Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   Civil Rights & Abortion (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civil-rights-abortion/)
-   -   Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civil-rights-abortion/54419-man-removes-feds-spy-cam-they-demand-back-he-refuses-sues.html)

mr wonder 02-25-2018 10:36 PM

Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Man removes feds’ spy cam, they demand it back, he refuses and sues
Camera believed to be part of “Operation Drawbridge” effort to monitor the border.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ree-sues-feds/

Last November, a 74-year-old rancher and attorney was walking around his ranch just south of Encinal, Texas, when he happened upon a small portable camera strapped approximately eight feet high onto a mesquite tree near his son's home. The camera was encased in green plastic and had a transmitting antenna.
Not knowing what it was or how it got there, Ricardo Palacios removed it.
Soon after, Palacios received phone calls from Customs and Border Protection officials and the Texas Rangers. Each agency claimed the camera as its own and demanded that it be returned. Palacios refused, and they threatened him with arrest.
Palacios, who had run-ins with local CBP agents going back several years, took the camera as the last straw. He was tired of agents routinely trespassing on his land, and, even after complaining several times, he was frustrated that his grievances were not being heard.
As a possible way to ward off the threat of arrest, he sued the two agencies, along with a named CPB agent, Mario Martinez. Palacios accused them of trespass and of violating his constitutional rights.
"My client is 74 years old, he's a lawyer, been practicing for almost 50 years, he has no criminal history whatsoever, law-abiding citizen, respected lawyer and senior citizen," Raul Casso, one of the attorneys representing Palacios, told Ars. "To have put him in jail would have been—forget the indecency of it—what a way to end a career."
The camera now remains in Palacios' attorneys' possession while they are attempting to ask the case's judge to allow them to formally introduce it as evidence.
This federal lawsuit has raised thorny questions about the limits of the government's power to conduct surveillance—in the name of border security—on private property, without the landowner's permission.
"As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation," Jennifer Gabris, a CBP spokeswoman, emailed Ars.
The Texas Department of Public Safety similarly declined comment.
In court filings, Texas officials have claimed qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects law enforcement officials....

so does he have the right to remove unauthorized "gov't property" from his land?
And to tell gov't officials to stay off his property?

Dave1 02-25-2018 10:56 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929571)

so does he have the right to remove unauthorized "gov't property" from his land?
And to tell gov't officials to stay off his property?

I would like to pretend so but, realize not in todays deep state government control...:(

We have zero privacy or rights any longer in certain places and circumstances.....




Long but, worth the time and the information.....

https://youtu.be/rQouKi7xDpM

Manitou 02-26-2018 10:51 AM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
The man has the right to rmove any governmenst shlt he haa not authorized to be placed on his property. He does live in America.

lurch907 02-26-2018 01:08 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929571)
so does he have the right to remove unauthorized "gov't property" from his land?
And to tell gov't officials to stay off his property?

Depends, we're only reading his side. Perhaps the feds had a warrant and/or suspect him of aiding illegals. Need more information to answer the question.

foundit66 02-26-2018 01:37 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929571)
so does he have the right to remove unauthorized "gov't property" from his land?
And to tell gov't officials to stay off his property?

Yes
And Yes.

You'll note the government's response... :mad
The Texas Department of Public Safety similarly declined comment.

In court filings, Texas officials have claimed qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects law enforcement officials.
So the Texan officials don't claim they had a warrant.
They simply claim that they have protection from being sued when they break the law. :mad


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave1
I would like to pretend so but, realize not in todays deep state government control...

We have zero privacy or rights any longer in certain places and circumstances.....

It depends upon what resources the person involved has in order to fight back.
Most people will accept such transgression and realize it isn't worth the effort.
Some will provide some push-back and then get arrested for "resisting arrest" or similar nonsense. Only to later be released with the charges dropped. A convenient way to eliminate resistance to what the government demands but has no legal right to obtain...

And then there are some who have the resources to fight back. But habitually, their fight is an isolated outcome which doesn't change the actual unconstitutional modus operandi of the law enforcement.


In review, my response is a long-winded agreement with your comment.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave1
Long but, worth the time and the information.....
https://youtu.be/rQouKi7xDpM

I'll have to watch it later. :thumbsup
It amazes me how much the Democrats and Republicans play partisan antics to get the citizenry to avoid issues that they are bipartisan in violating our rights.
Democrat politicians will ask people to focus on issue X.
Republican politicians will ask people to focus on issue Y.
But then the citizenry gives no real comment to issue Z where both Democrat politicians and Republican politicians are working in harmony against the U.S. citizen...
(e.g. spying on citizenry)

lurch907 02-26-2018 02:24 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66 (Post 929646)
Yes
And Yes.

