful, then at that later time the superior is found guilty and punished, and the subordinate is exonerated.

Likewise in matters of law enforcement. On the scene, at the moment of receiving an order from an law-enforcement officer, is not the appropriate venue to debate, countermand, or disregard the order. If your conscience compels you to anyway, then the first consequence is that you will be arrested for disobeying the order. There's really no other way for law enforcement to work.

[Alan]

I thought you meant that people should always assume that orders are lawful, and obey them.

[Merko]

Likewise in matters of law enforcement. On the scene, at the moment of receiving an order from an law-enforcement officer, is not the appropriate venue to debate, countermand, or disregard the order. If your conscience compels you to anyway, then the first consequence is that you will be arrested for disobeying the order. There's really no other way for law enforcement to work.

I would generally agree, but there are exceptions. If the unlawful order merely offends your dignity or has no other serious and permanent consequences, then I would certainly agree that it is prudent to follow it anyway and perhaps pursue the issue later.

But some orders are not like that. If you are ordered to do something that will cause serious and permanent damage that is not possible or likely to be rectified by any later complaint, it might very well be prudent to argue with a policeman. Also, while that's not very easy, it's not impossible, as my own experience has shown.

[theprestige]

I would generally agree, but there are exceptions. If the unlawful order merely offends your dignity or has no other serious and permanent consequences, then I would certainly agree that it is prudent to follow it anyway and perhaps pursue the issue later.

But some orders are not like that. If you are ordered to do something that will cause serious and permanent damage that is not possible or likely to be rectified by any later complaint, it might very well be prudent to argue with a policeman. Also, while that's not very easy, it's not impossible, as my own experience has shown.
I don't see that as an exception at all. Like I said, if your conscience compels you to disobey the order, fine. And at a later date, you will (in a reasonably just regime) be given an opportunity to justify your disobedience and demonstrate the unlawfulness of the order. But the default legal position, on the scene, is that you are wrong to disobey the order. You don't get get acquitted on the spot simply because you disagree really strongly with the policeman.

[popscythe]

But the default legal position, on the scene, is that you are wrong to disobey the order.

Only wrong insofar as you'll be punished for it (potentially unlawfully) by a uniformed citizen. Police officers don't make the law, they enforce it. Enforcing the law doesn't mean "enforce first, apologize later" it should mean "Know the law first, and enforce it when necessary".

Of course, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, the burden of proof lies with the accused, instead of the way it's supposed to be, making it unwise to attempt to assert your basic rights in America.

[theprestige]

Only wrong insofar as you'll be punished for it (potentially unlawfully) by a uniformed citizen. Police officers don't make the law, they enforce it. Enforcing the law doesn't mean "enforce first, apologize later" it should mean "Know the law first, and enforce it when necessary".
And if a dispute arises about whether or not the police officer knows the law, or whether or not enforcing it is necessary, how should that dispute be resolved? Who should adjudicate it? To what extent should that dispute prevent the officer from carrying out their duties? Of all the people on the scene, whose judgement should be privileged?

Of course, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, the burden of proof lies with the accused, instead of the way it's supposed to be, making it unwise to attempt to assert your basic rights in America.
Of course, as has been repeatedly misunderstood on this thread, the policeman is the one accused. By law, he is authorized to give lawful orders. If you wish to accuse him of giving you an unlawful order, it's up to you to prove that claim. However, you do not have the privilege of derailing the enforcement of the law or the keeping of the peace just because you made an accusation.

It seems like you've never really thought about what law enforcement actually means, or why we grant police officers the authority we do.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And if a dispute arises about whether or not the police officer knows the law, or whether or not enforcing it is necessary, how should that dispute be resolved? Who should adjudicate it? To what extent should that dispute prevent the officer from carrying out their duties? Of all the people on the scene, whose judgement should be privileged?

Of course, as has been repeatedly misunderstood on this thread, the policeman is the one accused. By law, he is authorized to give lawful orders. If you wish to accuse him of giving you an unlawful order, it's up to you to prove that claim. However, you do not have the privilege of derailing the enforcement of the law or the keeping of the peace just because you made an accusation.

It seems like you've never really thought about what law enforcement actually means, or why we grant police officers the authority we do.

You kind of threw a monkey wrench in things by asking about the real world. Some of the posters here are talking about how you interact with the police in the make believe world.

[popscythe]

It seems like you've never really thought about what law enforcement actually means, or why we grant police officers the authority we do.
I've thought a lot about those exact things. I concede that when policing is done to the letter of the law, and within the authority granted by state and federal law as written, bad guys get punished and good guys don't have anything to worry about.

