3 ms·

Great news. How does this affect the 100 mile border zone? Technically, if one is within 100 miles of the border, the federal government asserts certain rights

Great news. How does this affect the 100 mile border zone? Technically, if one is within 100 miles of the border, the federal government asserts certain rights to conduct warrantless stops and searches. See: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone I find this sort of federal government overreach absurd. I hope this ruling affects this as well.

tptacek 3y ago
There is no such zone. That page is misleading. There is SCOTUS case law back to the 1970s establishing that a border search must have a nexus to an actual border crossing; you can't simply search anybody within some distance of a border.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  Sort of? A lot was said about EGBERT v. BOULE, initially that it allowed CBP to simply search any home within 100 miles of the border. There was then a big pushback, that it didn't actually allow this but simply limited folks options to sue in these scenarios which is different from allowing it. This was not a simple case of trying to sue for some damages, like breaking a door down or technically violating rights by entering without permission: > When Egbert entered the inn without a warrant to investigate a guest staying there, Boule stepped between the guest and the agent and asked the agent to leave. > Egbert then threw Boule to the ground, injuring him. After Boule exercised his First Amendment right to file a complaint and administrative claim with Egbert’s supervisor, the agent retaliated against him by prompting multiple unfounded investigations into Boule. In a sane world CBP agent Erik Egbert would be in prison but he wasn't even fired. The supreme court saying they're not technically condoning the behavior but denying the plaintiff any ability to sue seems like a distinction without a difference to me!
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Please advise CBP of this, because that particular part of the executive branch (and the DoJ) have a more maximalist take on the issue, notwithstanding the tenuous legal foundations on which which their claims rest. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/pslr/vol124/iss2/3/ https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/pslr/vol124/iss2/3/
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I'm reading this now and already you run into the issue of it claiming that Chicago would fall within this supposed extended border zone, despite not being anywhere close to 100 miles from 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, per 8 CFR 287 (this is an analysis I've shoplifted from 'jcranmer). That said: the rotating CBP checkpoints around places like Tucson are, as this article observes, probably unlawful! You've got Almeida-Sanchez that says straight out that warrantless evidence collected from intrusive searches far from the border without any reasonable belief of a recent border crossing are inadmissible, and then you're left to figure out how to deal with the harassing impact of these checkpoints on locals. I'm not here to stick up for CBP. I've had only bad experiences with them. But also, I don't live within a 100 mile "Constitution-free zone", no matter what ACLU may claim. Start on page 404 of this to see it basically reciting the same argument I'm making.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Per page 399 'Although Chicago is well beyond the 100-mile limit for CBP activity, the entire city (and 100 miles southward into Illinois) are all subject to extended Border Patrol enforcement authority and the “border search exception” because Chicago is adjacent to Lake Michigan, which is considered an “external boundary.”' I don't think the ACLU is claiming the 100 mile zone exists de jure but rather that CBP and successive executive branches rely on a specious claim, it's extremely hard to sue them, and so the 100 mile zone is a de facto reality. You can of course tell a CBP agent to get bent and that you'll fight it in court, but (assuming you're driving) you'll probably stop if waved down. I agree with your legal analysis, but absent a court or executive order explicitly stating the CBP has no such authority, they act as if they do. It is this reality which the ACLU is describing, howbeit shallowly.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        Right, and I'm observing that 'jcranmer went and looked at the statutory definition of "external boundary" and it conclusively does not not include Lake Michigan; I even cited the statute for you. :) A reminder here that Lake Michigan is entirely bounded by the United States. I think it's as internal as the Great Salt Lake.
- toofy 3y ago
  i’d have to go back and double check my facts here, but i seem to remember border patrol agents going after protesters in Portland during the George Floyd protests and something to do with Portland being within this 100 mile zone. again, i’d have to go back and double check this. edit: unfortunately i’m at work and due at a meeting so i can’t deepdive, but here’s a couple of links expanding on agents, Portland, and the 100 mile zone (the latimes is an oped but it links to more info): https://www.cato.org/blog/portland-paramilitarization-border-patrol https://www.cato.org/blog/portland-paramilitarization-border... https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-07-22/border-patrol-portland-protests-trump https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-07-22/border-patr...
  - tptacek 3y ago
    President Trump certainly shouldn't have deputized CBP tactical teams to do internal law enforcement tasks inside cities, but it's worth pointing out that CBP's authority to conduct routine law enforcement under the same authority as, say, a local police officer is a much grayer area than this "100 mile Constitution free zone" stuff. CBP shouldn't be grabbing rioters or protesters or activists off the street at all, obviously, but if they're doing it based on the same probable cause a local police officer would be using for the same stop, they're not implicating the border search exception.
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  I was being unclear. If a New Yorker flies in from, say, London, goes through customs, etc.. returns home to their Manhattan apt, a nexus has been established.

tptacek 3y ago

There is no such zone. That page is misleading. There is SCOTUS case law back to the 1970s establishing that a border search must have a nexus to an actual border crossing; you can't simply search anybody within some distance of a border.

tehwebguy 3y ago
Sort of? A lot was said about EGBERT v. BOULE, initially that it allowed CBP to simply search any home within 100 miles of the border. There was then a big pushback, that it didn't actually allow this but simply limited folks options to sue in these scenarios which is different from allowing it. This was not a simple case of trying to sue for some damages, like breaking a door down or technically violating rights by entering without permission: > When Egbert entered the inn without a warrant to investigate a guest staying there, Boule stepped between the guest and the agent and asked the agent to leave. > Egbert then threw Boule to the ground, injuring him. After Boule exercised his First Amendment right to file a complaint and administrative claim with Egbert’s supervisor, the agent retaliated against him by prompting multiple unfounded investigations into Boule. In a sane world CBP agent Erik Egbert would be in prison but he wasn't even fired. The supreme court saying they're not technically condoning the behavior but denying the plaintiff any ability to sue seems like a distinction without a difference to me!
anigbrowl 3y ago
Please advise CBP of this, because that particular part of the executive branch (and the DoJ) have a more maximalist take on the issue, notwithstanding the tenuous legal foundations on which which their claims rest. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/pslr/vol124/iss2/3/ https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/pslr/vol124/iss2/3/
- tptacek 3y ago
  I'm reading this now and already you run into the issue of it claiming that Chicago would fall within this supposed extended border zone, despite not being anywhere close to 100 miles from 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, per 8 CFR 287 (this is an analysis I've shoplifted from 'jcranmer). That said: the rotating CBP checkpoints around places like Tucson are, as this article observes, probably unlawful! You've got Almeida-Sanchez that says straight out that warrantless evidence collected from intrusive searches far from the border without any reasonable belief of a recent border crossing are inadmissible, and then you're left to figure out how to deal with the harassing impact of these checkpoints on locals. I'm not here to stick up for CBP. I've had only bad experiences with them. But also, I don't live within a 100 mile "Constitution-free zone", no matter what ACLU may claim. Start on page 404 of this to see it basically reciting the same argument I'm making.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Per page 399 'Although Chicago is well beyond the 100-mile limit for CBP activity, the entire city (and 100 miles southward into Illinois) are all subject to extended Border Patrol enforcement authority and the “border search exception” because Chicago is adjacent to Lake Michigan, which is considered an “external boundary.”' I don't think the ACLU is claiming the 100 mile zone exists de jure but rather that CBP and successive executive branches rely on a specious claim, it's extremely hard to sue them, and so the 100 mile zone is a de facto reality. You can of course tell a CBP agent to get bent and that you'll fight it in court, but (assuming you're driving) you'll probably stop if waved down. I agree with your legal analysis, but absent a court or executive order explicitly stating the CBP has no such authority, they act as if they do. It is this reality which the ACLU is describing, howbeit shallowly.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Right, and I'm observing that 'jcranmer went and looked at the statutory definition of "external boundary" and it conclusively does not not include Lake Michigan; I even cited the statute for you. :) A reminder here that Lake Michigan is entirely bounded by the United States. I think it's as internal as the Great Salt Lake.
toofy 3y ago
i’d have to go back and double check my facts here, but i seem to remember border patrol agents going after protesters in Portland during the George Floyd protests and something to do with Portland being within this 100 mile zone. again, i’d have to go back and double check this. edit: unfortunately i’m at work and due at a meeting so i can’t deepdive, but here’s a couple of links expanding on agents, Portland, and the 100 mile zone (the latimes is an oped but it links to more info): https://www.cato.org/blog/portland-paramilitarization-border-patrol https://www.cato.org/blog/portland-paramilitarization-border... https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-07-22/border-patrol-portland-protests-trump https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-07-22/border-patr...
- tptacek 3y ago
  President Trump certainly shouldn't have deputized CBP tactical teams to do internal law enforcement tasks inside cities, but it's worth pointing out that CBP's authority to conduct routine law enforcement under the same authority as, say, a local police officer is a much grayer area than this "100 mile Constitution free zone" stuff. CBP shouldn't be grabbing rioters or protesters or activists off the street at all, obviously, but if they're doing it based on the same probable cause a local police officer would be using for the same stop, they're not implicating the border search exception.
BenFranklin100 3y ago
I was being unclear. If a New Yorker flies in from, say, London, goes through customs, etc.. returns home to their Manhattan apt, a nexus has been established.