4 ms·

Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct search and seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United States,[5] the

Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct search and seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United States,[5] the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports).[1] [2] [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=693326075362777... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fu...

throwawayjava 9y ago
Right. This is something that people often miss when they say ridiculous things are illegal. The whole point of judicial review is that just because the legislature says something is legal/illegal, doesn't mean it actually is.
ubernostrum 9y ago
Meanwhile, CBP recently ran a roadblock on Interstate 93 in New Hampshire, ostensibly to catch undocumented migrants, but the majority of arrests were of US citizens, and the majority of those US citizens were arrested for -- surprise! -- drugs found when they or their vehicles were searched: http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-border-patrol-checkpoint-drugs-legal-debate-12162389 http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde... As the article notes, essentially the entire state of New Hampshire falls within a the 100-mile border zone in which CBP claims no warrant is needed. Perhaps you should forward your HN comments to those officers to clarify what they are and aren't allowed to do in that zone.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  You're right. The law has very little bearing on what law enforcement officers can and can't do. Any number of courts can rule that a particular LEO activity is unlawful, but it seems to have very little effect on their actions henceforth. In my experience, so long as the officers believe they were acting lawfully there are typically no repercussions. Occasionally one might get put on leave with full pay while an investigation is carried out. What kind of disincentive is that supposed to be? I definitely believe there needs to be a third party to police operations. Some sort of service tasked with keeping police behaviour in check, present to support the rights of the citizenry. Law enforcement officers shouldn't be allowed out alone.
  - Steeeve 9y ago
    > I definitely believe there needs to be a third party to police operations. Some sort of service tasked with keeping police behaviour in check, present to support the rights of the citizenry. Law enforcement officers shouldn't be allowed out alone. This is in place already in many jurisdictions. The review board is almost always populated with former police rather than community members, ostensibly because they have better insight as to the challenges officers face on a daily basis. This is one of the reasons the cop in LA went mental a few years ago - because he was out of favor politically, his review board experience went sideways, while many of his peers had a decidedly different outcome for more egregious offenses. (I can't get into specifics because I don't actually remember them in detail). It is a common case that officers are disciplined and that discipline is rescinded by the review board rather than strengthened. You can almost sympathize - when police are instructed to lie and behave unethically on a regular basis, it's bs to fire them when they make the news for it. The guys on the street are stuck between a rock and a hard place - having to satisfy their superiors, but the requirements for doing so would get them fired by any civilian review board. For instance, the pattern of ticketing soccer mom's at the beginning of every school year under a quota system would cause all kinds of issues under civilian review. But it happens all over the place and even though it's illegal, the practice nor it's practitioners will ever face consequences for it.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      Perhaps a board empowered to review how officers are instructed would be better able to fix things.
- rphlx 9y ago
  Their use of drug dogs is a critical factor that should be mentioned there.. once a car's flagged by a dog, there is probable cause for a further search federally and in most states. So for better or worse I believe their actions were consistent with current Federal laws and any resulting federal drug charges would be difficult to challenge as resulting from an illegal search. AFAICT from that article, they did not attempt warrantless searches on cars (or individual US citizens) that were not flagged by the dogs.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Regardless of legal precedent, dogs are known to be a way to manufacture probable cause -- if the officer wants to search, they can find a way to make the dog "alert", or claim that it did.
    - rphlx 9y ago
      That's certainly true and I do wish they would move to a non-animal-based sensor to reduce that vuln.

throwawayjava 9y ago

Right. This is something that people often miss when they say ridiculous things are illegal. The whole point of judicial review is that just because the legislature says something is legal/illegal, doesn't mean it actually is.

ubernostrum 9y ago

Meanwhile, CBP recently ran a roadblock on Interstate 93 in New Hampshire, ostensibly to catch undocumented migrants, but the majority of arrests were of US citizens, and the majority of those US citizens were arrested for -- surprise! -- drugs found when they or their vehicles were searched: http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-border-patrol-checkpoint-drugs-legal-debate-12162389 http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde... As the article notes, essentially the entire state of New Hampshire falls within a the 100-mile border zone in which CBP claims no warrant is needed. Perhaps you should forward your HN comments to those officers to clarify what they are and aren't allowed to do in that zone.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
You're right. The law has very little bearing on what law enforcement officers can and can't do. Any number of courts can rule that a particular LEO activity is unlawful, but it seems to have very little effect on their actions henceforth. In my experience, so long as the officers believe they were acting lawfully there are typically no repercussions. Occasionally one might get put on leave with full pay while an investigation is carried out. What kind of disincentive is that supposed to be? I definitely believe there needs to be a third party to police operations. Some sort of service tasked with keeping police behaviour in check, present to support the rights of the citizenry. Law enforcement officers shouldn't be allowed out alone.
- Steeeve 9y ago
  > I definitely believe there needs to be a third party to police operations. Some sort of service tasked with keeping police behaviour in check, present to support the rights of the citizenry. Law enforcement officers shouldn't be allowed out alone. This is in place already in many jurisdictions. The review board is almost always populated with former police rather than community members, ostensibly because they have better insight as to the challenges officers face on a daily basis. This is one of the reasons the cop in LA went mental a few years ago - because he was out of favor politically, his review board experience went sideways, while many of his peers had a decidedly different outcome for more egregious offenses. (I can't get into specifics because I don't actually remember them in detail). It is a common case that officers are disciplined and that discipline is rescinded by the review board rather than strengthened. You can almost sympathize - when police are instructed to lie and behave unethically on a regular basis, it's bs to fire them when they make the news for it. The guys on the street are stuck between a rock and a hard place - having to satisfy their superiors, but the requirements for doing so would get them fired by any civilian review board. For instance, the pattern of ticketing soccer mom's at the beginning of every school year under a quota system would cause all kinds of issues under civilian review. But it happens all over the place and even though it's illegal, the practice nor it's practitioners will ever face consequences for it.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    Perhaps a board empowered to review how officers are instructed would be better able to fix things.
rphlx 9y ago
Their use of drug dogs is a critical factor that should be mentioned there.. once a car's flagged by a dog, there is probable cause for a further search federally and in most states. So for better or worse I believe their actions were consistent with current Federal laws and any resulting federal drug charges would be difficult to challenge as resulting from an illegal search. AFAICT from that article, they did not attempt warrantless searches on cars (or individual US citizens) that were not flagged by the dogs.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Regardless of legal precedent, dogs are known to be a way to manufacture probable cause -- if the officer wants to search, they can find a way to make the dog "alert", or claim that it did.
  - rphlx 9y ago
    That's certainly true and I do wish they would move to a non-animal-based sensor to reduce that vuln.