Newsflash, the police in every jurisdiction can hold you 48 to 72 hours without charging you with a crime.

From this article it appears that the guy refused to roll down his window to talk to the border patrol.

This might have made them a tad suspicious. Why do I suspect that this was a set up, in order to test the constitutionality of border patrol stops?

A no knock raid is a violation of your constitutional rights.

A traffic stop for almost any reason, is not.

In order to have most constitutional rights, you first must prove that you are a citizen, entitled to them.

For example, a convicted felon generally doesn't have Second amendment rights. But in order to determine that, law enforcement is always going to be entitiled to hold you long enough, to find out who you are, with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Isab,
You may be right about that, but it doesn't apply here.

Here's a helpful primer from the AZ branch of the ACLU, it's from their FAQ sheet:
"When the Supreme Court ruled in Martinez (1976) that the detentions must be “brief,” what does that mean?

In general, this means that detention may be no longer than the time reasonably necessary to conduct a minimal inquiry into immigration status. Absent reasonable suspicion of a crime, the detention cannot be extended for any length of time for non-immigration purposes."

I watched the videos that Rynearson posted.

At one point, 8 minutes into Part II he actually hands them his passport. It should have been all over right there. But they just wouldn't let it go.

1) The BP lied about him not responding when asked if he was a citizen.
2) The BP lied about not being able to hear him, as resulting conversation demonstrates.
3) They cursed at him, calling him an asshole, and then phoned his job.
4) No suspicion, mere, reasonable, or other was ever given; except at the end when they call him out for non-compliance for not rolling his window all the way down.
Without reasonable suspicion, they can't hold you for 48 to 72 hours. Ok?

He did some good things. He phoned the FBI for advice. He called the BP headquarters in D.C. to let them know they have some rogue agents in Uvalde, TX. And he captured the whole thing on video. It's almost like he came prepared. In fact at the 8 minute mark in Part III while he is on the phone with BP headquarters he says he got sent to secondary inspection ". . . as though they were expecting me because of last time."
That last bit is interesting. If they already know who he is, they already know he's a U.S. citizen and they should have just waved him through.

"Without reasonable suspicion, they can't hold you for 48 to 72 hours. Ok?"

I don't think this means what you think it means, and for someone wanting redress, it is a matter of proving it in the breach.

The fact that the Supremes refused to hear it tells you just about everything you need to know about the constitutionality.

It is settled law.

Isab,
Of course it's not settled law or the case wouldn't have gone to the 5th Circuit. All the Supreme Court declining to hear the appeal tells me is that they declined to hear it. We can speculate on their reasons. Maybe they're waiting for a clear Circuit split on the issue. Maybe thay want a better set of facts. Who knows?

Amy's post deals with intimidation tactics outside the scope of duty. I think this case is a clear example.

I have been through the checkpoint at Uvalde several times.

Forget any idea you may have had about this being a transitory checkpoint - this is a large, permanent inspection plaza, with all sorts of facilities, many lanes for traffic to be processed through, all under a huge canopy. It's bigger and more-complex than many border inspection stations I have passed through. It is, for example, much bigger than the actual border inspection station at Del Rio - which is the only real place the road goes to.

Well, you build a facility like that, and you staff it, and pretty soon, you need to find reasons to keep it open, and staffed. And the only place you are going to find those reasons - are in the cars and trucks driving through.

So, exactly as you would expect, this place has turned into a convenient end-run around the 4th Amendment - for conventional law enforcement purposes. Why else, last time I went through, was there a Texas state motor carrier officer parked there, watching the trucks coming through? Last I heard, border inspection is strictly a Federal matter - but every other flavor of copper for miles around is now using this facility to create stops for them, without any of that boring reasonable suspicion stuff that gets in the way of catching bad guys.

As someone else observed, the material on the Rynearson tapes clearly shows that this facility (and presumably, all the others like it) really don't have much to do with citizenship inspection anymore. At one point, he shows them a US passport - clearer proof of US citizenship would be hard to find. But the whole issue has nothing to do with citizenship anymore - it's about equal parts finding-something-illegal and exacting revenge on the citizen.

As I've observed here before, a rational MO at places like this would be to immediately wave through anyone who behaves this way - the bad guy is not going to be drawing attention to himself in this way. But - exactly as we see here - it immediately goes from being a legitimate law-enforcement activity to a contest of wills, with the officers unable to resist the urge to create conflict where none exists and for no discernable reason.

It's a shame.

llater,

llamas

I think the important thing to remember here is the wealthy and powerful are going to get through this just fine.

"Isab,
Of course it's not settled law or the case wouldn't have gone to the 5th Circuit"

You clearly don't understand how cases get to circuit courts, and the criteria the Supreme Court uses to take a case with a constitutional question.

Here is Rynearson's response on his blog about the SCOTUS decision to not hear his suit: http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2016/03/upholding-our-constiutional-rights-too.html

PYB,
Thanks for the link to Rynearson’s post-denial response. He seems like a pretty cool head.

Isab,
You talk smack pretty good,
“Newsflash”
“I don't think this means what you think it means,”
“You clearly don't understand . . .”
But you’re light on details.

I’ve referenced a relevant case on point, Martinez, and done an analysis on Rynearson’s video postings. I’ve read Terry v. Ohio regarding reasonable suspicion, detaining, and searching. I’ve read briefs for Gerstein v. Pugh and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin. They deal with the requirement for a probable cause hearing within a short time after a warrantless arrest (Which didn’t happen here but is relevant to your ‘48 to 72 hours’ comment).

I think I get at least a 'B' for my homework. Which means there's still some room for learning. Ok, Start.

Cool head? Was that sarcasm because he had strong words to say? Of course he'd have strong words to say. The courts got it blatantly wrong and purposefully so. That's the only credible conclusion given clear 5th Circuit law requiring these stops to be brief and limited to immigration status and SCOTUS law requiring any further detention to be based on probable cause or consent. He had everything on video so we know that Rynearson showed them two IDs and offered them two passports and answered every question during the interaction that is supposed to be limited to inquiring into immigration status.

As he explains, he's seen people die to defend the Constitution the two branches of government just trampled on.

Perhaps you expect people to take such things in stride and keep a cool head, but others value our liberty and our law a bit more than that.

PYB,
Rynearson certainly has a clear-eyed view of how his case was handled by the courts and his disdain for the process was quite colorfully presented. In the comment section somebody brought up revolution as a solution. Rynearson took him to task and explained how that's no solution at all. He's hard to fool.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting Canvas. Are you suggesting that revolution is the solution and that Rynearson is wrong?

Is that why you say he has a "cool head" about what happened in the judiciary?

I suppose if you that is your point of view, then he would appear to be a cool head by not advocating revolution in response to his clear eyed view that we live under a fascist tyranny.