5 ms·

65% of the US population, 200 million Americans, live within the 100-Mile "Constitution-Free Zone". Supreme Court has established that some established consti

by nabla9 11mo ago

65% of the US population, 200 million Americans, live within the 100-Mile "Constitution-Free Zone". Supreme Court has established that some established constitutional provisions do not apply at the U.S. border, and protections against governmental privacy incursions are significantly reduced. The border search exception applies within 100 miles (160 km) of the border of the United States, including borders with Mexico and Canada but also coastlines.

1121redblackgo 11mo ago
What is the rationale for 100 miles? Curious if anyone knows, or if its an arbitrary number a lawmaker decided?
- nabla9 11mo ago
  The 1946 statute gave CBP the authority to stop and search all vehicles within a “reasonable distance”. CBP defined the reasonable to be 100 miles and it stuck. It's just federal regulation interpreting the law and courts have blessed it.
- dboreham 11mo ago
  Supreme Court rulings it seems. This is the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357# But it only says "any reasonable distance". SCOTUS appears to have come up with the 100 mile limit in various cases over time.
tptacek 11mo ago
This is mostly a canard, kept alive by fundraising pages at ACLU, but contradicted directly by current pages on the ACLU's site. It feels useful on a message board to call out things like this, but it actually hurts people in the US, who deserve to know that they do not surrender their 4th Amendment rights simply by dint of living within 100 miles of Lake Erie. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041697 (There's a really good Penn State law review article on that thread).
- nabla9 11mo ago
  > (really good Penn State law review article on that thread) Yes, and what it says is this: >The Supreme Court has decided that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border, holding that the government’s interest in monitoring and controlling entrants outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. Thus, routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion are considered inherently reasonable and automatically justified in that particular context.32 Fourth Amendment rights are therefore significantly circumscribed at the border, and CBP is given an expansive authority to randomly—and without suspicion—search, seize, and detain individuals and property at border crossings that law enforcement officers would not have in other circumstances. The constitution free, means that constitutional rights are reduced within the area.
  - tptacek 11mo ago
    The whole article is about what at the border actually means.
    - pdabbadabba 11mo ago
      I reread that old thread, and then skimmed the Penn State article (a bit quickly, I admit). I gotta say: I think you're overstating your case here. Certainly, the author of that article is skeptical about the 100-mile zone and makes plenty of good (and, IMO, obvious) points about why it is constitutionally suspect. But, to read your comments, you'd think that some important court somewhere has actually placed meaningful limits on immigration enforcement within that zone (outside the context of an actual border crossing). If so, I don't see where you're getting that. If that's actually in the article, could you tell us where? To be fair, though, I think it is also true that the ACLU is too eager to talk about the "Constitution-Free Zone" as though it is fact. I also agree that people should not simply accept that the Constitution-Free Zone exists. It is definitely not that simple and what would otherwise be 4th Amendment violations should absolutely still be challenged even if they occur within the zone. There is still every opportunity for more good law on this.
      - 11mo ago
wbxp99 11mo ago
>While the U.S. Border Patrol primarily operates within 100 miles of the border, it is legally allowed “to operate anywhere in the United States,” the agency added.
- tptacek 11mo ago
  The Border Patrol probably is allowed to operate anywhere within the United States, but being in the Border Patrol doesn't (at least statutorily) give them any magic powers; in particular, you don't get "border search authority" by being a part of CBP, but rather by being any law enforcement officer confronting someone who you reasonably believe crossed the border recently.
codethief 11mo ago
…and including international airports (and thus all major cities) if I'm informed correctly.
jl6 11mo ago
“Constitution-Free Zone” Now there’s a trumped-up charge.
np- 11mo ago
Border Patrol is doing an operation in Charlotte, NC right now. That is well over 100 miles from any border or coast. So 100 miles itself is fiction, they can just do whatever they want. Who’s gonna stop them?
- closeparen 11mo ago
  International airports count.
sys_64738 11mo ago
We need all these exceptions to the constitution to get a hard reset. SCOTUS has failed to uphold the constitution.
- dragonwriter 11mo ago
  It is not an exception to the Constitution, it's a decision about what “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment means. Note that the default (but not universal) equirement to get a warrant for a search or seizure (and the imputation that for many warrantless instances of either, probable cause is still required) is also such an interpretation; the text of the Amendment doesn’t say either of those things, but they have been inferred by the Supreme Court to be generally the case from the juxtaposition of the reasonableness requirement for searches and seizures and the probable cause requirement for warrants. While the Bill of Rights (and protections in later amendments) is sometimes treated like a bit of divine revelation, much of it is intentionally (to kick the can down the road on resolving disputes at the time) imprecisely worded, heavily compromised, legislative enactment by imperfect legislators, with sentences that are disjoint and where any meaningful application requires reading connections into the the text that aren’t explicit, as well as devising concrete operationalizations for vague terms like “unreasonable” or “due process”.
stronglikedan 11mo ago
This is FUD. Others have already pointed out why.
tempodox 11mo ago
Isn’t every international airport also a border?