That being said, we clearly disagree about the frequency of the above's occurrence in the "real world".

[Simon39759]

I don't think we have enough information right now to make the kind of definitive judgement I have seen in this thread.

It seems that one of the actor did act dickishly and escalated the situation, but we have no ways of knowing if it was Watt or the patrol officer (or both).

[theprestige]

I've thought a lot about those exact things. I concede that when policing is done to the letter of the law, and within the authority granted by state and federal law as written, bad guys get punished and good guys don't have anything to worry about.

That being said, we clearly disagree about the frequency of the above's occurrence in the "real world".
I don't see how you could think we disagree about the frequency, since I haven't discussed the frequency anywhere in this thread, and since the frequency is totally irrelevant to my point:

My point is that the lawfulness of the order is not open to debate at the time the order is given. The only way for the law to be meaningfully enforced is if the law enforcement officer's authority trumps all other authority on the scene--including the authority of the civilian to contest unlawful orders.

This is a lot of authority to grant to someone, and we as a society make a good effort to make sure we don't grant it inappropriately. We also make a good effort to punish abuse and exonerate those who are abused. But that still doesn't mean that you can countermand a policeman's orders on the scene, no matter how unlawful you think they are, nor how unlawful they are later proven to be.

[Dan O.]

Your point is just a punch of hot air (or loose electrons). The police only have the authority that is explicitly granted to them by law and even that is tempered by the rights of individuals embodied in the constitution. By blindly following police orders you could be giving up your rights that you cannot get back by arguing in court. If the police come to your home and say open this door and let us in, that is an illegal police order. If you comply and subsequently they discover evidence inside your home that they use to charge you with a crime, you cannot argue later that the evidence was illegally obtained. If however you refuse to let the police in and they barge in anyhow, you can (in most states) have the evidence suppressed.

[theprestige]

Your point is just a punch of hot air (or loose electrons). The police only have the authority that is explicitly granted to them by law and even that is tempered by the rights of individuals embodied in the constitution. By blindly following police orders you could be giving up your rights that you cannot get back by arguing in court. If the police come to your home and say open this door and let us in, that is an illegal police order. If you comply and subsequently they discover evidence inside your home that they use to charge you with a crime, you cannot argue later that the evidence was illegally obtained. If however you refuse to let the police in and they barge in anyhow, you can (in most states) have the evidence suppressed.
You are right. I agree with you. I always have agreed with this position. I'm sorry if my arguments haven't been clear on this point.

My argument is simply that disagreeing about the lawfulness of an order is not--and cannot be--sufficient grounds for countermanding that order.

[popscythe]

My argument is simply that disagreeing about the lawfulness of an order is not--and cannot be--sufficient grounds for countermanding that order.
But.. in the example Dan just brought up, countermanding the order is your legal right and not doing so may be taken in court as you waiving that right.

That doesn't apply to the current situation, of course, Dr. Watts shouldn't have tried to cross a border if he didn't want to be searched. That being said, Dr. Watts shouldn't have been beaten and maced for a non-violent refusal of a non-essential order, either. That's where the "authority we grant them" comes into play, prestige. I'm fairly certain that getting a few punches in on a prisoner after you've maced them isn't an authority granted, it's an abuse of loosely worded authority at best, and in reality, an example of common police brutality.

[Dan O.]

My argument is simply that disagreeing about the lawfulness of an order is not--and cannot be--sufficient grounds for countermanding that order.

The problem in Watts case is knowing if the officer was actually making an order with the force of law or simply requesting that Peter relinquish his right to be present during the search.

[screensnot]

Your point is just a punch of hot air (or loose electrons). The police only have the authority that is explicitly granted to them by law and even that is tempered by the rights of individuals embodied in the constitution. By blindly following police orders you could be giving up your rights that you cannot get back by arguing in court. If the police come to your home and say open this door and let us in, that is an illegal police order. If you comply and subsequently they discover evidence inside your home that they use to charge you with a crime, you cannot argue later that the evidence was illegally obtained. If however you refuse to let the police in and they barge in anyhow, you can (in most states) have the evidence suppressed.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. But, I don't think you should physically resist the police (except in some extreme situation, like an officer trying to rape you).

If they tell you to let them in, tell them that you don't want them in. Don't try to close the door in their face. Don't try to push them away.

Verbal protest is the only thing that makes sense to me. Physical resistance shows irrational thinking to me.

