Visit from dhs

[TBoneTX 45,291]

If you refuse them entry they think you have something to hide

If you refuse them entry, they are required to respect your Fourth Amendment rights, under the oath that they swore when they became Federal agents (to uphold and support the U.S. Constitution, or closely similar). If they do not, it seems that a good case could be made to charge them with perjuring their oath -- along with violating your civil rights.

I personally am a very strong believer in privacy

Words mean things, and the rest of your words indicate otherwise.

allowing them in the house was the right decision.

Permitting a consensual search is never, EVER a right decision. In fact, in my opinion at least, it is one of the stupidest things in general that anyone could ever do.

I heard the newest privacy invasion tactic (at least new to me) is when you are pulled over and the police ask for permission to search your car, if you refuse that then gives them probable cause to search it because why would a law abiding citizen refuse a search.

Provide a citation, please -- it's unlikely that there is one. There are SO many possible responses to this. One is:

Officer: "May I search your vehicle?" You (unemotionally): "What would you be searching for?" Officer: "Well, guns" (sometimes it's drugs). You: "Why didn't you first ask me if I had any in the vehicle?" This rightfully shames the cop. Change the word "vehicle" to "house" and the principle is the same.

Another is:

Officer: "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you consent to letting me search your vehicle/house?"

You: "Ah, but if you thought that I were innocent, you wouldn't be asking to search, would you now?"

Another is:

Officer: "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you consent to letting me search your vehicle/house?"

You: "Officer, I never consent to a waste of taxpayer dollars or participate in my own personal inconvenience by agreeing to time-consuming searches that will only turn up nothing. There are criminals out there to be caught, and I suggest that you start apprehending them, or your Chief will be reading about this little incident in the newspapers tomorrow. If you had any probable cause to search my vehicle/house, you could have already searched it by now, without having to ask. Since you obviously have none, I shall be on my way." (This forces the cop to commit to officially detaining you [with reasonable articulable suspicion] or to arrest you [for probable cause]. If he has not done so already, he has neither, so all he can do is bluster at you for a few seconds, then let you go. The ace in the hole for you is that no criminal EVER talks like this, and he knows it.)

Another is:

Officer: "May I search your vehicle?"

You (brightly & politely): "Sir, you have my absolute permission to inspect anything in the vehicle that's within your plain view from wherever you stand outside the vehicle."

Another (if you're pulled over by a state trooper for speeding, for example, and he starts fishing):

Officer: "Where are you going?"

You (politely): "I prefer to keep my private affairs private, Trooper, but thank you for your interest."

Your trump card is always to say -- as soon as possible and as often as necessary -- "I wish to leave now, Sir; am I free to go?"

Your even bigger trump card is always to remember that you are never required to answer ANY questions or volunteer ANY information, and to keep your mouth SHUT.

Edited April 16, 2010 by TBoneTX

[thongd4me 69]

...And apparently, they said that someone from their community had contacted USCIS saying that our marriage was fake.

Yes, been there & done that (A-hole in community butting in where they have no idea what in fact is going on)

and on each (there were 2) occasion it was cleared up with a "visit" that showed they didn't know what was going on.

I trust they won't be back as you indeed didn't have anything to be embarrassed about relative to your marriage.

Sheesh!

[belinda63 3,038]

I respectfully disagree. I have been pulled over many times because I was driving late on a Friday or Saturday night and the policeman stated "you were weaving" when I knew I was not. Same with a search, all that is needed is probable cause, oh you are refusing to allow me to search your car so you must be hiding something, thus I have probable cause (I think you have something illegal in your car) so I can search it. Also let it be know that a recent Court Ruling (being appealed in the 9th Circuit Court) supported the search of a home without a warrant in conjunction with an arrest made in the yard of the home, i.e. the suspect was outside the home and arrested but the police could lawfully (according to the Court) search the home as a result of the arrest.

