Mexico Connect
Forums  > General > Traveling Mexico


chinagringo


Jul 7, 2011, 10:56 AM

Post #1 of 15 (5727 views)

Shortcut

Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/...new-ruse-hiding.html

It has been our habit to make drives of about 2 weeks in duration traveling to various parts of Mexico. Probably because I was often bored by the lengthy drive through northern Mexico to the New Mexico border, this has occurred to me in the past. What would prevent someone from planting drugs either in our undercarriage or for that matter inside our vehicle when we are parked overnight in a hotel parking lot? For example, we have stayed at the Hampton Inn in Chihuahua and our minivan goes untouched from the time we check in until we leave the next morning. With New Mexico plates, it wouldn't be hard to figure out where we are headed. Certainly, they would be taking a chance with us being caught at the large military checkpoint between Chihuahua and the New Mexico border or at the crossing at Santa Teresa but for whatever reason, we rarely receive a second glance at either location.

It would be a very rude awakening to be busted for drugs that you knew nothing about. To say nothing of the hassle of being caught!
Regards,
Neil
Albuquerque, NM




Axixic


Jul 7, 2011, 11:17 AM

Post #2 of 15 (5720 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
It will probably happen to you. Be prepared to be arrested or car jacked so they can get their drugs or change your plate to another state. That will fool them.


whynotwrite

Jul 7, 2011, 12:51 PM

Post #3 of 15 (5698 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
They have been doing that for 40 years that I know of. Anyone who has lived in a border town for any length of time knows about the scam, as do ICE. The only ones surprised is Borderland beat and their readers.


chicois8

Jul 7, 2011, 1:17 PM

Post #4 of 15 (5687 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
I remember in the late 60's they would sell or hide the stuff on your car and turn you in for a reward or let you drive through the inland checkpoints and collect it that evening........

I love the story when customs sold a drug car at auction, the buyer drove it into Mexico and when he tried to return customs found 2 kilos of coke in a door they missed in the original confiscation......

Red faces at customs,ya think
Rincon de Guayabitos,Nayarit
San Mateo, California

(This post was edited by chicois8 on Jul 7, 2011, 1:18 PM)


Axixic


Jul 7, 2011, 1:32 PM

Post #5 of 15 (5681 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
How do they know they missed it the first time and this wasn't an effort to smuggle in coke by the new owner? Makes a good argument for the defense attorney though.


chicois8

Jul 7, 2011, 1:47 PM

Post #6 of 15 (5674 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Axixic] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
You could read the whole story here:

http://www.brownrudnick.com/...rotection%20(Customs)
Rincon de Guayabitos,Nayarit
San Mateo, California

(This post was edited by Rolly on Jul 7, 2011, 1:51 PM)


Axixic


Jul 7, 2011, 2:07 PM

Post #7 of 15 (5663 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
I read it. I don't understand why they filed that type of suit instead of a 1983 suit or a tort for damages. These poor souls picked the wrong attorney. There are other suits that would have been easier to win and in a better federal court.


Brian

Jul 7, 2011, 4:24 PM

Post #8 of 15 (5626 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
I wrote that entry on BorderlandBeat. The incident I remember involved an American expatriate and occurred sometime around 2000. This is apparently the second such incident. Buyer beware....

Brian


chicois8

Jul 7, 2011, 4:29 PM

Post #9 of 15 (5621 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
If I were to purchase an auction vehicle form us customs i would strip it down to find the hidden treasure..........
Rincon de Guayabitos,Nayarit
San Mateo, California


whynotwrite

Jul 7, 2011, 4:56 PM

Post #10 of 15 (5606 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Brian] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
I wrote that entry on BorderlandBeat. The incident I remember involved an American expatriate and occurred sometime around 2000. This is apparently the second such incident. Buyer beware....

Brian

I don´t understand, what entry did you write?


Altahabana


Jul 7, 2011, 5:09 PM

Post #11 of 15 (5598 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Axixic] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
I don't understand why they filed that type of suit instead of a 1983 suit or a tort for damages. These poor souls picked the wrong attorney. There are other suits that would have been easier to win and in a better federal court.

