Texas has done some of both. There are a set of checkpoints that are permanent enough that they appear on the official state highway maps. The roads and population get pretty sparse, so a more limited number of control points will cover the paved roads if they are away from the border. Some of this area coincides with Eagle Ford Shale zone - where fracking has led to an oil boom accompanied with additional unpaved secondary roads and truck traffic.

During this past Christmas/New Years week, I drove to Brownsville, TX and cycled back along the Rio Grande valley to Laredo and then via San Antonio to Austin. That week there was a huge police presence along the border. One motel I stayed at in Zapata TX had 21 state highway patrol cars parked in front. Each of the first two days I counted >8 cars pulled over and stopped - and many more state highway patrol along the road and on cross-roads observing traffic. I watched one incident unfold ahead of me as a car was pulled over on opposite side of the road. After I passed a little way, I turned back to take photographs and saw the highway patrol get accompanied by border patrol vehicle and then second highway patrol.

I asked some of the state patrol I met in towns and they told me "the governor sent us down". Apparently, state of TX decided to do an extended surge of highway patrol to saturate the border. It was not a wise time to be speeding on the roads. Other than passing stopped cars and a pretty visible highway patrol presence, I didn't notice much else and also didn't have encounters with police other than passing them and smiling as eyes met.

Recently, there is a fair amount of attention paid by state legislature and governor of TX on border presence. Whether that is a natural response to terrorism or a bit overblown varies based on political position. However, what I did see is a lot of normal cross-border traffic, trade and area where people might normally more frequently cross for legitimate reasons. Having checkpoints away from that border puts them in an area where most auto/truck traffic gets funneled through a much smaller set of points and also avoids normal back/forth on border crossings themselves.

The reason that question is often suggested isn't so much about expediting the process but more about establishing that it is a consensual encounter. That may be important in some situations. Check out the following link:
https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/re...anuse-702.aspx

I have a checkpoint story but it doesn't involve a bicycle (thankfully). I was on an Arizona highway at a busy time of day. It is a long straight highway and people often travel at very high speeds. There is a checkpoint on the highway, but it isn't often used. On this particular day, they had traffic diverted so that we had to go through the checkpoint. I was in my car waiting in a very long line to get through when I heard a loud noise. I turned my head just in time to see a wheel without a car go rolling past me. Right after that, other car parts came raining down all around me. Someone wasn't paying attention and didn't slow down in time. They impacted another car from behind at a very high rate of speed. It was not pretty. Despite all the debris raining about me, the rental car I was driving did not get a scratch.

Freedom and liberty is something we have taken for granted, allowing it to be taken for a feeling or sense of temporary security.

Not having to oblige the "papieren bitte" thugs 100 miles inland is security. Stopping citizens and questioning them for no reason is not freedom or liberty and is wrong. Comparing the USA to other 3rd world countries is laughable.

Moral of the story, these ad hoc checkpoints are not safe.

Be aware that "criminal activity" can include local ordinance violations, e.g., riding without a helmet, lack of lights when riding at night, riding on a sidewalk, failure to stop at a stop sign.

I'Ve seen those videos. They remind me of the movie "The Hunt for the Red October" when Sam Neil's caracter (a soviet defector) asks if he could travel state to state without papers.

I wonder how long it'll take before this gets moved to P&R.

It's certainly starting to head that way.

In that vein, snow squalls, a vehicle breakdown or any other traffic slow up comes down to the responsibility when driving a motor vehicle to always be observant of what is ahead of you. Lives are at stake when driving any umpteen thousand lb object at any speed and a second or two of inattention can have serious implications (am teaching a kid to drive and drive this home every lesson, even more so at highway speeds)

They check your ID.

Let me help it on it's way and ask why people are annoyed at these check points, but have been silent about police "Stop and Frisk" policies in cities?

Because "Stop and Frisk" saves lives, the checkpoints haven't stopped one terrorist for all the money spent and rights violated.

Maybe..... because millions of people have documents (drivers license, fake SS card) that implies they are American citizens... when in reality they aren't. So for them... it would be a trick question.... that solicits a confession.

I don't agree with your argument, but even if I did it seems that you are ok suspending the Constitution is some circumstances and not in others. The question is when is a stop and search reasonable?

I go past them pretty regularly. The two big ones are on freeways so we bypass them. At the small ones we're waved through.

He wanted to live in Montana and marry a "round" American woman. And what are his last words before he dies? "I would have liked to have seen Montana."

sure, spoil it for me!

