Activist Groups Tell Justices To Curb Lengthy Border Stops

From the excellent article by Bryan Koenig:

Law360, Washington (September 14, 2015, 4:40 PM ET) -- A pair of activist groups have joined a U.S. Air Force officer’s certiorari bid telling the Supreme Court that allowing U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents to subject individuals to lengthy internal checkpoint stops simply due to “unorthodox behavior” invites abuse.

The Texas Civil Rights Project and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild asked the high court to take up Air Force Major Richard Rynearson’s appeal of a split Fifth Circuit ruling that found that two Border Patrol agents did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they held Rynearson for 34 minutes in a 2010 stop at an internal immigration checkpoint. 

The article continues to quote the amicus brief, stating:

“The Fifth Circuit excused the agents’ dilatory conduct on the view that petitioner engaged in purportedly ‘unorthodox tactics’ during the stop and ‘the agents had difficulty determining how to respond,’” the groups said in their Sept. 8 amicus brief. “But that makes no sense. The only purpose of the stop was to determine whether petitioner had a right to be in the United States, and nothing petitioner did prevented the agents from asking the questions and inspecting the documents needed to make that determination.”

The article gives a good summary of the issue presented in my civil suit:

Rynearson should not have been subjected to the lengthy stop simply because he asserted his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, the groups said. Calling his bosses at Laughlin Air Force Base and requesting his passports as the agents did was outside the bounds of a proper checkpoint stop, the groups argued.

“The delay had nothing to do with determining petitioner’s citizenship; it resulted from the agents’ decision to use the stop to question petitioner about his military status and to complain to his military superiors when he was less deferential than they might have preferred,” the groups said. “The notion that the agents could prolong the stop for that purpose, merely because they did not like petitioner’s demeanor, is absurd.”

An attorney for Rynearson, J. Carl Cecere of Cecere PC, told Law360 Monday that the groups’ support “shows the importance of our case.”

Importantly, the article states toward the end:

The advocacy groups blasted the Fifth Circuit’s decision in their brief, warning of a new and dangerous precedent that could create a loophole to Fourth Amendment protections, which could broaden what they argued is already a serious problem with checkpoint abuse.

“It invites Border Patrol agents to extend stops whenever a detainee engages in what the agents might characterize as ‘unorthodox tactics,’” they said, “which apparently include asserting one’s constitutional rights.”

To read the full article, please click here.

To read the joint amicus brief from the Texas Civil Rights Project and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, please click here.

Update (23 Sep 15):  The SCOTUS has requested the government provide a response to this cert petition.

To watch a video of me discussing this issue on Fox News with John Stossel, combined with clips of the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals along with clips from the actual checkpoint encounter itself, please check out the video below, "Clearly Established."

Two Party Amicus Brief in Support of My Civil Suit Before SCOTUS

Amicus brief in support of of my civil suit filed by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Texas Civil Rights Project, against the Border Patrol and Fifth Circuit's amazing claim that individuals can be legally seized for thirty-four minutes without any suspicion of a crime, and agents do not have to be diligent or limit their inquiry to a driver's immigration status.

Those interested can read the Amicus brief here.

Rynearson Supreme Court Amici by VAPA-AgainstCopAbuse

VAPA Denounces Antonio Buehler

From the Veterans Against Police Abuse FB page:

It is long overdue.  While VAPA has spent thousands of dollars on Peaceful Streets Project events and Antonio's defense fund, we must denounce Antonio for his demagoguery.  We support other Peaceful Streets Project folks who take a principled stand for police accountability, and hope they are able to overcome the liability that Antonio presents.  This is not a personal attack on Antonio, we acknowledge the many good things he has done for police accountability, and we understand his frustrations.  But his emotional rhetoric is not only false, but destructive to the cause of police accountability.  We believe it is time for him to apologize and retract his hateful statements, or to step down from the PSP.