They originally filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence but while their case was pending the Supreme Court ruled that the Act did not apply if the injuries were sustained abroad, even if the negligence occured in the US. The government filed a motion to dismiss, and the lawyer amended the complaint to allege a breach of warranty/contract claim. They couldn't bring a claim under 1983 because the Supreme Court in 1986 held that the Due Process Clause is not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss or injury to life, liberty or property and negligence cannot support a Section 1983 claim.


(This post was edited by Altahabana on Jul 7, 2011, 5:11 PM)


Axixic


Jul 7, 2011, 6:52 PM

Post #12 of 15 (5563 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Altahabana] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
I finally found the case:

AGREDANO v. UNITED STATES, 595 F.3d 1278 (2010)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/...circuit/1508156.html

I haven't read all of it yet but he did win at the trial level. It's too soon for SCOTUS to have rejected an appeal. I wonder if it is being appealed.

I haven't read up on negligence and 1983 suits in a few years so I will do that. Deliberate Indifference does survive a 1983 suit. Sometimes it's all in how aggressive your lawyer is. Many lawyers have a good case they should win and don't and some bad lawyers win cases they shouldn't.

Most deliberate indifference suits are prison suits:

FARMER v. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

Held:

"Deliberate indifference entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result. Thus, it is the equivalent of acting recklessly. However, this does not establish the level of culpability deliberate indifference entails, for the term recklessness is not self-defining, and can take subjective or objective forms."


(This post was edited by Rolly on Jul 7, 2011, 6:59 PM)


robt65

Jul 8, 2011, 1:37 AM

Post #13 of 15 (5529 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chinagringo] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
A very valid point for sure. This is certainly a situation that has also played on my mind from time to time. Actually, probably more so than getting into some altercation with a cartel shooting. I mean how many of us even give this a second thought? Even if we did, I wouldn't even know where to start. This could happen anywhere and anytime along a cross border trip, even without a car and if you are flying, or taking the bus, this could happen, what a fix! How in the world does one prove that he / she was not part of the plan. The only answer I have is to co operate with the authorities and pointedly ask them to allow the car to be followed to the end point and then get the “perps” whoever they may be . . . . . . . I just can't see that working, as it would be like letting the smuggler go, wouldn't it? This seems to really be a Catch 22 situation. Even if you asked for a wipe down of your hands and or clothing, that wouldn't be the answer as the authorities could simply say . . . . "you stood by" Seems to be a real "OH Boy" moment! Just another "Black Bean" in the jar possibility, of the many out there, that we just don't normally think about, let alone what to do about such a situation . . . . . . isn't it? What would one do, especially here in Mexico? At least NOB there has to be proof, even if it does reach a court stage, . . . . . . proof beyond a shadow of doubt (supposedly) exists. But here . . . . . . . . . . .

robt65


(This post was edited by robt65 on Jul 8, 2011, 1:47 AM)


fordmexico

Jul 8, 2011, 12:01 PM

Post #14 of 15 (5428 views)

Shortcut

Re: [robt65] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
Burden of proof in a criminal case in the USA is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

Legal systems in Mexico have a very different basis from the USA which receives its basis from English common law. Mexico's basis is a civil law system (code) which dates back to Spanish civil law.

What one would need to worry in regards to the original postis civil asset forfeiture. With forfeiture, your vehicle and its contents could be seized either at the border or within a state after you cross. In effect, your property would be considered guilty until YOU could prove it was innocent.

From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years. '


(This post was edited by fordmexico on Jul 8, 2011, 12:09 PM)


DavidHF

Jul 8, 2011, 2:26 PM

Post #15 of 15 (5403 views)

Shortcut

Re: [fordmexico] Having Thought of This Possibilty

Can't Post | Private Reply
Mexican law is descended from Napoleoanic law, not English law.
 
 
Search for (advanced search) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.4