by nabla9 11mo ago

1121redblackgo 11mo ago

What is the rationale for 100 miles? Curious if anyone knows, or if its an arbitrary number a lawmaker decided?

nabla9 11mo ago
The 1946 statute gave CBP the authority to stop and search all vehicles within a “reasonable distance”. CBP defined the reasonable to be 100 miles and it stuck. It's just federal regulation interpreting the law and courts have blessed it.
dboreham 11mo ago
Supreme Court rulings it seems. This is the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357# But it only says "any reasonable distance". SCOTUS appears to have come up with the 100 mile limit in various cases over time.

tptacek 11mo ago

This is mostly a canard, kept alive by fundraising pages at ACLU, but contradicted directly by current pages on the ACLU's site. It feels useful on a message board to call out things like this, but it actually hurts people in the US, who deserve to know that they do not surrender their 4th Amendment rights simply by dint of living within 100 miles of Lake Erie. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041697 (There's a really good Penn State law review article on that thread).

nabla9 11mo ago
> (really good Penn State law review article on that thread) Yes, and what it says is this: >The Supreme Court has decided that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border, holding that the government’s interest in monitoring and controlling entrants outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. Thus, routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion are considered inherently reasonable and automatically justified in that particular context.32 Fourth Amendment rights are therefore significantly circumscribed at the border, and CBP is given an expansive authority to randomly—and without suspicion—search, seize, and detain individuals and property at border crossings that law enforcement officers would not have in other circumstances. The constitution free, means that constitutional rights are reduced within the area.
- tptacek 11mo ago
  The whole article is about what at the border actually means.
  - pdabbadabba 11mo ago
    I reread that old thread, and then skimmed the Penn State article (a bit quickly, I admit). I gotta say: I think you're overstating your case here. Certainly, the author of that article is skeptical about the 100-mile zone and makes plenty of good (and, IMO, obvious) points about why it is constitutionally suspect. But, to read your comments, you'd think that some important court somewhere has actually placed meaningful limits on immigration enforcement within that zone (outside the context of an actual border crossing). If so, I don't see where you're getting that. If that's actually in the article, could you tell us where? To be fair, though, I think it is also true that the ACLU is too eager to talk about the "Constitution-Free Zone" as though it is fact. I also agree that people should not simply accept that the Constitution-Free Zone exists. It is definitely not that simple and what would otherwise be 4th Amendment violations should absolutely still be challenged even if they occur within the zone. There is still every opportunity for more good law on this.
    - 11mo ago

wbxp99 11mo ago

>While the U.S. Border Patrol primarily operates within 100 miles of the border, it is legally allowed “to operate anywhere in the United States,” the agency added.

tptacek 11mo ago
The Border Patrol probably is allowed to operate anywhere within the United States, but being in the Border Patrol doesn't (at least statutorily) give them any magic powers; in particular, you don't get "border search authority" by being a part of CBP, but rather by being any law enforcement officer confronting someone who you reasonably believe crossed the border recently.

codethief 11mo ago

…and including international airports (and thus all major cities) if I'm informed correctly.

jl6 11mo ago

“Constitution-Free Zone” Now there’s a trumped-up charge.

np- 11mo ago

Border Patrol is doing an operation in Charlotte, NC right now. That is well over 100 miles from any border or coast. So 100 miles itself is fiction, they can just do whatever they want. Who’s gonna stop them?

closeparen 11mo ago
International airports count.

sys_64738 11mo ago

We need all these exceptions to the constitution to get a hard reset. SCOTUS has failed to uphold the constitution.

dragonwriter 11mo ago
It is not an exception to the Constitution, it's a decision about what “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment means. Note that the default (but not universal) equirement to get a warrant for a search or seizure (and the imputation that for many warrantless instances of either, probable cause is still required) is also such an interpretation; the text of the Amendment doesn’t say either of those things, but they have been inferred by the Supreme Court to be generally the case from the juxtaposition of the reasonableness requirement for searches and seizures and the probable cause requirement for warrants. While the Bill of Rights (and protections in later amendments) is sometimes treated like a bit of divine revelation, much of it is intentionally (to kick the can down the road on resolving disputes at the time) imprecisely worded, heavily compromised, legislative enactment by imperfect legislators, with sentences that are disjoint and where any meaningful application requires reading connections into the the text that aren’t explicit, as well as devising concrete operationalizations for vague terms like “unreasonable” or “due process”.

stronglikedan 11mo ago

This is FUD. Others have already pointed out why.

tempodox 11mo ago

Isn’t every international airport also a border?