Archive for the ‘checkpoints’ Category

BTC- 4:00 PST – We just had an update from vlogger 4409 out of Scottsdale, AZ who reported that this statute includes immunity to criminal justice retaliation against wrongful arrest and conviction by police when they are performing arbitrary terry stops in search of illegal immigrants. This is a really bad bill. It has rolled up the agenda to try national identity and a checkpoint police society in one fell swoop.

Real ID up for a vote in Arizona house
c/o Campaign for Liberty

A true anti-freedom bill, an Arizona version of REAL ID, is to be voted on in the Arizona House of Representatives by the Committee of the Whole (COW, in other words the full house) TODAY, WED, MARCH 17, 2010.

Do not be fooled by the title, or even the good intentions of the bill or its sponsors, this is BAD for freedom, Arizona, and the country. Do not be fooled by their platitudes of opposing REAL ID, National ID, or whatever other name they try to hide it behind.

Short version: among other serious problems, this bill allows a LEO to detain a law abiding American indefinitely whom they cannot verify via US Dept Homeland Security, with full indemnification for the LEO and his/her agency.

Papers Please.

The areas of concern are indicated below in red font and underlined.

And remember exactly how low the court’s have deemed “reasonable” suspicion to be.

Taken from the bill language found here
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2632p.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.htm

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any legitimate contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).

ANALYSIS:

How do you know if some is illegal?

The only way to verify if someone is here legally is to check their immigration
status.

How do you check?

This is described further in this bill below. I will highlight red .

What is 8 USC 1373c?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001373—-000-.html

c. The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection.

D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.

E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

Analysis:

Read the above carefully.

There is NO RESTRICTION for ANY government official ANYWHERE in the state of Arizona for checking national id except for the specified purposes below. So, let’s look at those……..

1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

Analysis:

Any government official anywhere in Arizona may check EVERYONES “immigration status” (i.e. national id data profile) for ANY benefit, service OR LICENSE (this is REAL ID/national id!) Again, how do you check immigration status? You get the ID of the person and run it against “immigration” (i.e. Department of Homeland Security REAL/PASS ID databases.)

2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

Analysis:

The above describes a domicile/address data reconciliation process with the US Department of Homeland Security (“immigation”) for EVERYONE’s home, legal or illegal!

For example, among many other things, this would create a positive link between drivers’ license addresses, one’s home and 4473 forms which you fill out when you buy a gun. Among other things, such as improving the integrity of the drivers license as a national id, it creates a gun purchase registration capaibility at the federal government level.

3. Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

Analysis: note the above in conjunction with an analysis comment below

4. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.

G. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following:

1. That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

2. That the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G and remit the civil penalty to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation. Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

I. A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

To contact your State Rep: http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H

Advertisements

This is from Freedom’s Phoenix


Terry Bressi
520-203-4843
Website: Checkpoint USA
Blog: Roadblock Revelations
Date: 09-10-2009
Subject: Arizona’s Top News

Before continuing, it should be noted the intent of the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security has always been to force a permanent checkpoint down the throats of Southern Arizonans regardless of the level of public outcry or the conclusions of the GAO report:

Homeland Security Chooses Site For Illegal Drug Checkpoint:


“The agency said it will wait to make a decision about the permanent checkpoint until the group’s findings are released but countered that, from the Border Patrol’s perspective, the work group wasn’t formed to debate permanent checkpoints but rather to get input about ways to make it most effective, Fitzpatrick said.

‘The Border Patrol is in the business of border security,’ Fitzpatrick said. ‘We’ve been doing this for 83 years. That’s our job. We’re the experts on this.'”

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the GAO report is so obviously biased in favor of establishing the checkpoint, even to the point of ignoring some of its own findings and purposefully limiting the scope of the study.

Back to the actual meeting, Checkpoint USA was on hand to record the meeting and is now making it available to the general public. This is part 3 and highlights a presentation on the GAO report by Richard Stana with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). :::MORE HERE:::

Texas Becomes Roadblock Battleground  c/o The Newspaper.com

Interest groups battle over roadblocks ahead of the 2009 Texas legislative session.

Interest groups are pressuring Texas lawmakers to authorize the use of roadblocks ahead of their return for the 2009 legislative session. The practice of setting up barricades on roads to stop and interrogate motorists suspected of no wrongdoing has been unlawful since a 1994 state appeals court decision ruled that a “politically accountable governing body at the state level” must first approve their use. Now Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has scheduled an October 23 deadline for briefs to decide the Texas Public Safety Commission’s request to bypass this requirement and approve roadblocks on its own authority.

