US Citizens Detained for Speaking Spanish

[_Res Ipsa]

Sub, can you cite any legal precedent for your proposition that one’s federal constitutional rights change depending on which part of the US one is in?

[_Hawkeye]

Sure does matter, unusual behavior is a foundation of "probable cause"...

Sure, when you suspect someone is driving under the influence their unusual behavior is grounds for probable cause. But you're a complete idiot if you think there is a legal basis for equating "unusual behavior" with speaking another language. That's the dumbest crap ever, even for someone like you. Swerving in the streets is unusual, and is also illegal. Speaking Spanish isn't unusual behavior for those who can speak it. It is only scary to idiot white people who live in a bubble and are taught by FOX News every night to fear everything that is different from them.

and if it "did not matter" you would not have wasted so much hair-fire on trying to prove that speaking Spanish "around here" was not uncommon (even though statistically it would be).

I already told you it didn't matter, but you're exaggerating for effect in a desperate attempt to defend this bigot cop. 3.6% is a large enough percentage for people to encounter Spanish speakers on a daily basis assuming they actually leave their property and socialize around town. Incidentally, Alabama is just 4% Hispanic and I've encountered many of them speaking Spanish there as well, and you're very likely to hear it if you're hanging around construction jobs. They're the ones busting their asses to make sure you pay less for your home and sandwiches, while ajax and his cousins are loafing around in their parent's basement with the confederate flag up on their walls.

[_Hawkeye]

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

"The Government contends that, at least in the areas adjacent to the Mexican border, a person's apparent Mexican ancestry alone justifies belief that he or she is an alien and satisfies the requirement of this statute...."

*** Montana is nowhere near the Mexican Border ***

"In this case, the officers relied on a single factor to justify stopping respondent's car: the apparent Mexican ancestry of the occupants. We cannot conclude that this furnished reasonable grounds to believe that the three occupants were aliens. At best, the officers had only a fleeting glimpse of the persons in the moving car, illuminated by headlights. Even if they saw enough to think that the occupants were of Mexican descent, this factor alone would justify neither a reasonable belief that they were aliens, nor a reasonable belief that the car concealed other aliens who were illegally in the country. Large numbers of native born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Mexican ancestry, and, even in the border area, a relatively small proportion of them are aliens. The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but, standing alone, it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens."

[_subgenius]

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

"The Government contends that, at least in the areas adjacent to the Mexican border, a person's apparent Mexican ancestry alone justifies belief that he or she is an alien and satisfies the requirement of this statute...."

*** Montana is nowhere near the Mexican Border ***

You can't honestly be this stupid about how legal precedence works can you?...can you?
(who am i kidding, you really think MT not being near Mexico makes this court ruling irrelevant to Havre...not to mention you don't understand this event in Havre was not a random and roving stop .... )

"At best, the officers had only a fleeting glimpse of the persons in the moving car, illuminated by headlights. Even if they saw enough to think that the occupants were of Mexican descent, this factor alone would justify neither a reasonable belief that they were aliens, nor a reasonable belief that the car concealed other aliens who were illegally in the country."

At best you are stupid.
At worst you did not even read the judgment and you are just ignorant (and likely trying to overcompensate for something)....consider the blatant footnote of this case reads - "As noted above, we reserve the question whether Border Patrol officers also may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country. -- The facts of this case do not require decision on the point."

funny, even the Supreme Court thinks you are the latter.

from your citation:
"Any number of factors may be taken into account in deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a car in the border area. Officers may consider the characteristics of the area in which they encounter a vehicle. Its proximity to the border, the usual patterns

Page 422 U. S. 885

of traffic on the particular road, and previous experience with alien traffic are all relevant. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 267 U. S. 159-161 (1925); United States v. Jaime-Barrios, 494 F.2d 455 (CA9), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 972 (1974). [Footnote 10] They also may consider information about recent illegal border crossings in the area."