I'm not saying I agree with this, in fact the opposite, I am totally for no one enters my home without reason but.....in the case of immigration sometimes you have to give up a little privacy to get what you want. The burden of proof is on you to show your relationship is real. What would have happened of entry to the home was denied? Well the thinking probably would have been she doesn't want us to view the home because they are not really living together or maybe there is another male in the home, or some other silly thing.

[TBoneTX 45,291]

Please provide a searchable citation for the cases that you've mentioned.

[Nik+Heather 121]

I respectfully disagree. I have been pulled over many times because I was driving late on a Friday or Saturday night and the policeman stated "you were weaving" when I knew I was not.

I got pulled over once while driving North on a back road south of Tucson....at 3am.

[belinda63 3,038]

Well i don't have the citation as I just read this through normal news, but i will try to give it a look. The one i mentioned should be found by searching the 9th circuit of appeals court. As to my personal experience I know for a fact that if you are arrested they have the right to search your car, even if you are no longer inside it. No citation, just my personal court experience.

[belinda63 3,038]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/pre-crime-policing/singlepage

http://www.alternet.org/rights/146064/loud_sex_enough_for_cops_to_search_your_home%2C_court_rules

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=98-223

OLIVER v. US (466 US 170

UNITED STATES v. ROSS (456 U.S. 798

U.S. v. Martins

[Phayamoa 0]

Does the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to non-US citizens, to include those who have entered the US on appropriate Visas and awaiting green card status?

[Mike B. 231]

Your trump card is always to say -- as soon as possible and as often as necessary -- "I wish to leave now, Sir; am I free to go?"

Your even bigger trump card is always to remember that you are never required to answer ANY questions or volunteer ANY information, and to keep your mouth SHUT.

I live in DC, which has gone nuts since 9/11. One day I saw some police officers conducting warrantless searches on cars around the capital. I took out my camera and snapped a picture of them, and one of the cops came charging over to yell at me about it. Needless to say, I wanted to get the hell out of there as soon as possible, so I asked him if I was legally free to go. I don't think that even half a second passed between him saying yes and him seeing my back.

However, there is one exception to the "you are never required to answer ANY questions or volunteer ANY information" thing. Check out Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

[Mike B. 231]

Does the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to non-US citizens, to include those who have entered the US on appropriate Visas and awaiting green card status?

Yes, it does. There are some parts of the Constitution that allow a certain degree of discrimination against immigrants (for example, in voting), but the Constitution applies all over the United States. In fact, it even applies to terror suspects who are not US citizens and who do not have a visa or a green card and who are in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/16/pre-crime-policing/singlepage

http://www.alternet.org/rights/146064/loud_sex_enough_for_cops_to_search_your_home%2C_court_rules

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=98-223

OLIVER v. US (466 US 170

UNITED STATES v. ROSS (456 U.S. 798

U.S. v. Martins

Link #1 - There may be a lawsuit in that situation. There is a similar case here in the bay area where a man is suing the police and the individual officers for entering his home and arresting him without a warrant. The police's attempt to throw it out of court have failed. He's going to be a very rich man soon.

Link #2 - Police heard screams and may enter any residence if there is an emergency. 100% legal.

Link #3 - This one is a bit more gray but apparently they had witnessed him committing the crime before so I suppose probable cause could be made.

[TBoneTX 45,291]

Link #1 - There may be a lawsuit in that situation. There is a similar case here in the bay area where a man is suing the police and the individual officers for entering his home and arresting him without a warrant. The police's attempt to throw it out of court have failed. He's going to be a very rich man soon.

Link #2 - Police heard screams and may enter any residence if there is an emergency. 100% legal.

Link #3 - This one is a bit more gray but apparently they had witnessed him committing the crime before so I suppose probable cause could be made.

Thanks for the links, Belinda. I'll look at them when I have more time. Sousuke's evaluations sound reasonable on their face, especially #2, si man.

