5 ms·

One thing to note: "This directive governs border searches of electronic devices -- including... at the extended border." The "extended border" extends a hundre

One thing to note: "This directive governs border searches of electronic devices -- including... at the extended border." The "extended border" extends a hundred miles from what we normally consider the border; the authorization for customs agents to conduct warrantless searches in the Immigration and Naturalization Act allows them "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," and the Attorney General defined that distance as a hundred miles. The Supreme Court disagrees (Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S., U.S. v. Martinez-Fuente), and has ruled that border searches can only be done, well, at the border. Under this directive, an importer/exporter headquartered in downtown San Diego would be subject to these searches... a bit scary if the Supreme Court ever overturns its earlier border search decisions.

ComputerGuru 9y ago
Yes, it’s indeed over the top. Here’s a map by the ACLU: https://goo.gl/images/HpPYby https://goo.gl/images/HpPYby
- moonka 9y ago
  "Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone."* That's incredibly disturbing. * https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- mc32 9y ago
  When you drive close to the Canadian and Mexican borders I've gone through those inland checkpoints. I've never seen that practiced along the littorals --never. Has anyone seen a checkpoint along the littorals? Curious.
  - RA_Fisher 9y ago
    Not a checkpoint but I've seen CBP sitting on the Mississippi - Alabama state line multiple times (I10).
- tptacek 9y ago
  It is indeed over the top. Almost too much to believe. Oh, wait. It is too much to believe. This notion that any place within 100 miles of a border is a "4th Amendment Free Zone" is an urban legend. The ACLU should stop spreading it. The exact issue we're talking about here has been tried all the way through the Supreme Court, which found that the border search exemption only applies to people with some nexus to an actual border crossing.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The exact issue we're talking about here has been tried all the way through the Supreme Court, which found that the border search exemption only applies to people with some nexus to an actual border crossing. Wrong. It found that warrantless “border” searches on public highways leading to it away from the Mexican border were legal based on either perceived ethnicity of drivers or passengers or even no individualized basis for suspicion. No nexus between the searched person or vehicle and an actual border crossing beyond being on a road which eventually led to or away from the Mexican border is required. It's true that the only places that the decision applies to are public highways, not (e.g.) the interior of residences or businesses, so it's not any place. But it's pretty extensive.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Which case are you referring to? Also, I can't tell if you're nitpicking my summary or if you actually do believe there's a 100-mile-wide Constitution-free zone hugging the US border.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Which case are you referring to? Martinez-Fuerte. > Also, I can't tell if you're nitpicking my summary or if you actually do believe there's a 100-mile-wide Constitution-free zone hugging the US border. “100-mile Constitution-free zone” is a simplification that, like any simplification, is somewhat inaccurate; there is a broad (unclear as to it's maximum limits, the 100 miles is current executive policy) in which the courts have allowed, in fairly broad circumstances, substantially lower standards for search and seizure than are otherwise Constitutionally applicable in the US, rendering the protections of the Fourth Amendment in practice much weaker.
rrix2 9y ago
At some point weren’t they also trying to argue that an international airport constituted an extended border for these purposes?
- sandworm101 9y ago
  There isn't much need to argue. People traveling to/from international destinations can be easily searched under a number of different theories. Fly Vancouver>Vegas and you can be searched in Vegas despite having already been searched in Vancouver. Sometimes if they find something in Vancouver they will still put you on the plane as arresting you for a US crime in Vegas is much cheaper than in Vancouver (normally done for people with outstanding warrants).
  - slededit 9y ago
    It's not just cheaper they are not allowed to arrest you in Canada. They can only deny entry or detain you until the Canadian authorities make the arrest.
    - sigmaprimus 9y ago
      Actually in Vancouver, before you clear customs to get on your flight to the US, you enter a secure area where there is a sign that says welcome to the US of A, and you are in fact on US soil, just like an embassy, I'm pretty sure they could even fly you directly to a Bellingham jail and the Canadian government/RCMP couldn't do a thing about it once your cRoss that imimaginary line in the airport.
      - slededit 9y ago
        > Preclearance facilities exist because of agreements made between the U.S. federal government and the governments of the host countries. Travelers who have passed through the U.S. government checks, but whose flight or ship has not departed, remain in the legal jurisdiction of the host country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_preclearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_precleara...
tptacek 9y ago
What Almeida-Sanchez held is that searches under the border search exemption need to be connected somehow to an actual border crossing, not that they need to occur "at the border". But by the logic of Almeida-Sanchez, the "extended border" is a limiting factor for the government: it suggests that whether or not you've recently crossed, if you're more than 100 miles from the crossing, the border search exception no longer applies.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The Supreme Court disagrees (Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S., U.S. v. Martinez-Fuente), Martinez-Fuerte sharply limited Almeida-Sanchez: Almeida-Sanchez (1973), it's true, seemed to require warrantless border searches to be at the border, but Martinez-Fuerte (1976) allowed warrantless “border” searches at immigration checkpoints on public highways leading to it away from the Mexican border, even without any individualized basis for suspicion (much less probable cause) or when the decision to make stops was based entirely on the perceived ethnicity of drivers/passengers.

