I thank you for your reply. I read, with great interest, the two court cases you cited (Michigan v. DeFillippo and Hiibel v. Nevada) as those two cases had been decided subsequent to my career in the Patrol. I concur with your opinion, however, in my original post I was addressing the fact that by remaining silent (not speaking, not producing identification) would give me resonable suspicion and/or probable cause to detain to determine immigration status.

In order to clarify; I understand that by not speaking, etc. that that alone does not constitue resonable suspicion / probable cause but it would most likely be the last of several “articulable facts” I would use to justify my action(s).

I also would like to say that I appreciate you attitude in regards to the difficult job the Border Patrol is tasked to do. I wish you a safe and happy trip in 2010.

However, you made 2 grievous errors in your statement that should be corrected. You State,

“‘You have the right to remain silent.’ If you have been arrested for a crime Miranda vs. U.S. is in effect. However, in determining citizenship status, if you refuse to answer then I have probable cause to question you further. If you still refuse to answer then your bus trip will be terminated at that point until a determination as to status can be made.”

It should be noted that the Constitutional right to remain silent does not just begin at the point of an arrest nor does it begin only at the point of the reading of the “Miranda Rights.” In fact, the right to remain silent begins before the initial stop by a Border Patrol Agent. In addition, the individual stopped by the border agent is only required to give his name (identify himself) and refusal to provide futher information or answer questions, beyond that of giving his name, DOES NOT ESTABLISH REASONABLE CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION (Michigan v. Fillippo, 1979, and Hiibel v. Nevada, 2004) for the purposes of detaining the individual.

However, common sense dictates that there are times when it is in the best interest of the individual stopped by the Border Agent to simply provide identifying information that will satisfy the Border Agent requirements. After all, the Border Agent is just doing his job. A good case in point is my plan to visit the United States in 2010. I am an American citizen…born in Missouri to Parents who are also natural born American citizens. In addition, I am also a Naturalized Australian Citizen who now resides in Australia. In short…I have dual citizenship. I plan to drive from California to Missouri with my Australian wife in order to visit my elderly parents during that visit. I may indeed run into a Border Patrol Random stop during my trek across California. In that case, while my providing my New South Wales drives license may meet the bare requirements of Hiibel v. Nevada, good common sense tells me that also showing my American passport would expedite the stop and assist the Officer in the performance of his duties and get me back on my way to Missouri that much quicker.

While clearly it is important for the Border Patrol to respect my civil rights as an American, it is also fair to the officer to put oneself in his position and remember that he is merely attempting to do his job as directed by his employer, the People of the United States.

I personally would have no problem with telling a Border Patrol Agent I am an American citizen nor would my wife have any objection to providing her Australian passport for inspection by the Border Patrol agent at any time while in the USA. Sometimes, voluntary cooperation just makes good sense.

…citizens with guns who take the law into their own hands…and thus break our laws by doing so…will be charged, tried, convicted, and sent to prison.

The Border Patrol’s problem is not the ACLU…their problem is that the Constitution gives us (Americans and every other person inside our boarders) certain inalianable rights…such as the right of a U.S. Citizen to not have to prove they are a citizen, the right of anyone to refuse to answer questions, and the right to object to warrantless searches where no probable cause exists for said search.

Perhaps MarkJ and the border patrol should consider trying to change the Constitution…if they think they can…but until such time, you must OBEY OUR LAWS or face the consequence for failing to do so.

If you, and the U.S. government, are unable or unwilling to enforce immigration laws then, inevitably, angry citizens with guns will start enforcing them on their own.

And you wouldn’t want that to happen, would you?