[TBoneTX 45,291]

I live in DC, which has gone nuts since 9/11. One day I saw some police officers conducting warrantless searches on cars around the capital. I took out my camera and snapped a picture of them, and one of the cops came charging over to yell at me about it. Needless to say, I wanted to get the hell out of there as soon as possible, so I asked him if I was legally free to go. I don't think that even half a second passed between him saying yes and him seeing my back.

Ah yes, si man -- fotos (Spanish spelling). Just try taking one by a land POE if you're feeling ignored! Next time I'm challenged, I'll politely say "In fact, I am entitled to take this picture, but I'm intrigued why you're convinced that I'm not." There are no laws or statues to prohibit photography around governmental establishments unless it's expressly posted that fotos are prohibited, but just expect a CBP agent to recognize that. They're so tightly wound that it's a wonder that they can function at all, si man.

However, there is one exception to the "you are never required to answer ANY questions or volunteer ANY information" thing. Check out Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

Ah, Hiibel, egad man. This 2004 case led to the upholding of states' "stop & identify" laws.

Police responded to a domestic-abuse call & found Lawrence Hiibel parked on the street. He refused 11 times to give his name. He was then arrested for violating a Nevada statute, even though his identity was not in question, due to witnesses.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that one's mere name is not inherently self-discriminatory, and thus not protected by the Fifth Amendment. (Such assumes that the detainee is not wanted by police for another matter.) However, all that the cop may legally demand is your name (varies by state; in Texas, also address & birthdate). Once you've stated or written it, you are not required to provide ID (unless a driver in a traffic stop). You are NOT required to answer further questions, such as where you're going, what you do for a living, what's in your trunk, etc.

The four Justices' dissents are worth reading. Although I rarely agree with Stevens, Souter, Breyer, & Ginsburg, I do here:

"Given a proper understanding of the category of 'incriminating' communications that fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege, it is clear that the disclosure of petitioner's identity is protected. The Court reasons that we should not assume that the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him or that it would furnish a link in a chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. But why else would an officer ask for it? And why else would the Nevada Legislature require its disclosure only when circumstances 'reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime'? If the Court is correct, then petitioner's refusal to cooperate did not impede the police investigation. Indeed, if we accept the predicate for the Court's holding, the statute requires nothing more than a useless invasion of privacy. I think that, on the contrary, the Nevada Legislature intended to provide its police officers with a useful law-enforcement tool, and that the very existence of the statute demonstrates the value of the information it demands." -Justice Stevens, dissenting.

"The lengthy history -- of concurring opinions, of references, and of clear explicit statements -- means that the Court's statement in Berkemer, while technically dictate, is the kind of strong dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law. And that law has remained undisturbed for more than 20 years. There is no good reason now to reject this generation-old statement of the law. There are sound reasons rooted in Fifth Amendment considerations for adhering to this Fourth Amendment legal condition circumscribing police authority to stop an individual against his will. Administrative considerations also mitigate against change. Can a State, in addition to requiring a stopped individual to answer 'What's your name?' also require an answer to 'What's your license number?' or 'Where do you live'? Can a police officer, who must know how to make a Terry stop, keep track of the constitutional answers? After all, answers to any of these questions may, or may not, incriminate, depending upon the circumstances." -- Justice Breyer, with whom Justices Souter & Ginsburg join, dissenting.

Hiibel affirms merely the police power to demand your name in a Terry stop -- not produce your driver's license, passport, etc. (much less compel one to answer further questions). Again, look into the "stop & identify" or "failure to identify" statute of your own state. While "stop & identify" laws remain unconstitutional during a mere suspicionless contact encounter (Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 [1979]), we sadly no longer have the previously perfect Fifth Amendment right of silence during a lawful detention.

"What's the big deal?" we may ask. OK, how about this: The cops ask your name, and you give it. They run a computer check and find an outstanding traffic ticket. Or, they see your name in the gun-permit database -- and thus subject you to an immediate Terry frisk of your person & your car interior. If a firearm is found that (unbeknownst to you) has a stolen past or was prohibited after the fact, then simply having given your name will result in your arrest. Nifty, si man.