For years Antonio has expressed his view that there are no good cops.  He has been privately and publicly corrected on his assertion by the founder of VAPA.  Such criticisms have been consistently met with vitriol and anger by some PSP members and Antonio, and have resulted in Antonio banning and defriending on social media those who would offer those criticisms.  It has become apparent that Antonio's irresponsible statements and professions are not simply emotional frustration that he can rise above.

In the latest challenge, when presented with several examples of good cops whistle blowing, physically restraining police officers in the act of brutality, and then being fired for doing so, Antonio responded that they still are not good cops because good cops would take a stand to the point where they are killed.  Antonio's verbose view can be summed up with the statement that "the only good cop is a dead cop."

Antonio recently stated: "Cops are bad.  There is no such thing as a good cop.  They're terrorist scum."

We reject this assertion and we therefore must reject Antonio.

We also do not accept the excuse that Peaceful Streets Project put out on its blog to justify its Twitter statement concerning a Harris County Sheriff being murdered: "Pig executed in Houston. Probably shouldn't have joined a criminal gang. His bad decisions caught up with him. Blame his parents."

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo (himself a bad cop unworthy of public office) responded with strategic success to Antonio's Tweet stating, "This is how mind of so-called peaceful activist works & why police officers don't want him inches from their face."

While Antonio's Peaceful Streets Project attempted to explain that they were simply mirroring how police refer to victims of police brutality, the excuse is undercut by Antonio's frequent statements that there are no good cops, all cops are bad, terrorists, scum, etc.  While this comment was justified by Antonio and PSP as simply mirroring how police demonize victims of police abuse, Antonio's consistent statements over the years show that he is not mirroring the demonization employed by bad cops, but rather that he shares it.

We hope the Peaceful Streets Project can evolve beyond its founder and his demagoguery.  While demonetization of an entire group based simply on group association is a good way to build numbers and organize, as history has most certainly shown, it is not a good way to secure justice.  It is wrong and based on hate and ignorance.  It is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In our view, Antonio Buehler has long exceeded his utility for police accountability and suffers from either a lack of character, a lack of emotional control, or both.  His words make it clear that he shares the attitudes, insecurity, and ego of bad cops who also demonize groups based simply on association rather than on evidence of individual action.  Antonio is far too similar to bad cops with his hate and demagoguery, his desire to insulate his own "troops" from criticism and voices of the larger community, and his lack of concern for being accurate when diagnosing the challenges Americans face with a very real police state.

Whatever Antonio is working for, it is not police accountability.  We are concerned that he is willing to squander the gains made by the many courageous people who have worked so hard in the PSP to document police abuse.

We hope the Peaceful Streets Project can overcome this challenge, and get back to working for police accountability rather than providing an emotional outlet for insecure cult-leader-like personalities who preach hatred.

Here is a response to an edited version of this opinion piece, posted as an op-ed on PhotographyIsNotaCrime.Com.

Check Your Six - Tony Carr Will Use Your Service Against You

Tony Carr recently thanked the hero who subdued the attacker on the train in Europe, for ignoring efforts by the Air Force to train him into being a "coward."  Tony wrote:

A1C Spencer Stone:

Thank you for ignoring the training you were given, which taught you to be a coward. Instead, you ran toward the danger. If the bastards try to punish you for breaking the rules, give me a call ... and wear their disdain as a richly deserved badge of pride.

Signed,
John Q.

I find it curious how Tony came to the conclusion that this courageous airman might want to call a retired cargo pilot after such a traumatic event.  I imagine Tony thinks checking boxes and pleasing bosses and going to cute little schools and getting the nod to become a cargo squadron commander is a measure of courage, but of course, it's not.  Tony's career certainly isn't an example of "breaking the rules."  That's just not how promotion works.  But setting all that aside, the conversation that ensued on his JQP Facebook page was classic Tony Carr.

Tony drew some criticism and in response to it, he 1) threatened to ban the commentators, 2) claimed to have engaged one commentator's chain-of-command, and 3) justified his free-speech-censoring actions in the name of defending "free speech."