[_subgenius]

Sub, can you cite any legal precedent for your proposition that one’s federal constitutional rights change depending on which part of the US one is in?

One's constitutional rights do not change according to location within the US - however, the court has ruled that probable cause can change due to such circumstances...see where One-Eye cited an case that is irrelevant to the OP but relevant your question:
it reads:
"Any number of factors may be taken into account in deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a car in the border area. Officers may consider the characteristics of the area in which they encounter a vehicle. Its proximity to the border, the usual patterns
of traffic on the particular road, and previous experience with alien traffic are all relevant. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 267 U. S. 159-161 (1925); United States v. Jaime-Barrios, 494 F.2d 455 (CA9), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 972 (1974). [Footnote 10] They also may consider information about recent illegal border crossings in the area."

So, while you have a 4th amendment right, that right is applied differently depending on a number of factors - agreed?

[_Themis]

As has already been noted, the occurrence of people speaking Spanish "around here" (a.k.a. Havre MT) is the circumstance and the relative fact inasmuch as it created suspicion with this Agent - and being within 100 miles of a border he was within the law of making an official inquiry.

He didn't have probable cause.

Let us take a hypothetical situation and see if it is similar enough to this situation:
Two men are only speaking Arabic at the US/Mexico border, would you consider this common or uncommon? As a Border Control Agent would, or should, you be inclined to notice or dismiss?

Interesting I gave you this example except with french. You never answered it. What's interesting is you changed the example to another group, Arabic males, people like you on the far right are inclined to be suspicious of. Lets go back to it being two females talking french near the Mexican border of Southern California. This is closer to the event that happened in Montana. This would be uncommon to hear, so how is speaking French evidence they may not be American or in the US illegally? I see nothing that gives one probable cause to suspect speaking any language means they are probably not American or in the US illegally.

Nevertheless, let us stick with facts on this matter...consider that the closest border crossing to Havre is Whitlash MT which, in 2017, had about 1200 people/passengers crossing (either direction)...to date for 2018, 148 people/passengers (perhaps the 2018 tourism rush to see the world's largest farm tractor or the LORAN-C transmitter has not begun yet).
https://www.bts.gov/content/border-crossingentry-data

So, with about 2.5% of the population in Havre being Hispanic/Latin; and understanding that it is more racist to assume that all of this 2.5% is fluent is speaking Spanish (and adult); and understanding the occurrence of border traffic in the area; and the other blatant circumstances - you would claim that it is "common" to hear Spanish being spoken when/where the Agent witnessed Spanish being spoken and therefore not unusual ?

2.5% is a good number and common does not necessarily mean 50% or even close to it. Common is a vague term that can reasonably have a wide range, so arguing it is stupid.

[_Themis]

Sure does matter, unusual behavior is a foundation of "probable cause"

No it's not. It's certain common behaviors that suggests certain criminal acts are taking place or have taken place. Weaving in and out of your lane while driving is an uncommon behavior of a sober driver. It's a common behavior of someone who is intoxicated. It's what the behavior indicates that is important. A man dressing as a girl is an uncommon behavior of a straight guy, but a common behavior of a transgender person. Nothing in this behavior though is an indicator of criminal activity so it does not meet the criteria of probable cause. It's the same thing with speaking Spanish in Montana. Even if you consider it an uncommon thing to do for most people, it is a common thing for the few people who can speak Spanish to do. But it is not an indicator of wrong doing.

[_canpakes]

So, with about 2.5% of the population in Havre being Hispanic/Latin; and understanding that it is more racist to assume that all of this 2.5% is fluent is speaking Spanish (and adult); and understanding the occurrence of border traffic in the area; and the other blatant circumstances - you would claim that it is "common" to hear Spanish being spoken when/where the Agent witnessed Spanish being spoken and therefore not unusual ?

subs, why would a higher percentage of Spanish speakers in any other state signify a lesser chance that any of those folks are ‘illegals’?

Ever been to AZ? : )