Although Hiibel does not allow a systemwide ID check, it does help pave the way for such in the future. Terrifyingly, we are just a few laws away from biometric "Homeland Security" National ID Cards, gun registration, & owner licensing.

---

Back to the OP's original consent to a warrantless entry:

Cops rely upon the public's overwhelming desire to have the confrontation end. Most people will -- in the hope of speeding up a cop's exodus -- divulge, consent, placate, whatever -- ANYTHING to make him go away. While this wimpy expediency can sometimes work to that effect, you may instead further confirm the cop's suspicions, or even give him probable cause to arrest you.

For example: By voluntarily surrendering ID during a mere contact, he could discover some unpaid ticket & warrant for your arrest. By offering your prior whereabouts, you could unknowingly place yourself at the scene of some crime. By admitting association with certain persons, you could drop yourself into their legal mess. One never knows.

The police exist to arrest criminals. During ANY confrontation with the police, there is at least SOME risk that YOU could be arrested. Remember that they wouldn't be talking to YOU in the first place unless YOU were somehow a potential "customer." This is not to say that cops are always, or even generally, our adversaries, but they CAN be during any contact. It's one thing to assist the police in catching criminals by giving information, but WATCH OUT when they start asking about YOUR activities. My own rule is not to discuss with officials anything relating to myself. I do not answer personal questions, and I NEVER consent to a requested search of my property.

If a cop asks to search your property, all sorts of warning bells should go off. Understand this: There is never any real advantage to a consented search. Always, always, always refuse consent. This doesn't mean often, or usually; it means always!

"Why not let me search if you're innocent and have nothing to hide?" a cop may taunt. A good reply is, "Well, if you thought I were innocent, you wouldn't be interested in me."

"Well, I can get a warrant!" the cop may menacingly retort. We should reply, "I doubt it. Warrants are based on probable cause, and since I haven't done anything wrong, there can be no probable cause of any crime. Good day, Officer."

Fish are caught only because they opened their mouths. Keep yours SHUT!

[Spoom 8]

I had a large post prepared for this thread and then my computer died. Practically everything TBoneTX has been saying here is correct. I'll boil it down and say watch these three videos:

• , for the how, and
  
• 
  
• , for the why.

Don't be afraid to flex your Constitutional rights. Reams of precedent have been made that they can't use it against you in court, and if they deny an AOS based on something like refusing an ICE search (which is unlikely to begin with), you'll ultimately end up in front of an immigration judge on appeal, who respects that precedent.

Officers who have been sent to investigate you aren't on your side, they are trying to prosecute you and/or deport you. I would wager that ICE agents have a quota of deportations to meet.

If you're not at the border or under special narrow exceptions, you can refuse a search and they can't use that refusal against you, or as a reason to search you anyway.

The ability to exercise Constitutional rights is certainly not limited to criminal trials.

Giving consent to a search means anything found in that search is fair game to be used to arrest and/or prosecute you. It's equivalent to expressly waiving your Fourth Amendment rights.

The Constitution and entire Bill of Rights apply to everyone physically present in the United States unless otherwise specified. Every Amendment in the Bill of Rights either mention "the people" (not "the citizens") when referring to a group, or more directly specify (such as "the accused"). This means everyone can enjoy the rights provided, regardless of their status with USCIS or others.

Cops do not have an automatic right to search your car after arresting you; see Arizona v. Gant.

The Hiibel ruling was bullshit but extended only to providing identification on demand, nothing else.

Courts cannot infer guilt from a Fifth Amendment invocation either; see Griffin v. California.

I'm probably forgetting something but I'm finally going to try to get some sleep and post this before my computer dies again.

The preceding should not be interpreted as legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Spoom

[Nartaki 7]

Take a look at this case: Link

Looks like another person called the USCIS for a sham marriage which prompted them to start an investigation.