The
situation in Arivaca, Arizona, where residents face off with Border
Patrol in front of neighbors and cameras, is tense enough. Federal
agents have told locals, “you
have no rights here,” even as they run them through a daily
gauntlet and harass them when they protest the situation.
But imagine running into Border Patrol agents conducting a
roving patrol on an isolated road, with only your children for
company. That happened to Clarisa Christiansen, who lives outside
of Tucson about 40 miles from the border. She says the agents
threatened her with a Taser, forced her from her car as her kids
watched—and slashed her tire for good measure.
The American Civil Liberties Union described several cases of
abuse, including Christiansen’s in a
complaint filed with the Department of Homeland Security (PDF).
They’ve since
posted videos abut the incidents, in which the victims describe
their experiences, to raise the pressure and overcome a little
bureaucratic inertia (see below). A lawsuit
filed yesterday seeks to raise the pressure still further,
since federal officials are stonewalling efforts to get information
about just how they’re conducting those patrols—though the
experiences of those on the receiving end are not encouraging.
The description below is from the complaint.
On May 21, 2013, Clarisa Christiansen was
driving home with her seven-year-old daughter and
five-year-old son after picking her daughter up from elementary
school. Ms. Christiansen and her children a re U.S. citizens and
resident s of Three Points, Arizona, located west of Tucson and
approximately 40 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. On their
way home, at approximately 2:15 pm, the family was pulled
over by a Border Patrol vehicle. The stop occurred on a
stretch of dirt road about two miles from their home, which
is approximately fifteen miles from the elementary school.
Ms. Christiansen stopped her vehicle and was approached by a
Border Patrol agent. The agent asked her if she was a U.S. citizen;
she answered affirmatively. The agent then demanded
that Ms. Christ iansen exit her vehicle so it could be
searched. Ms. Christiansen stated that she did not consent to
a search and asked the agent why she had been stopped. The agent
responded that he would not provide an explanation until Ms.
Christiansen exited her vehicle. Ms. Christiansen stated that she
would not exit her vehicle until she was provided with an
explanation for the stop. The agent refused and was clearly
agitated that Ms. Christiansen had requested an explanation.
At that point, two additional Border Patrol agents approached Ms.
Christiansen’s vehicle.
Ms.
Christiansen then stated that if there was no reason for stopping
her that she would be on her way, and wished the agent a good
day. The agent told her, “You’re not going anywhere.” That
agent then said to the other agents, “This one is being difficult,
get the Taser.” The agent opened the driver’s side door
and demanded that she exit. Ms. Christiansen, now
fearing for her safety and that of her children, refused. Ms.
Christiansen’s children became upset; her daughter asked, “Mommy
what’s going on?” Ms. Christiansen told the children to stay calm
and sit still, but she could see they were confused and afraid.The agent then approached Ms. Christiansen with a retractable
knife and threatened to cut her out of her seatbelt if she didn’t
exit the vehicle. Ms. Christiansen repeated her demand for an
explanation, which the agents still refused to give her. Instead,
the agent forcibly reached inside Ms. Christiansen’s vehicle
without her consent and removed the keys from the ignition.Ms. Christiansen had no choice but to exit the vehicle. She
presented her identification. The agents ran a background
check, gave her back her driver’s license, returned to their
vehicle without saying anything, and drove away. The entire
stop lasted approximately 35 minutes. At that point,
Ms. Christiansen noticed that her rear tire had been punctured and
was flat. There was a large incision along the side of the tire,
consistent with a knife puncture and not a routine or accidental
flat. It was a very hot day and there was no one for miles
around. Fortunately, Ms. Christiansen was able to contact her
brother to bring her a car jack to change the flat tire.
When Christiansen complained to the Department of Homeland
Security about the incident and demanded compensation for the tire,
she was initially put off. Only after the ACLU became involved did
an official—Richard Hill—respond. He told her he thought the tire
had been torn and not intentionally slashed (see the photo above
and judge for yourself). He also told her he would interview one of
the agents involved and follow up with her.
Shockingly, she hadn’t heard from him again by the time the ACLU
filed its own complaint.
For the record, speaking as an Arizona resident, stranding
people in the Sonoran desert—especially children, as temperatures
start to climb during late spring—is a very effective way to kill
them.
Last year, the
ACLU reached a settlement with Customs and Border Protection
regarding its controversial roving patrols along the Canadian
border, on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula.The feds didn’t admit any
wrongdoing, but agreed to provide agents with Fourth Amendment
training and to share data from the stops with the ACLU for 18
months.
The lawsuit filed yesterday seeks similar data about internal
stops in Arizona, since the feds have ignored all polite requests
for such information.
Given what they’ve apparently been up to, the reticence may be
understandable.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1izdyIh
via IFTTT