4 ms·

> the freedoms the United States guarantees I might be wrong, but I thought you didn't have any rights or freedoms at the border?

by mtw 8y ago

iamthirsty 8y ago
Correct. > According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- testvox 8y ago
  Certain rights not being fully applicable != No rights
  - iamthirsty 8y ago
    Well the thread is about search & seizure, so you pretty much have no rights in that respect anywhere near the border.
    - rootw0rm 8y ago
      "anywhere near" ~ 60 miles the border patrol checkpoint where San Diego county ends and Riverside county begins is around 60 miles from the border
      - pmiller2 8y ago
        Last I heard, and, according to the article linked up thread from the ACLU, it was 100 miles. Two thirds of Americans, and many entire state populations live within this zone.
        InitialLastName 8y ago
        Theoretically, though, within that area they need probable cause to believe you either recently crossed the border or committed a crime to search you. We all know how easy PC is to manufacture though.
        jellicle 8y ago
        > need probable cause Not according to the Supreme Court, no.
        MertsA 8y ago
        No he's right, he's not talking about just asking if you're a citizen. Before CBP can search and seize your property they require probable cause. They have plenty of drug dogs available to come up with any "probable cause" necessary.
        jellicle 8y ago
        Sigh. No, he's wrong, and you are too. If you come up to a Border Patrol checkpoint at the border or within 100 miles of the border, the Border Patrol can search your car and all your personal belongings. They can seize anything that appears to be contraband or evidence of a crime. Full stop, end of sentence, no probable cause required. Completely legal for the border guards to tear down EVERY SINGLE CAR that crosses the border (or a checkpoint within 100 miles of the border). If you don't like it blame the Supreme Court: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Border searches in the US have never required probable cause.
        InitialLastName 8y ago
        According to [0]: Border Patrol cannot search the interior of a vehicle without the owner’s consent or “probable cause” (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred). Who's wrong, you or the ACLU? [0]https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/a...
      - jellicle 8y ago
        It's a couple hundred meters from the western border of the USA. Which as a thought experiment shows that the 100 miles is not the real problem; a great deal of hassle can occur even if checks were limited to a single mile from the border.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      The original motion makes a more nuanced argument than this thread gives credit for. In particular, the motion does not claim that border searches in general are unconstitutional. It makes a much finer scoped claim that: without individualized criminal suspicion, the off-site search of an electronic device taken at a border is unconstitutional. No such suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity existed in the case of Ms. Lazoja giving rise to reasonable suspicion to search and seize her property. Consequently, neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms. Lazoja’s property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment. To make this argument, the motion mentions some precedent. Most notably was United States v. Kim (page 12): In Kim, where DHS agents seized a laptop computer at Los Angeles International Airport and later sent it to a laboratory to be copied and searched, the district court found that the lengthy post-seizure retention of a laptop at a second site, outside the airport, “did not possess the characteristics of a border search or other regular inspection procedures,” and that it “more resembled the common nonborder search based on individualized suspicion, which must be prefaced by the usual warrant and probable cause standards.” Id. at 58 (citing United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1976)). The court in Kim questioned whether the seizure and imaging of a laptop at the border “can accurately be characterized as a border search at all.” And furthermore that doing so for a cell-phone is particularly egregious; recent supreme court cases strengthen the argument that if we're going to protect laptops then we certainly need to protect cellphones (page 13): The Supreme Court recently expanded the categorically heightened privacy interests in data located on cell phones, specifically addressing cell phones’ location data. The motion also makes auxiliary arguments about retention and duration: even if the border search was constitutional, shipping the device off to a lab was not constitutional without a warrant. And even if shipping the device to a lab was constitutional, retaining it for so long was not constitutional. And even if retaining the device for so long was constitutional, retaining the data indefinitely is not constitutional. At least, not without warrants.
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  The government asserts this but would it actually stand up to a constitutional challenge by a US citizen? Another question is when a non-citizen officially becomes a "US person" with full constitutional rights. If that person never leaves the 100 mile radius, are they never a US person?
  - gnopgnip 8y ago
    These searches are largely conducted on foreign nationals. They do not have a right to enter the US and can be detained, or denied entry if they do not agree to unlock their phone or otherwise cooperate. US citizens cannot ultimately be denied entry. US customers and border can seize property(from US citizens) and later make a determination as to whether it should be returned. Abuse by those in power does happen, but in the vast majority of cases where property is allegedly wrongfully seized there is more to the story than is reported to the press initially.
appleflaxen 8y ago
You do have some rights, but SCOTUS has ruled in the past that the sovereign prerogative of the federal government are "at their apogee" when you are at the border. The feds assert a bullshit 100-mile zone, but that is covers a tremendous swath of the country (and a huge % of citizens), and is untested jurisprudence.
- deusofnull 8y ago
  Especially since, and correct me if I'm wrong, the oceans count as a border too.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    They do. The result is that 2/3rds of the US population lives within this “border zone.” https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    They count the Great Lakes as well, including all of the Michigan lobe of Michigan-Superior. I'm a bit surprised they don't also count everywhere within 100 mi of the doors into the international terminals of every international airport. If you're going to set an arbitrary limit without legislative oversight, why not set it in a way that maximizes your agency's own power? What's magical about 100 miles, anyway? It seems very suspiciously based on a power of ten of a specific unit of measure, and not on any real distance that may be supported by statistics or analysis. I'd say draw the line where you have a 95% certainty that any persons encountered on the border side of it just crossed over. Which is to say that the border patrol would have to stay on the border side of any major highway, and would need to pay attention to where the boats come and go.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The 100 mile zone is tied to a nexus with a border crossing. Everyone living within 100 miles of the cost is not subject to some reinterpretation of law.

