I am not engaging in hyperbole either: Federal Court: The Police Can Stop and Search You for Behaving Innocently. Yes, I found this on the Huffington Post. The scary thing is, when those wingnuts start getting concerned about this kind of stuff, it's usually too late. Normally Liberals root for the encroachment of civil liberties by government. It's all "for our own good" you know.
A federal appeals court just ruled that the police have a legal right to stop, search and arrest you for innocent behavior including driving with your hands at the ten-and-two position on the steering wheel at 7:45 p.m., taking a scenic route and having acne. To the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, these factors added up to fit the profile of a person smuggling undocumented immigrants and drugs. The court said, "Although the factors, in isolation, may be consistent with innocent travel ... taken together they may amount to reasonable suspicion."
The reason why this lady is in court, is that the Border Patrol officer searched her vehicle and found an amount of marijuana, which is why she was arrested. Be clear, I make no argument or statement for or against her having marijuana in her car.
The PDF of the decision is here, I suggest you read it. This is the part that disturbs me (bold is mine) The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” U.S. Const., amend. IV, including investigatory stops and detentions, see United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985); United States v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216, 1220 (10th Cir. 2006). Ms. Westhoven “bears the burden of establishing that the challenged stop violated the Fourth Amendment.” Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220. Like other law enforcement officers, a border patrol agent must possess reasonable suspicion a law was violated to stop a vehicle: “Except at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the occupants have violated a law. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975); Cheromiah, 455 F.3d at 1220.
In one of my earlier posts, I talk about how DHS has set up a "Constitutional exception zone” for the first 100 miles from the nearest border. By the way, 2/3rds of Americans live within that zone, all day every day. Of the two parts that I bolded, the first one stating that the defendant "bears the burden of establishing that the stop violated her Fourth Amendment rights" sounds a lot like the opposite of "presumed innocent until proven guilty." The government is making the accusation. It should have to prove beyond a reasonable point that the officer was justified in making the stop.
The second, "Except at the border and its functional equivalents..." There is that nasty 100 mile "Constitutional exception zone” thing again. So, let's get this straight. While traveling within 100 miles of a border, you can obey all standing laws (yes, she was speeding, but the BP officer did not have the authority to enforce traffic laws) and still be pulled over. Once the officer makes you nervous and you stutter, or misspeak, that gives him the reasonable suspicion, coupled with your adherence to local laws to detain you and call in the dogs. Just checking.
Just in case you haven't seen my other posts on this, DON'T SAY A WORD TO THE POLICE. Not a word, facial expression, shrug of the shoulders. Ask, and continue to ask until you receive an answer, "Am I being detained officer? Am I free to go?" If you are not being detained, leave the area IMMEDIATELY. If you end up in the back of a patrol car after that, your only words should be, "I want to speak to my lawyer."