 

Tony has made the chain-of-command threats with me, as well, it's a staple of his inventory.  He's also threatened to take me to court for my speech responding to him.  Tony trumpets on his page the power he wields in contacting the leadership of those who disagree with him online.

Tony Carr is not interested in dialogue or ideas or making the Air Force or the nation better.  He is interested purely in power, and he wants to use his growing (perhaps plateauing) audience toward that end.  Tony Carr is madly in love with power.  He thirsts for it.  Agree or disagree, I advise active duty service members to check their six when dealing with him.

Tony Carr is not your friend, he is not your advocate.  And he will pick up the phone and engage the machinery of government to punish you, if you do not drink the Tony-Carr-Kool-Aid.

Caveat emptor.

Air Force Officer Takes Border Patrol Row To High Court

By Matthew Bultman

Law360, New York (August 17, 2015, 1:38 PM ET) -- A U.S. Air Force officer detained at a traffic checkpoint near the Mexican border has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, claiming Border Patrol agents violated his constitutional rights by unnecessarily prolonging their investigation.

Richard Rynearson filed a petition with the high court earlier this month, asking justices to consider whether agents violated his Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures during the 34-minute encounter in 2010.

He wants the Supreme Court to reverse a split Fifth Circuit decision that found in... 

Read more of the article from Law360.Com

For those interested in the LexisNexis summary of the lawsuit written by Daniel M. Kowalski, please click here.

For those interested in a compilation of the video of the thirty-four minute checkpoint detention, audio of the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and video of Fox News discussing these checkpoints please view the video below entitled, "Clearly Established: The Importance of Filming to Establish Truth of Events."

Tony Carr Thinks #BlackLivesMatter is a Source of Humor?

The shirt above stating that "#BLACK AIRCRAFT MATTER" was posted over at Tony Carr's JQP Facebook page.  I found it interesting that Tony chose to publicly like that photo.  I found Tony's endorsement of the shirt, through his "John Q. Public" handle, to be somewhat troubling.

I'm puzzled why anybody would like that shirt.  The only reason that comes to mind, is that some people find the shirt to be humorous.  But why?  What's funny about it?

Without a doubt there is a play on words, which can be a source of humor.  #BlackLivesMatter references an outcry from some in our nation in response to growing instances of government agents murdering innocent black Americans, and the movement behind the hashtag emphasizes that black Americans should have the same human rights and protection of the law as others in America to include the right not to be murdered by armed government agents.  In other words, the word "black" in that hash tag references the skin color of a group of Americans disproportionally locked in cages and killed by our so-called public servants.

In the shirt above, however, black refers to tools of government agents that are secretive and hidden from the public.  In this t-shirt, black refers to government action that is funded by, but not made known to, the average American citizen to include aircraft that fly over populations and collect data on them and monitor their activity.

In other words, in one "black" means a group of individuals disproportionally beaten and murdered by their government, and in the other it means tools used by government that are kept secret from citizens.

So, again I ask, how is that funny?

I don't know why Tony Carr endorses that clothing, or whether he does so because he thinks it is humorous or if he likes it for some other reason.

I have seen other venues, however, make light of #BlackLivesMatter in a clearly racist fashion, like one group on Facebook sharing a #BlackAngusLivesMatter meme and following it up with some of the most racist commentary and pictures I've ever read.

I personally don't find the shirt funny, just as I wouldn't find humorous a shirt showing a tent and camping gear inside a barb-wire-fenced in area with guard towers, along with the text "Concentration Camping!"  I mean, I get the play on words, but why those words?

Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive about watching oath sworn government personnel violate the rights of Americans of color in the most violent and permanent way.  Maybe this is much to do about nothing.  I do know, however, that Tony does not believe Americans have the inviolate Fifth Amendment right to not have their lives taken without due process, whether their life is taken by being shot with their hands up or whether taken by being choked to death Eric-Garner-style.

