3 ms·
Not sure why down voted. Even the quoted article states: > Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without “reasonable suspicion” of an immigratio
by ddalex 3y ago
Not sure why down voted. Even the quoted article states:
> Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without “reasonable suspicion” of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a “hunch”). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or “probable cause” (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
- JohnFen 3y agoIn practice, "reasonable suspicion" means "whenever they want."
- forward1 3y agoThe potential to abuse power is not a reason to disavow it.
- Hizonner 3y agoYes, yes it is.
- ddalex 3y agoIf you're taking this view, any armed forces can do whatever they want and the constitution is just a piece of paper. In practice, the evidence gathered by unlawful searches is going to be discarded in a court of law. Other wise said, there is no carving in penal law for "100 miles " from the border.
- JohnFen 3y ago> If you're taking this view, any armed forces can do whatever they want and the constitution is just a piece of paper I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. > In practice, the evidence gathered by unlawful searches is going to be discarded in a court of law Yes, of course. What I'm talking about is the threshold for when evidence is considered "unlawful". The "reasonable suspicion" threshold is intentionally an extremely low bar. Low enough that it's barely a meaningful threshold. In practice, it's incredible easy for any officer to make up some articulable suspicion for pretty much anything.
- quesera 3y ago> evidence gathered by unlawful searches is going to be discarded in a court of law Maybe. Probably? But this isn't always the critical question. Sometimes, "You May Beat the Rap, But You Can't Beat The Ride" is the problem.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]