3 ms·
United States v. Cotterman, for example, declared a major piece of CBP's policy (forensic examination without probable cause) unconstitutional. However you see
by nate_meurer 9y ago
United States v. Cotterman, for example, declared a major piece of CBP's policy (forensic examination without probable cause) unconstitutional.
However you seem a bit confused. You started talking about due process, but now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to 4th amendment issues.
Your statement, "applying border controls is pretty well established as due process", doesn't really make sense. Due process is only one of the many thorny issues that embroil the border search exception, and the exception's constitutionality along due process lines has not been decided by the supreme court one way or the other. Perhaps I should ask you, how did you arrive at "pretty well established"? Can you provide a bit of case history?
- maxerickson 9y agoAliens are detained upon arrival and may be detained at length. If the arbitrary permitting of entry that follows that detention wasn't considered due process we wouldn't have border controls. My other response was a somewhat sarcastic reply to The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.. It's the details that are being litigated, not the overall detention and search of foreign nationals.