Pubdate: Sun, 27 Jul 2014
Source: Albuquerque Journal (NM)
Copyright: 2014 Albuquerque Journal
Contact:  http://www.abqjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/10
Author: Tami Schattner
Page: B3
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v14/n597/a01.html

ANSWER THE QUESTION. END OF STOP. END OF STORY. NO DRAMA

Inattentive Driver, Not Border Patrol, Turned a Routine Encounter into
a Soap Opera

Regarding (Leslie Linthicum's UpFront column), July 20, "Border Patrol
checkpoint challenge":

Timothy Blomquist's attempt to become a minor celebrity and see his
name in the paper is so ridiculous, I almost don't know where to
begin. Let me try, though. For starters, New Mexico, even Farmington,
isn't "the heartland" of America. That would be somewhere closer to
Nebraska or Kansas.

Second, unless he has been living under a rock, he has most certainly
heard about Border Patrol checkpoints - on television, radio, or even
in the newspaper. As stated in the article, they have been there for
years. The subject has also been in the news as of late.

The third incredulous statement is that he was driving along, so
distracted by the scenery, so lost in thought, that he missed all
signs to pull off the highway. He saw cones, but didn't think they
(were) meant (for) him, so he drove through them, even though his wife
didn't. I'm pretty sure that paying attention while you're driving and
not driving through highway cones are a couple of driving rules. I
don't understand how he continued driving, leaving his wife behind
after she had pulled into the checkpoint.

Blomquist could have easily stopped or at least shortened the drama by
answering the officers' question - "Are you a citizen?" Instead, he
argues with them. He says "he favors strong border security and
supports the efforts of the Border Patrol - at the border." And he
also respects ... the freedom to move freely within the country
without having to show papers."

If he had stopped at the checkpoint, he would have been asked one
simple question - "Are you a U.S. citizen?" With an affirmative
answer, he would not have been asked for "papers." End of stop, end of
story, no drama.

Linthicum turned this article into a liberal-leaning diatribe by
pointing out that Blomquist is a middleaged Republican insurance agent
being chased by federales. Federales? Are we in Mexico now, or was she
piling on the liberal slant? But back to the article.

The major border-crossings have checkpoints on the border. The purpose
of having a checkpoint 100 miles inland from the border is to try to
stem the flood of illegal aliens who managed to circumvent the legal
border crossing. The "multimillion-dollar checkpoints" do more than
pester the weary vacation traveler. They provide a central point from
which ranging patrols go out into the barren desert looking for
smuggling operations, both human- and drug-related. They provide
respite from the heat and weather for those officers working the area.

It would be counter-productive to have only border checkpoints - most
of the illegal entry attempts don't take place at the official border
entry points.

Being asked if you are a U.S. citizen is not a violation of the Fourth
Amendment right against unreasonable search. If you are a U.S.
citizen, it's an easy question and an easy answer. If the answer is
no, then our laws state you must have documentation.

My husband and I make almost monthly trips to Las Cruces or El Paso.
It has never been a hardship to pull into the checkpoint and say "Yes,
we are U.S. citizens. No, no one else is in the car. Thank you, stay
safe." No story, no drama.

TAMI SCHATTNER RUIDOSO RESIDENT
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt