5 ms·
I am not making a judgement on if this was good or bad, either way, as we do not have all the facts (especially as the border patrol declined to comment, so we
by merlincorey 7y ago
I am not making a judgement on if this was good or bad, either way, as we do not have all the facts (especially as the border patrol declined to comment, so we only have one side).
On the other hand, I think the headline and the tone of the article definitely want me to judge this as "bad" on the part of the border patrol.
Indeed, I strongly believe in personal privacy and due process.
However, there is a fact buried in the article that makes this a non-routine pickup indeed:
"""He was asked for his identification in order to pay the small duty fee for his daughter’s gifts, and only then realized that he’d left his wallet at home. When he explained this, that he’d made an honest mistake and wanted only to pay the routine duty owed and depart, he was told that in fact he wasn’t permitted to leave."""
So again, I agree in general that the privacy protections afforded to U.S. citizens are very important; but, I am not so surprised after reading this that things went sideways.
It seems to me, many government agencies and employees are used to things going a certain way, and as soon as something unexpected happens, they clamp down and things can get a lot more serious.
A few years ago I was flying domestically between two states, and the fancy bomb detection thing flagged me. Of course, I wasn't carrying anything remotely explosive. Nonetheless, I was taken to a back room with a supervisor and two regular homeland security agents. I was told this time they would search my bag and scan me again. If it came back negative, I would be free to go. If it came back positive, they would conduct a strip search. Thankfully, it came back negative.
I nearly missed my flight, it was incredibly terrifying in the moment, but I didn't feel like my rights were violated. According to the agents, the most likely cause was that I had used hand sanitizer prior to getting in the security line.
Back to the article -- personally, I'm very interested in the results of the court proceedings, but unclear how to keep track of them.
- magashna 7y agoWhat I found more interesting from other comments on this thread is that you don't have to be crossing a border, just within 100 miles of one, to be harassed in a way that would seem unconstitutional. The "65% of the population" living in this border zone area really struck me as a serious overreach. If you live in nearly every major US city you're susceptible to what OP went through it seems.
- LocalH 7y agoOne of these days I expect to hear CBP say "we need more than 100 miles radius of authority, so now it's 200 miles". If we're not careful, CBP will end up with 100% coverage of their supposed "authority".
- munk-a 7y agoI have never lived in an area where I would have guaranteed access to my constitutional rights, most people (65% IIRC?) are in the same boat.
- rootusrootus 7y agoFWIW, that's actually a little overplayed. I'm a staunch ACLU supporter, but they kinda went too far with the "constitution-free zone" bit. DHS has never claimed any such authority, they just say they can do warrantless searches at the actual border and it's "functional equivalent" which is not the 100 mile zone, but rather the areas of international airports and such where people first step on US soil and are effectively crossing the border. In the 100 mile zone, they definitely have to have a defensible "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity before they can stop & search someone. Edit: Ha! The truth, as ever, ain't too popular.
- magashna 7y agohttps://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p... This article mentions an instance where they colluded with local LE to harass citizens near a marijuana festival. Also deportable arrests are abysmally low, whereas their drug related arrests are absurdly high. It really sounds like they're a branch of DEA.
- leggomylibro 7y agoYeah, the TSA can be rigid like that. They did the same thing to my octogenarian grandmother (we think her hair spray caused it), and now she refuses to fly.
- pwinnski 7y agoThe point is that Americans are not legally required to produce identification within American border so long as they're not driving. They're required to honestly answer authorities when asked their name, but that's it. This guy wasn't traveling, and therefore had zero legal requirement to produce ID.
- merlincorey 7y ago> The point is that Americans are not legally required to produce identification within American border so long as they're not driving. They're required to honestly answer authorities when asked their name, but that's it. By your own metric, he required ID, because he drove to the border patrol station.
- djsumdog 7y agoTo pick up a package from customs, not to travel through the border. He also might not have been driving the car, and there was not way for customs to know.
- merlincorey 7y ago> To pick up a package from customs Which he knew he needed his ID for, because he had done so many times before. The point I am making is simply that it is not so surprising to me that when things go outside of the normal process, things may go sideways when dealing with potentially hostile government agents.
- pwinnski 7y agoAll Americans should be very sad that "potentially hostile government agents" is a reasonable assumption.
- pwinnski 7y agoThere were three people in the car. Only one needs a license.