ComputerGuru 9y ago

Yes, it’s indeed over the top. Here’s a map by the ACLU: https://goo.gl/images/HpPYby https://goo.gl/images/HpPYby

moonka 9y ago
"Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone."* That's incredibly disturbing. * https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
mc32 9y ago
When you drive close to the Canadian and Mexican borders I've gone through those inland checkpoints. I've never seen that practiced along the littorals --never. Has anyone seen a checkpoint along the littorals? Curious.
- RA_Fisher 9y ago
  Not a checkpoint but I've seen CBP sitting on the Mississippi - Alabama state line multiple times (I10).
tptacek 9y ago
It is indeed over the top. Almost too much to believe. Oh, wait. It is too much to believe. This notion that any place within 100 miles of a border is a "4th Amendment Free Zone" is an urban legend. The ACLU should stop spreading it. The exact issue we're talking about here has been tried all the way through the Supreme Court, which found that the border search exemption only applies to people with some nexus to an actual border crossing.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The exact issue we're talking about here has been tried all the way through the Supreme Court, which found that the border search exemption only applies to people with some nexus to an actual border crossing. Wrong. It found that warrantless “border” searches on public highways leading to it away from the Mexican border were legal based on either perceived ethnicity of drivers or passengers or even no individualized basis for suspicion. No nexus between the searched person or vehicle and an actual border crossing beyond being on a road which eventually led to or away from the Mexican border is required. It's true that the only places that the decision applies to are public highways, not (e.g.) the interior of residences or businesses, so it's not any place. But it's pretty extensive.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Which case are you referring to? Also, I can't tell if you're nitpicking my summary or if you actually do believe there's a 100-mile-wide Constitution-free zone hugging the US border.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Which case are you referring to? Martinez-Fuerte. > Also, I can't tell if you're nitpicking my summary or if you actually do believe there's a 100-mile-wide Constitution-free zone hugging the US border. “100-mile Constitution-free zone” is a simplification that, like any simplification, is somewhat inaccurate; there is a broad (unclear as to it's maximum limits, the 100 miles is current executive policy) in which the courts have allowed, in fairly broad circumstances, substantially lower standards for search and seizure than are otherwise Constitutionally applicable in the US, rendering the protections of the Fourth Amendment in practice much weaker.

rrix2 9y ago

At some point weren’t they also trying to argue that an international airport constituted an extended border for these purposes?

sandworm101 9y ago
There isn't much need to argue. People traveling to/from international destinations can be easily searched under a number of different theories. Fly Vancouver>Vegas and you can be searched in Vegas despite having already been searched in Vancouver. Sometimes if they find something in Vancouver they will still put you on the plane as arresting you for a US crime in Vegas is much cheaper than in Vancouver (normally done for people with outstanding warrants).
- slededit 9y ago
  It's not just cheaper they are not allowed to arrest you in Canada. They can only deny entry or detain you until the Canadian authorities make the arrest.
  - sigmaprimus 9y ago
    Actually in Vancouver, before you clear customs to get on your flight to the US, you enter a secure area where there is a sign that says welcome to the US of A, and you are in fact on US soil, just like an embassy, I'm pretty sure they could even fly you directly to a Bellingham jail and the Canadian government/RCMP couldn't do a thing about it once your cRoss that imimaginary line in the airport.
    - slededit 9y ago
      > Preclearance facilities exist because of agreements made between the U.S. federal government and the governments of the host countries. Travelers who have passed through the U.S. government checks, but whose flight or ship has not departed, remain in the legal jurisdiction of the host country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_preclearance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_precleara...

tptacek 9y ago

What Almeida-Sanchez held is that searches under the border search exemption need to be connected somehow to an actual border crossing, not that they need to occur "at the border". But by the logic of Almeida-Sanchez, the "extended border" is a limiting factor for the government: it suggests that whether or not you've recently crossed, if you're more than 100 miles from the crossing, the border search exception no longer applies.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The Supreme Court disagrees (Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S., U.S. v. Martinez-Fuente), Martinez-Fuerte sharply limited Almeida-Sanchez: Almeida-Sanchez (1973), it's true, seemed to require warrantless border searches to be at the border, but Martinez-Fuerte (1976) allowed warrantless “border” searches at immigration checkpoints on public highways leading to it away from the Mexican border, even without any individualized basis for suspicion (much less probable cause) or when the decision to make stops was based entirely on the perceived ethnicity of drivers/passengers.