Texas is one of fewer than a dozen states that currently prohibit warrantless searches of motorists. For that reason, the new president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Laura Dean-Mooney, made convincing the Texas legislature of the need for roadblocks a high priority for her organization.

“I have a special place in my heart for Texas,” Mooney said upon taking the top job in July. “But so much more must be done. Passing interlocks for all drunk driving offenders and sobriety checkpoints to deter drunk driving would be a great start.”

MADD came close to a legislative victory in April 2007 when the state Senate voted unanimously to establish the waterborne equivalent of a roadblock. The proposed “boating safety checkpoints” would have allowed police to pull over and question all recreational boaters on lakes within the state. The legislation would also have given police the discretion to use force to take a boater’s blood to determine sobriety. The measure died when the state House declined to act on the bill.

The alcoholic beverage industry feels threatened by the chilling effect such draconian measures would have on sales of beer and wine at restaurants.

“By calling for roadblocks and mandating breathalyzers for first time offenders, regardless of their BAC level, MADD is ignoring the root cause of today’s drunk driving problem — hard core alcohol abusers,” American Beverage Institute Managing Director Sarah Longwell said. “Because they are highly visible by design and publicized in advance, roadblocks are all too easily avoided by the chronic alcohol abusers who comprise the core of today’s drunk driving problem. That leaves adults who enjoyed a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ball game, or a champagne toast at a wedding to be harassed at checkpoints.”

The possibility of innocent drivers being arrested at such checkpoints is increased by a state police policy that gives troopers an incentive to accuse motorists of drunk driving. In a June meeting of the Public Safety Commission, a twenty-seven year veteran of the state police testified about drunk driving (DWI) arrest quotas.

“Also, my second item, some of the troopers that have earned vacation and putting in requests for vacation are being told that their vacation request will not be considered unless they are getting a certain amount of DWIs,” retired Trooper Coy Lorance testified.

The commission responded by attempting to get around the prohibition on drunk driving roadblocks by referring to them as “license checks.” The group put in the request to the attorney general last month after receiving an inconvenient response from the state police chief.

“Mr. Chairman, you had asked at the meeting prior to… prepare a document that would relate the legal responses to conducting driver’s license, registration, and insurance checkpoints,” Department of Public Safety Director Thomas Davis testified in June. “I think it’s the recommendation of general counsel that without the authority being granted by a governance is that we’re not able to do that legally.”

In a 2005 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that 99.29 percent of drivers stopped at state roadblocks were innocent. The results also showed that it took 53 percent more effort to make an arrest with a roadblock than to use traditional roving patrol techniques. Nonetheless, the court upheld the validity of roadblocks (view ruling).

The request letter sent to the attorney general is available in a 170k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Request for Attorney General Opinion (Texas Department of Public Safety, 10/6/2008)


ALL OF US want to fight and end drunken driving. Many in our community have met with the police department to find a way to work together to build and implement an effective anti-drunken driving program.

Unfortunately, the checkpoints, as currently administered, are ineffective, expensive, discriminatory, divisive and operate outside the law.

Checkpoints could be effective as part of a larger program to fight “driving under the influence,” or DUI, but we do not support using them to conduct ID checks, selectively target members of our community and impound personal property.

Complete Story Here

BTC – HUMOR
We here at BeatTheChip at times have been called on the mat for being a bit irreverent and prone to being distrustful of our government.

Our response to this is that we do not negotiate with fascists, at least not with any diplomatic skill, and the wet noodle lashings will continue until levity ensues. Anything is better than watching CNN today.

In this year of declared political allegiances – we have come up with some creative terminology for recent outbreaks of mass hysteria.

1) “Drinking the Kool-Aide” – This term applies to the person who blindly follows any line of rhetoric without question or stopping for the occasional grain of salt. The phrase has been used interchangeably with people who follow cult leaders. A proper use of this phrase might be, “Aunt Mabel, has been drinking the Kool-Aide. I can’t get a word in edgewise about any other political perspective other than her candidate.”

2) “Hope-mongering” – This is a gerund phrase for the incessant media blanketing for overkill mention of the words “Obama”, “Barack Obama”, and now the new dead-horse they are pulverizing, the Vice Presidential nomination of Joe Biden. You may count for every 36 Obama mentions there is a McCain mention. Not that we care. We just want variety and parity and ..maybe some of the other news we are missing. A proper use of the words Hope-mongering might be, “Jesus, Mary & Joseph, can’t I get any news on a concrete economic or a civil liberties plan from either of these people? A few months ago this was a bit of smooth jazz for Democrats. Now, all I’m getting is Hope-mongering!!