> the freedoms the United States guarantees I might be wrong, but I thought you didn't have any rights or freedoms at the border?

by mtw 8y ago

> the freedoms the United States guarantees I might be wrong, but I thought you didn't have any rights or freedoms at the border?

iamthirsty 8y ago

Correct. > According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

testvox 8y ago
Certain rights not being fully applicable != No rights
- iamthirsty 8y ago
  Well the thread is about search & seizure, so you pretty much have no rights in that respect anywhere near the border.
  - rootw0rm 8y ago
    "anywhere near" ~ 60 miles the border patrol checkpoint where San Diego county ends and Riverside county begins is around 60 miles from the border
    - pmiller2 8y ago
      Last I heard, and, according to the article linked up thread from the ACLU, it was 100 miles. Two thirds of Americans, and many entire state populations live within this zone.
      - InitialLastName 8y ago
        Theoretically, though, within that area they need probable cause to believe you either recently crossed the border or committed a crime to search you. We all know how easy PC is to manufacture though.
        jellicle 8y ago
        > need probable cause Not according to the Supreme Court, no.
        MertsA 8y ago
        No he's right, he's not talking about just asking if you're a citizen. Before CBP can search and seize your property they require probable cause. They have plenty of drug dogs available to come up with any "probable cause" necessary.
        jellicle 8y ago
        Sigh. No, he's wrong, and you are too. If you come up to a Border Patrol checkpoint at the border or within 100 miles of the border, the Border Patrol can search your car and all your personal belongings. They can seize anything that appears to be contraband or evidence of a crime. Full stop, end of sentence, no probable cause required. Completely legal for the border guards to tear down EVERY SINGLE CAR that crosses the border (or a checkpoint within 100 miles of the border). If you don't like it blame the Supreme Court: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Border searches in the US have never required probable cause.
        InitialLastName 8y ago
        According to [0]: Border Patrol cannot search the interior of a vehicle without the owner’s consent or “probable cause” (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred). Who's wrong, you or the ACLU? [0]https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/a...
    - jellicle 8y ago
      It's a couple hundred meters from the western border of the USA. Which as a thought experiment shows that the 100 miles is not the real problem; a great deal of hassle can occur even if checks were limited to a single mile from the border.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    The original motion makes a more nuanced argument than this thread gives credit for. In particular, the motion does not claim that border searches in general are unconstitutional. It makes a much finer scoped claim that: without individualized criminal suspicion, the off-site search of an electronic device taken at a border is unconstitutional. No such suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity existed in the case of Ms. Lazoja giving rise to reasonable suspicion to search and seize her property. Consequently, neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms. Lazoja’s property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment. To make this argument, the motion mentions some precedent. Most notably was United States v. Kim (page 12): In Kim, where DHS agents seized a laptop computer at Los Angeles International Airport and later sent it to a laboratory to be copied and searched, the district court found that the lengthy post-seizure retention of a laptop at a second site, outside