You'll note the government's response... :mad
The Texas Department of Public Safety similarly declined comment.

In court filings, Texas officials have claimed qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects law enforcement officials.
So the Texan officials don't claim they had a warrant.
They simply claim that they have protection from being sued when they break the law. :mad

Looks like a warrant may not be necessary depending on where the property in question is.

Quote:

8 U.S. Code ß 1357 - Powers of immigration officers and employees

(a) Powers without warrant Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—

3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;
If his land is within 25 miles of the border, his trespassing claim doesn't hold water.

mr wonder 02-26-2018 03:03 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lurch907 (Post 929651)
Looks like a warrant may not be necessary depending on where the property in question is.

Quote:

8 U.S. Code ß 1357 - Powers of immigration officers and employees

(a) Powers without warrant Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—

3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;
If his land is within 25 miles of the border, his trespassing claim doesn't hold water.

So the law says the constitution DOES NOT APPLY within 25 miles of the US boarder.
really. and you're Ok with that?

Somehow that law seems, well, flatly UNconstitutional and thus an ILLEGAL "law".

this is the main problem with all of the "laws", "codes", "Executive orders" "administrative memos", "court orders", secret actions and etc, that are made to supposedly "keep us safe" from Fill-in-the-blank boogieman.

Zenock 02-26-2018 03:50 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lurch907 (Post 929651)
Looks like a warrant may not be necessary depending on where the property in question is.



If his land is within 25 miles of the border, his trespassing claim doesn't hold water.

35 miles

Edit: meaning, from the article, his land is 35 miles from the border.

Quote:

Palacios' ranch is situated at the 35-mile marker due north from Laredo

lurch907 02-26-2018 04:28 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929654)
So the law says the constitution DOES NOT APPLY within 25 miles of the US boarder.
really. and you're Ok with that?

Somehow that law seems, well, flatly UNconstitutional and thus an ILLEGAL "law".

this is the main problem with all of the "laws", "codes", "Executive orders" "administrative memos", "court orders", secret actions and etc, that are made to supposedly "keep us safe" from Fill-in-the-blank boogieman.

Easy there, I didn't say I'm OK with it, I just said his claim that they were trespassing doesn't hold water. It's one of the reasons he is suing them, but it appears they were acting within the law.
I have no idea if the constitutionality of the law has been challenged, but I know the courts tend to give more than a little leeway on thing like this that concern national security.

lurch907 02-26-2018 04:46 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenock (Post 929656)
35 miles

Edit: meaning, from the article, his land is 35 miles from the border.

The actual claim is he is at mile marker 35 of I-35 which starts at the border, however I-35 doesn't run a straight course nor does it run perpendicular to the border. He may be within 25 miles of the border.

foundit66 02-26-2018 05:56 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lurch907 (Post 929651)
Looks like a warrant may not be necessary depending on where the property in question is.
If his land is within 25 miles of the border, his trespassing claim doesn't hold water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929654)
So the law says the constitution DOES NOT APPLY within 25 miles of the US boarder.
really. and you're Ok with that?
Somehow that law seems, well, flatly UNconstitutional and thus an ILLEGAL "law".
this is the main problem with all of the "laws", "codes", "Executive orders" "administrative memos", "court orders", secret actions and etc, that are made to supposedly "keep us safe" from Fill-in-the-blank boogieman.

I agree with mr wonder.
Quite frankly, this whole approach reeks of something akin to Eminent domain. A concept some liberals embrace but I personally abhor.
Except in this case, they simply decide to completely ignore the property rights and provide no compensation. :rolls


Furthermore, looking at the letter of the law, it states:
... within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States
Note it says absolutely nothing about the capability to leave government property on private land and have it required to continue to be considered as government property...

The man involved in this case seems to have tolerated (at least without lawsuit) the intrusion but is instigating the lawsuit upon the government trying to leave items upon the land.
The lawsuit itself can be simply a means to document the situation, which is a shrewd move. Without that, as the article entails, it would be expected that the government officials would abuse their power in different ways ... :mad
As Palacios alleges in the civil complaint, his interactions with CBP began in April 2010 when his two sons were stopped at a checkpoint along I-35. When one son, Ricardo Palacios Jr., refused to answer questions, he was taken to a secondary inspection where he was assaulted by a CBP officer. Eventually, after being detained for 90 minutes, he was driven home to the ranch just a few miles away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929654)
... that are made to supposedly "keep us safe" from Fill-in-the-blank boogieman.

:thumbsup

lurch907 02-26-2018 06:35 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Where Mr. Palacios is definitely in the wrong, and is lucky he didn't get arrest, was when he refused to give the camera back.
If your neighbor parks his car in your yard you can tell him to move it, call the police, or even have it towed away. What you can't do is keep his car.
Whether the camera was legally placed or not, he broke the law when he didn't give it back.