[Dan O.]

We have a disagreement as to the facts of who was being violent to whom. A video of the event would likely settle the issue but the police are sitting on the video. I don't see the reason they are withholding this from the public since Dr. Watts and his lawyer will have full access to this video and any other evidence before this can go to trial. Perhaps they are hoping for a plea bargain before anyone finds out how badly the officer handled the situation.

[screensnot]

Even if the cop is unjustly violent toward you, what can you hope to accomplish by being violent in return?

I can't say for sure that Watts did anything violent at all. I'm waiting to see the video, too. But, I'm not surprised or upset that the video wasn't immediately released to the public.

[Travis]

We have a disagreement as to the facts of who was being violent to whom. A video of the event would likely settle the issue but the police are sitting on the video. I don't see the reason they are withholding this from the public since Dr. Watts and his lawyer will have full access to this video and any other evidence before this can go to trial. Perhaps they are hoping for a plea bargain before anyone finds out how badly the officer handled the situation.

Since you've decided to just assume that the cops are at fault out of some misguided hate of all authority I will decide to just assume Watts was being an arrogant ass and got what was deserving of him.

So, nyah! :p


Now, I've talked to my step-dad in the past about working on the border. He was CHP but they often worked with the Border Patrol and he had some interesting stories about Americans who were being shipped back after they became belligerent with the Mexican police assuming, for some reason, that they retained their US rights in Mexico. It is similarly not impossible that there are Canadians who, wrongly, think that US law enforcement has no jurisdiction over them even while they are still in the US.

[Dan O.]

Since you've decided to just assume that the cops are at fault out of some misguided hate of all authority I will decide to just assume Watts was being an arrogant ass and got what was deserving of him.

No, As a skeptic I have not decided either way. I simply looked at what information has not been released and speculated as to why.

In later developments, the police have supposedly released the police report of the incident. However, since courts have routinely held that the police are permitted to lie we cannot rely on such reports to be factual.

There are also hints that there may be a third witness confirming the doctor's story.

Until the video is released, we probably won't have enough facts to decide who's at fault in this incident.


So, nyah! :p

At least those of us who are truly skeptics.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, As a skeptic I have not decided either way. I simply looked at what information has not been released and speculated as to why.

LOL!!!

In later developments, the police have supposedly released the police report of the incident. However, since courts have routinely held that the police are permitted to lie we cannot rely on such reports to be factual.

I'm sure you have a link for this? (Note to others: this could be very entertaining!)

There are also hints that there may be a third witness confirming the doctor's story.

Link?

Until the video is released, we probably won't have enough facts to decide who's at fault in this incident.

We have enough now. Watts is at fault.

At least those of us who are truly skeptics.

Agreed. Like me.

[popscythe]

:bigclap

Well done guys.

[Travis]

No, As a skeptic I have not decided either way. I simply looked at what information has not been released and speculated as to why.

Hmm, I guess you were counting on me not having read the thread.

In later developments, the police have supposedly released the police report of the incident. However, since courts have routinely held that the police are permitted to lie we cannot rely on such reports to be factual.

What? Please provide some proof for this.

There are also hints that there may be a third witness confirming the doctor's story.

What hints?

Until the video is released, we probably won't have enough facts to decide who's at fault in this incident.

:rolleyes:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In later developments, the police have supposedly released the police report of the incident. However, since courts have routinely held that the police are permitted to lie we cannot rely on such reports to be factual.

I'm sure you have a link for this? (Note to others: this could be very entertaining!)

What? Please provide some proof for this.

One of two things will happen here:

1) Dan O. will refuse to back up his ridiculous claim

or

2) He will link to some ridiculous article that has nothing whatsoever to do with any court anywhere ruling it is OK for police to lie.

Place your wagers. I think #1 is the early favorite.

Either way, we'll have some fun!

[fuelair]

Hmm, I guess you were counting on me not having read the thread.



What? Please provide some proof for this.



What hints?



:rolleyes:

Note that most lies of that type require the criminal to be rather incompetant mentally OR very paranoid - but that is the case a surprising amount of time in real life!!!

Travis: Dan is technically correct - but not on official documents, nor in court testimony etc. They are allowed to lie to arrestees in interrogation ("your buddy rolled on you", "we have your fingerprints - clear as crystal", "your mom showed us where the money was", etc.) and that's essentially it. Not to attorneys, not to the court, not in records, just as noted. I'll do Dan the courtesy of assuming he did not know the very short range of the ruling he used to support his point.:)