the airport, “did not possess the characteristics of a border search or other regular inspection procedures,” and that it “more resembled the common nonborder search based on individualized suspicion, which must be prefaced by the usual warrant and probable cause standards.” Id. at 58 (citing United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1976)). The court in Kim questioned whether the seizure and imaging of a laptop at the border “can accurately be characterized as a border search at all.” And furthermore that doing so for a cell-phone is particularly egregious; recent supreme court cases strengthen the argument that if we're going to protect laptops then we certainly need to protect cellphones (page 13): The Supreme Court recently expanded the categorically heightened privacy interests in data located on cell phones, specifically addressing cell phones’ location data. The motion also makes auxiliary arguments about retention and duration: even if the border search was constitutional, shipping the device off to a lab was not constitutional without a warrant. And even if shipping the device to a lab was constitutional, retaining it for so long was not constitutional. And even if retaining the device for so long was constitutional, retaining the data indefinitely is not constitutional. At least, not without warrants.
CoolGuySteve 8y ago
The government asserts this but would it actually stand up to a constitutional challenge by a US citizen? Another question is when a non-citizen officially becomes a "US person" with full constitutional rights. If that person never leaves the 100 mile radius, are they never a US person?
- gnopgnip 8y ago
  These searches are largely conducted on foreign nationals. They do not have a right to enter the US and can be detained, or denied entry if they do not agree to unlock their phone or otherwise cooperate. US citizens cannot ultimately be denied entry. US customers and border can seize property(from US citizens) and later make a determination as to whether it should be returned. Abuse by those in power does happen, but in the vast majority of cases where property is allegedly wrongfully seized there is more to the story than is reported to the press initially.

appleflaxen 8y ago

You do have some rights, but SCOTUS has ruled in the past that the sovereign prerogative of the federal government are "at their apogee" when you are at the border. The feds assert a bullshit 100-mile zone, but that is covers a tremendous swath of the country (and a huge % of citizens), and is untested jurisprudence.

deusofnull 8y ago
Especially since, and correct me if I'm wrong, the oceans count as a border too.
- mikeash 8y ago
  They do. The result is that 2/3rds of the US population lives within this “border zone.” https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  They count the Great Lakes as well, including all of the Michigan lobe of Michigan-Superior. I'm a bit surprised they don't also count everywhere within 100 mi of the doors into the international terminals of every international airport. If you're going to set an arbitrary limit without legislative oversight, why not set it in a way that maximizes your agency's own power? What's magical about 100 miles, anyway? It seems very suspiciously based on a power of ten of a specific unit of measure, and not on any real distance that may be supported by statistics or analysis. I'd say draw the line where you have a 95% certainty that any persons encountered on the border side of it just crossed over. Which is to say that the border patrol would have to stay on the border side of any major highway, and would need to pay attention to where the boats come and go.
Spooky23 8y ago
The 100 mile zone is tied to a nexus with a border crossing. Everyone living within 100 miles of the cost is not subject to some reinterpretation of law.