4 ms·

The page you linked says that they need probable cause to search any property within the zone. That's different from when actually crossing a border, in which c

by Zak 3y ago

The page you linked says that they need probable cause to search any property within the zone. That's different from when actually crossing a border, in which case property is generally subject to search without suspicion.

dylan604 3y ago
probable cause is whatever they say it is, so that's really not much of a show stopper. the only way you can prove it is not proper probable cause is through a lengthy (aka expensive) court battle after the fact.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Going to court is the only way you can prove any legal wrongdoing made by anyone about anything.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    sure, but leaning on probable cause to prevent the LEOs from doing something to you in the moment is not a sound practice. it will always be retrospective, and not everyone can afford to avail themselves of the legal remedy. the LEOs know this and behave accordingly
  - Matl 3y ago
    Except 'probable cause' means that the search was in 'good faith' which is my understanding basically makes the officers involved practically immune, (even if you're awarded damages say), and at the very least makes it more likely to happen by them knowing they're off the hook either way.
- Zak 3y ago
  This is no worse (or better) than any other law enforcement agency. What was being suggested is that there's a 100 mile border zone in which CBP may legally conduct searches without probable cause like they can at a border crossing; that's not the case. The thing they can do that I find problematic is stop all traffic at a checkpoint and ask immigration-related questions without any suspicion whatsoever. This is conceptually similar to a DUI checkpoint, and I think the courts are wrong to allow either in the USA because they constitute a detention not based on reasonable, individualized suspicion of a crime.
- refurb 3y ago
  That's not different than walking anywhere in the US. If police claim they have probably cause, then they can search you. The border is irrelevant.
  - bumby 3y ago
    A major difference is that federal agents cannot be charged the same for wrongdoing. I believe they are unable to be charged in a civil court.
    - refurb 3y ago
      But charging a police officer who does an inadmissible search is not really a common remedy. What happens is the search is tossed out in court, which you have the option of federally or state.
      - bumby 3y ago
        It’s common enough to have a cottage industry of lawyers who specialize in it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
kelnos 3y ago
Sure, and I bet "probable cause" can boil down to nothing more than "I thought I smelled marijuana" if the particular CBP officer decides that's what they want to do. And from what I've read elsewhere, CBP leadership seems entirely uninterested in retraining or disciplining agents who go too far.

by Zak 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago

probable cause is whatever they say it is, so that's really not much of a show stopper. the only way you can prove it is not proper probable cause is through a lengthy (aka expensive) court battle after the fact.

kube-system 3y ago
Going to court is the only way you can prove any legal wrongdoing made by anyone about anything.
- dylan604 3y ago
  sure, but leaning on probable cause to prevent the LEOs from doing something to you in the moment is not a sound practice. it will always be retrospective, and not everyone can afford to avail themselves of the legal remedy. the LEOs know this and behave accordingly
- Matl 3y ago
  Except 'probable cause' means that the search was in 'good faith' which is my understanding basically makes the officers involved practically immune, (even if you're awarded damages say), and at the very least makes it more likely to happen by them knowing they're off the hook either way.
Zak 3y ago
This is no worse (or better) than any other law enforcement agency. What was being suggested is that there's a 100 mile border zone in which CBP may legally conduct searches without probable cause like they can at a border crossing; that's not the case. The thing they can do that I find problematic is stop all traffic at a checkpoint and ask immigration-related questions without any suspicion whatsoever. This is conceptually similar to a DUI checkpoint, and I think the courts are wrong to allow either in the USA because they constitute a detention not based on reasonable, individualized suspicion of a crime.
refurb 3y ago
That's not different than walking anywhere in the US. If police claim they have probably cause, then they can search you. The border is irrelevant.
- bumby 3y ago
  A major difference is that federal agents cannot be charged the same for wrongdoing. I believe they are unable to be charged in a civil court.
  - refurb 3y ago
    But charging a police officer who does an inadmissible search is not really a common remedy. What happens is the search is tossed out in court, which you have the option of federally or state.
    - bumby 3y ago
      It’s common enough to have a cottage industry of lawyers who specialize in it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

kelnos 3y ago

Sure, and I bet "probable cause" can boil down to nothing more than "I thought I smelled marijuana" if the particular CBP officer decides that's what they want to do. And from what I've read elsewhere, CBP leadership seems entirely uninterested in retraining or disciplining agents who go too far.