It’s like going to the grocery store and being told you can choose from 5 different flavors: Chocolate, Chocolate, Chocolate, Chocolate and Vanilla. I think I’ll have the Alka-Seltzer.

3)“Dirty Sanchez Bastard” – c/o UrbanDictionary.com- use this mace sparingly at TSA agents when they steal your laptop and grope your wife. Or when a Border Patrol Checkpoint pops up in you’re rear view when you’re out shovelling snow in the driveway.

n. A derogatory term used only in the most extreme situations as to where you are yelling during an unrehearsed fit toward any communistic authority figure. i.e. a principal, president, boss, etc.

Current event’s use of the term:
“We are going to continue to put them in areas where people have to pass through from point A to point B,” said the Dirty Sanchez Bastard constructing checkpoints in Washington state.

(Random conversation until random sighting of school principal.)
EX: Brit: Freeman! You took away my freedom you Dirty Sanchez Bastard!!!

KIDS – DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME
Here’s a story about a Dirty Sanchez Bastard, getting punked by some not-so-nice hackers here.
A hacker broke into a Homeland Security Department telephone system over the weekend and racked up about $12,000 in calls to the Middle East and Asia.

Highlights from Gizmodo Comment Board:

“Human Bomb — says
Everyone point and laugh at the DHS!”

” sam_i_am — says
Hacking the FEMA phone system – clever.
Hacking a phone system to call the Middle East – clever.
Hacking the FEMA phone system to call the Middle East – death sentence.”

” bms — says
FEMA = F*cking Emergency My Ass! …” More colorful reverie on Gizmodo.com.

TOKEN REAL-ID PROPAGANDA FOLLOWS
Here’s a really cool art show inspired by those batsh*t crazy conspiracy debunked theorists. God.. where do they get this stuff ? I swear they are so EMBARASSING sometimes.

The matter in question:  Is TSA collecting fliers personal information on a “list” if they show up to fly without an ID? (Flying without an ID is legal, but against TSA policy paradoxical demands for ID.)
WASHINGTON — The Transportation Security Administration has collected records on thousands of passengers who went to airport checkpoints without identification, adding them to a database of people who violated security laws or were questioned for suspicious behavior.
BUT… TSA authorities say they really aren’t doing that, in a way, sorta, well, of course…
“An August 13 USA Today article overstated the Transportation Security Administration’s interest in passengers who come to airport checkpoints without identification but cooperate in establishing their identity. The story gives the public the impression they might be put on a “list” if they forget their ID. That is false.

Passengers whose identity is confirmed will not be added to any watch list or face additional scrutiny during future checkpoint visits…Because our mission requires this capability, we do collect information about individuals who present false identification or misrepresent themselves to get in an airplane.”
Yes, but what about NO identification. Are they included with those who “misrepresent” themselves?   Who are you going to believe?

TSA, who uses the 9-11 Commission Report as a reliable comprehensive document based on facts and the Lexus Nexis corporate database to confirm your  walk-in /walk-out identity?
“The information is only shared with other law enforcement partners on a need-to-know basis. The ability to “connect the dots” on emerging situations can not be underestimated. In the post 9/11 world, such analysis is so fundamental to protecting the American public that it was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.” – Evolution of Security 
OR
The coverage of a Rupert Murdoch owned dumbed-down newspaper soup document called USA Today,
“Later Tuesday, {Kip}Hawley called the newspaper to say the agency is changing its policy effective today and will stop keeping records of people who don’t have ID if a screener can determine their identity. Hawley said he had been considering the change for a month. The names of people who did not have identification will soon be expunged, he said.

Civil liberties advocates have been fearful that the database includes passengers who have done nothing wrong yet may face extra scrutiny at airports or questioning by authorities investigating possible terrorism. “This information comes back to haunt people,” said Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union.” – USA TODAY
BeatTheChip’s answer: the one that doesn’t need to have your face on file to fly in the U.S.

http://aclu.tv/sites/default/modules/contrib-5/flvmediaplayer/mediaplayer.swf


BeatTheChip’s suggested approach to Fly-by-ID TSA searches is as follows:

1) Don’t go get a new ID, present the one you have in your wallet.
2) Get a passport.  Smack the RFID with a hammer or throw it in the microwave for 7 seconds.
3) Mail your laptop a day ahead of time to your destination or add it to your regular luggage in a different suitcase to avoid TSA carry-on harassment.
4) Stop giving out your personal information to random gratuitous surveys or stupid contests you won’t win or customer “advantage” cards.   That’s how Lexus Nexis got your info in the first place.
5) Contact your legislator and tell them you want TSA out of your airports-they are wasting your tax money.