As for the legality of the camera itself, that's shaky ground. I guess it would depend on how a judge interprets "patrolling". Can you leave a camera? Use a drone with a camera? What about personnel on patrol, can they drive? Walk? Ride an ATV? Definitely some clarification needed here.

mr wonder 02-26-2018 06:55 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lurch907 (Post 929658)
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929654)
So the law says the constitution DOES NOT APPLY within 25 miles of the US boarder.
really. and you're Ok with that?

Somehow that law seems, well, flatly UNconstitutional and thus an ILLEGAL "law".

this is the main problem with all of the "laws", "codes", "Executive orders" "administrative memos", "court orders", secret actions and etc, that are made to supposedly "keep us safe" from Fill-in-the-blank boogieman.

Easy there, I didn't say I'm OK with it, I just said his claim that they were trespassing doesn't hold water. It's one of the reasons he is suing them, but it appears they were acting within the law.
I have no idea if the constitutionality of the law has been challenged, but I know the courts tend to give more than a little leeway on thing like this that concern national security.

Here's the thing, you seem ready to give the various parts of gov't the authority to usurp the Constitution as long as multiple branches agree to it Lurch.

At what point do we as a people Judge and say?
NO, the Constitution is clear, there is no excuse that allows you, as paid gov't officials, reps or courts to disregard it.
WE JUDGE that you've clearly crossed the line. Step BACK to the Constitutional limits and do your jobs from there. Sorry if it makes your jobs more "difficult" but this is AMERICA. the Constitution is the LAW.


Why should we just accept or act as if it OK that the courts will grant "LEEWAY" to evermore unconstitutional activity?

lurch907 02-26-2018 07:08 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder (Post 929674)
Here's the thing, you seem ready to give the various parts of gov't the authority to usurp the Constitution as long as multiple branches agree to it Lurch.

At what point do we as a people Judge and say?
NO, the Constitution is clear, there is no excuse that allows you, as paid gov't officials, reps or courts to disregard it.
WE JUDGE that you've clearly crossed the line. Step BACK to the Constitutional limits and do your jobs from there. Sorry if it makes your jobs more "difficult" but this is AMERICA. the Constitution is the LAW.


Why should we just accept or act as if it OK that the courts will grant "LEEWAY" to evermore unconstitutional activity?

At the voting booth. If you don't like the laws your congress critters are passing, vote them out of office. As to what else the people can do, aside from armed revolt not much.
While I think the 25 miles is excessive, I do think there has to be a corridor along the land borders that Border Enforcement can access without a warrant, as a matter of national security. With so much of the border being private property I see no other way to effectively patrol it. 5 miles seems more reasonable to me.

mr wonder 02-26-2018 07:34 PM

Re: Man removes fedsí spy cam they demand it back he refuses & sues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lurch907 (Post 929678)
At the voting booth. If you don't like the laws your congress critters are passing, vote them out of office. As to what else the people can do, aside from armed revolt not much.
While I think the 25 miles is excessive, I do think there has to be a corridor along the land borders that Border Enforcement can access without a warrant, as a matter of national security. With so much of the border being private property I see no other way to effectively patrol it. 5 miles seems more reasonable to me.

Well , Ok Yes, the voting booth is one way.
but 1st it seems we need to get enough VOTERS like yourself to stop making excuses for the gov't and assuming the leeway is "legal". not 5 miles and certainly not 25 miles. And give some public support FOR the land owner rather than trying to find ways that HE is in the wrong.

So even before the voting booth a bit of noise,
the Constitution is very clear here to most with a high school diploma.
ALL LEO's need the owner's permission to get onto private property unless there's probably cause.

When slavery was legal people "broke" the law to help run away slaves.
When women couldn't vote many went to polls and did it anyway or tried.
There are several other means of protest.
I suspect if they made a law saying 'turn in your guns', you might not comply (a form of protest) and find several other ways AS WELL AS voting to let the gov't know that you will not have your rights taken away. Even if the law makers, president and LEOs and the courts uphold it... for the sake of "reasonable" "national security".

But by way of voting , you and me and everyone here have to agree that the Constitution is really where we want our politicians to be on this issue. And others.
Or if we'll just let it slide and let the courts decide ...as you said... giving LEO's "more than a little leeway on things like this".

that's what's been most frustrating to me over the last 15 years, people that I'd HOPE (both on the left and right) would vote for more constitution minded candidates DON'T. and make excuses or side with nearly every NEW unconstitutional gov't act... as if it "just the way it is" .. or the OTHER party's fault.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0