4 ms·

I heartily disagree: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not

by ISL 10y ago

I heartily disagree: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Constitution is quite clear on this point. I've never understood where Customs finds probable cause for the expansion of search powers.

umanwizard 10y ago
It's because you're consenting to the search. CBP can't force you to answer anything. You are free to withdraw your request to enter the US at any time and return to your country of origin.
- ISL 10y ago
  Not if I'm a citizen.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    Sure and if you're a citizen you aren't required to answer any of their questions if you don't want to.
    - ISL 10y ago
      "Agents at ports of entry may question people about their citizenship and what they are bringing into the country. Even though you always have the right to remain silent, if you don’t answer questions to establish your citizenship, officials may deny you entry to the U.S. or detain you for search and/or questioning. Agents may search any person, the inside of any vehicle, and all passenger belongings. Agents do not need a warrant, any suspicion of wrongdoing, or consent to do any of these things." https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/a...
- koenigdavidmj 10y ago
  > CBP can't force you to answer anything. You are free to withdraw your request to enter the US at any time and return to your country of origin. You have in fact entered the US at that time, and are subject to US law. They can make a non-citizen do pretty much anything they want. You do not have the right to say "my bad, I'll just go cross the border again". The one exception is Canadian preclearance, since you're still on Canadian dirt at that time (though Canada are thinking about allowing US CBP to detain people attempting to preclear).
rayiner 10y ago
The key word is "unreasonable searches and seizures." Searches incident to border crossings have always (since Congress created the customs service in 1789) been considered pre se reasonable, as incident to the sovereign power of nations to police their borders.
wyldfire 10y ago
It's all precedent. US v. Martinez-Fuerte, US v. Flores-Montano, US v. Ickes. OTOH Almeida-Sanchez v. US found to the contrary.
- ISL 10y ago
  Dred Scott v. Sandford was once precedent, too. That didn't make it correct.
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    Agreed! I think CBP is overreaching. But your question was, "I've never understood where Customs finds probable cause for the expansion of search powers." Hopefully now you understand where: they believe they don't need it because of border search exception.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
newsbinator 10y ago
> "The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Montoya_De_Hernandez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Montoya_De_He... Yes, I agree with you about not liking it and feeling like it's an infringement on privacy. But illegal or unconstitutional it is not. And asking about a person's religion is not more personal than asking about his/her family members, bank account balance, etc.
- ISL 10y ago
  I understand the current interpretation of the constitution. I disagree with the interpretation, as when I read it, the fourth amendment applies to the entire federal government, not just part of it. Regarding rayiner's sibling comment: The presumption of guilt, particularly upon the part of citizens, is unreasonable. A government that doesn't trust its citizens by default can lose citizens' trust over time.

by ISL 10y ago

umanwizard 10y ago

It's because you're consenting to the search. CBP can't force you to answer anything. You are free to withdraw your request to enter the US at any time and return to your country of origin.

ISL 10y ago
Not if I'm a citizen.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Sure and if you're a citizen you aren't required to answer any of their questions if you don't want to.
  - ISL 10y ago
    "Agents at ports of entry may question people about their citizenship and what they are bringing into the country. Even though you always have the right to remain silent, if you don’t answer questions to establish your citizenship, officials may deny you entry to the U.S. or detain you for search and/or questioning. Agents may search any person, the inside of any vehicle, and all passenger belongings. Agents do not need a warrant, any suspicion of wrongdoing, or consent to do any of these things." https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/a...
koenigdavidmj 10y ago
> CBP can't force you to answer anything. You are free to withdraw your request to enter the US at any time and return to your country of origin. You have in fact entered the US at that time, and are subject to US law. They can make a non-citizen do pretty much anything they want. You do not have the right to say "my bad, I'll just go cross the border again". The one exception is Canadian preclearance, since you're still on Canadian dirt at that time (though Canada are thinking about allowing US CBP to detain people attempting to preclear).

rayiner 10y ago

The key word is "unreasonable searches and seizures." Searches incident to border crossings have always (since Congress created the customs service in 1789) been considered pre se reasonable, as incident to the sovereign power of nations to police their borders.

wyldfire 10y ago

It's all precedent. US v. Martinez-Fuerte, US v. Flores-Montano, US v. Ickes. OTOH Almeida-Sanchez v. US found to the contrary.

ISL 10y ago
Dred Scott v. Sandford was once precedent, too. That didn't make it correct.
- wyldfire 10y ago
  Agreed! I think CBP is overreaching. But your question was, "I've never understood where Customs finds probable cause for the expansion of search powers." Hopefully now you understand where: they believe they don't need it because of border search exception.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

newsbinator 10y ago

> "The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Montoya_De_Hernandez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Montoya_De_He... Yes, I agree with you about not liking it and feeling like it's an infringement on privacy. But illegal or unconstitutional it is not. And asking about a person's religion is not more personal than asking about his/her family members, bank account balance, etc.

ISL 10y ago
I understand the current interpretation of the constitution. I disagree with the interpretation, as when I read it, the fourth amendment applies to the entire federal government, not just part of it. Regarding rayiner's sibling comment: The presumption of guilt, particularly upon the part of citizens, is unreasonable. A government that doesn't trust its citizens by default can lose citizens' trust over time.