I know this because Tony publicly announced that we have "no inviolate rights" in our Constitution and voiced his opinion that government can rightfully violate our constitutional rights, without passing an amendment, so long as it believes it is acting in accordance with the will of a majority of Americans.

Put another way, Tony Carr believes that a majority can violate the rights of a minority in our nation.  He thinks that it is okay for a larger more powerful group to ignore the rights of a smaller less powerful group of people and thinks there are no constitutional rights that should restrain a larger group of people against a smaller group of individuals.  Right to life, liberty and property, or the right to free speech or to worship or protest the government, or the right to a jury trial -- none of these rights are inviolate in Tony's opinion, if a majority wants to strip them from a minority.

I most certainly do not agree with Tony's anti-American view, as I meant my oath of office when I took it, and because his view is contrary to our supreme law of the land.  At any rate, maybe I'm just being overly sensitive and should lighten up and find the humor in the misery of the most vulnerable among us who have their rights frequently violated.

Public Service Requires a Brave New Approach to an Old Oath

"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial—but Democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit."

– Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (1958)

Spectre Knows Chain of Command

A gunship buddy of mine took this photo at the 16th Special Operations Squadron.  What an outstanding display, and airmen in other squadrons would do well to heed the example of these Ghostriders.

We all in public service, but most importantly those of us who wield lethality, should be reminded where the ultimate authority comes from in our system of government that we the people created and commissioned.  It's vitally important that we get it right.

Well done brothers-and-sisters in arms, thanks for the reminder.

My Cert Petition Before the Supreme Court of the United States

RICHARD RYNEARSON v. AGENT LANDS, BORDER PATROL AGENT, INDIVIDUALLY, AND RAUL PEREZ, BORDER PATROL AGENT, I... by VAPA-AgainstCopAbuse

Numerically speaking, it's always a long shot to be granted cert and have the Supreme Court hear a case (some in the biz say only a 2-4% chance of the court hearing a case).  Still, I am comfortable knowing that whether the high court hears my case or not, I did everything I could possibly do to defend the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans, in accordance with the oath of office I took as a military officer.

I installed cameras to capture the routine violations I experienced at the checkpoint.  I spent years navigating our legal system and paid an enormous amount of money in that process.  I endured negative ramifications in my military employment.  And I secured some incredibly talented lawyers to work on my suit, people who gave far more than myself and who ensured that the case was presented to the judiciary with clarity along with the truth of events captured on film.

Whatever happens from here, I was faithful to my oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, and to bear true faith and allegiance to it without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

I was a faithful public servant who did everything that I could to protect the blood-earned rights of Americans to be free from unreasonable government seizure within their own nation.  I did what I could.

My case concerns a 34 minute detention and seizure at an interior suspicionless checkpoint where agents had no reasonable suspicion that I had committed any crime, and where I answered 17 of 18 questions posed to me and provided four forms of ID including personal and official passports to prove I was in my own country legally. 

The Border Patrol agents are legally required to make these suspicionless detentions brief and to limit them to the programmatic purpose of the stop (determining immigration status).  They didn't even come remotely close to doing this and this civil suit resulted.

What my litigation has demonstrated, however, is that the court mandated principal protection of the Fourth Amendment at these stops is not a practical reality in the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit.  Ironically in that circuit, innocent Americans have lesser fourth amendment protections than Americans who commit crimes, or who are suspected of criminal activity.

My cert petition before the high court can be read here.


More information on my lawsuit up to this point can be found at the following links:

Reason Magazine

John Stossel - Fox News

The Air Force Times

The Newspaper.Com

Slate Magazine

CheckpointUSA.Org

Interesting Article About Colonel Lindsey Graham (ret)

My comments here will be understandably short.  I'll just say I think this article from the Washington Post is well worth the read and that I find it puzzling that Senator Graham would have the adulterous-classified-information-leaking General Petraeus at his retirement ceremony, after making these remarks about Edward Snowden.

Interesting stuff.