Were U.S. border patrol agents in the right of beating up this priest?video link included?

Are they allowed to search a vehicle without probable cause? Can they pull a car over with no probable cause? What power does the supreme court give border patrol agents on these internal U.S. checkpoints I go through these checkpoints frequently and I would like to know what my rights are and what limits are placed on the border patrol agents there. I have been late for class a few times because they decide they want to use their dogs to search my car.And they have absolutely no reason to suspect from me. I don't have a criminal record of any type or give them any reason to believe I am committing an illegal act. I saw this video of a priest being beaten up by border patrols and it makes me wonder who is right about what our rights are on these checkpoints.

Whatever happened to our 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th amendment of the US Constitution

Here is the video about the priest being beat up. It is pretty intense so it may not be advisable for some to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMZUgmrJrk

Youtube thumbnail

&feature=related

Update:

Note there is a second part to this video in the description of the video.

Update 2:

Here is another similar video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFS7oZtE8Ks

Youtube thumbnail

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    These are your rights-

    "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting

    officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This

    premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the

    case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the

    officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally

    accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with

    very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right

    to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What

    may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter

    in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been

    committed."

    "An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without

    affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,

    and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the

    arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will

    be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.

    491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.

    Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,

    241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right

    to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by

    force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,

    his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;

    Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    "These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an

    arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by

    the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private

    individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,

    26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,

    43 Tex. 93, 903.

    "An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to

    be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in

    defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and

    battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    "Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,

    the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer

    and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.

    Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    "One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as

    he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus

    it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an

    officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without

    resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    "Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In

    his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which

    the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various

    branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be

    no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the

    Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,

    'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by

    human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in

    extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous

    injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford

    University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the

    case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,

    and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of

    the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the

    peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy

    v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

    Source(s): The supreme court.
  • 1 decade ago

    First off after watching the video he doesn't have to pull over for reasonable cause he could just check but for search he did the police officer said that the canine alerted them. At that point they have reasonable cause for search. and failure to get out is failure to obey an officer. now the best course would have been to get out go to jail and then easy fight in court if the police officer was wrong. I am no law person but the best situation is not to fight it on the street your word against mine but with a mediator(a judge)

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.