This is not an easy question with a simple answer. As I, a non-lawyer, understand it, the authority to "detain" and investigate is explained in a supreme court case : Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases say that in order to detain and investigate someone, a law enforcement person needs "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of criminal activity. That includes demanding that someone provide identification. A law enforcement person has the authority to initiate a consensual encounter with anyone at any time and ask any question desired, but unless a person is being lawfully detained IAW Terry, no actual response is required. Exceptions exist in traffic infraction cases, and the like, which may be civil or criminal depending on where in the US you are and the nature of the infraction. Also, suspicionless dui/driver's license checkpoints may be permissible, and they actually occur, but some debate whether they are conducted within the constraints of Supreme Court decisions or not. I'm told that some probation/parole requirements dictate that a parolee/probationee must consent to searches and investigations as a condition of release -- I have no experience, but I think that's true.

So, you can probably see where the "am I being detained" thing comes in. If a police officer stops you and asks you for ID, it's not clear whether you are being detained, arrested, or just subject to a consensual encounter. Before continuing with the encounter, whatever its nature, someone may want to clarify the nature of the encounter. If someone is being lawfully detained, it may be necessary to provide identification, though unless there is some other reason, for example, you're driving, no actual physical identification is ever legally required.

Now, the search/frisk thing. In order to conduct an actual search, a higher standard than suspicion is required -- that is, probable cause. It's hard to say, as a lay person, exactly what that means. It's lawyer speak. Also, if someone is being arrested, a search incident to arrest is authorized. This may include searching an impounded vehicle, I'm not sure. A frisk, or pat down, is not an actual search, but just an outside touching so that the officer can be confident that someone doesn't have a weapon. It's not supposed to be used to feel for a baggy of drugs, or a fat wallet full of money -- just for weapons. I'm not sure when someone does and doesn't have the right to refuse a frisk/pat down if they are not being lawfully detained.

All this suspicion/probable cause stuff is not real easy to figure out, but someone asserting a right is not supposed to be used to create suspicion or probable cause. For example, if an officer asks you where you work or where you are going or where you are coming from and you lawfully refuse to answer, that refusal is not supposed to create legally actionable suspicion of criminal activity. Just like taking the fifth is not supposed to be used to infer guilt.

I do not agree with stop and frisk at all.

So maybe this brings up a point that actually relates to the forum in which this thread was started ... the Touring Forum ...

It is a good idea to travel legally in foreign countries, such as the USA.


When we were stopped by these checkpoints, we may have been asked if we were US Citizens ... answer: "No". Next question was something like, "Do you have ID"? We had our passports ready. Quick glance at each passport and we were on our way. The whole thing might have taken 30 seconds.

What is the evidence you have that is the case. I think a ton of americans don't care whether you kill 19 million people per century if it makes them a jot richer, or safer. And while I am personally against stop and frisk, and thought it was great when that activist expressed concern about appearing on the same show as the chief of police for NYC, who is an obvious racist, the fact remains my ox being gored is always going to worry me more than someone eleses. but that doesn't mean I don't care. Hypocracy is good though, and you might as well ask would I be more concerned if I was to be killed in a traffic accident than someone else, yeah probably...

Why is it people always act as though doubling the level of abuse, say, is a nothing, because they always previously stood silent when rights were violated in some other case. It actually matters if a government is twice as abusive. It isn't as though the stop and frisked crowd was showing up when Rico was being abused for anti abortionists, or wall streeters.

But generally a more professional and less racist police force is going to mean more abuse not less, they just get to address a new base of crime, and are no longer limited to plying their trade in certain neighbourhoods.

The border between say Florida and NY that some of the 9/11 highjackers crossed on the day is a lot more porous. None of the highjackers came through Canada, though they probably could have. But at least in that case they get the twice over. Coming from Maine to the WTC, not so much.

As with all things involving people, how you are dealt with depends on who you are dealing with. I'm confident at some checkpoints one may have to deal with aggressive jerks while at others there are good people. I've cycled through the checkpoints south of Tucson several times. I'm 63, ride a carbon fiber bike with no gear and have a white beard that makes me look my age. I roll through in both directions without even stopping although once I stopped to obviously photograph the checkpoint well in view of the agents. No problem. They saw me go out then back in and I'm sure that helped with their decision to not even bother to stop me. Had I been dark skinned I'd bet I would have been at greater risk of being questioned as would having full panniers I'd guess. I don't carry any ID when riding. When touring I do. I do know from long experience you can get through checkpoints much easier when you are friendly and cooperative. Nothing wrong with choosing to stick up for your rights and refusing to talk but there can be a cost to that course of action. I find the checkpoints to be hideous and ineffective and intrusive.

I have been silent on stop and frisk here because it is something I am way less likely to encounter while on tour. Check points on the other hand are a given on many routes that I am likely to ride. Truth be told I think stop and frisk is a far bigger infringement on civil rights, but it is not so relevant to touring since I mostly avoid urban touring.

I don't actually think of the checkpoints as infringement on my rights unless the agent overstep their bounds.