6 ms·

Here's the hidden worst part about this they don't mention. You think border means at the point you cross into another country. That's not what it means. Gove

by ck2 13y ago

Here's the hidden worst part about this they don't mention. You think border means at the point you cross into another country. That's not what it means. Government can now do this behavior a HUNDRED miles inland from a border. You could be just driving across town, to or from work, and they can use this border search law because you are a hundred miles from the border. Oh and the border also includes the ocean, doesn't have to be another country. https://d320ze5h7gg57a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/webroot/privacy/spying/cfz_map/Image-Map.gif https://d320ze5h7gg57a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/we... 100% of NY, NJ, Florida and half of Texas is subject to these searches as their state is blanketed by the hundred mile limit. edited to correct hundred instead of hundreds, bad memory

rosser 13y ago
The "Constitution-Free Zone" extends 100 miles from the border or coast, not "HUNDREDS". I find it as abhorrent as you do, but there's no need to exaggerate or FUD. https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-libert...
maqr 13y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, but how do you know that's what this means? I would think the ACLU would be all over that and would have at least mentioned it in the press release.
- ck2 13y ago
  It means the fake "checkpoints" that already exist in certain states like Texas that are a hundred miles inland, are completely legitimized. There was a guy who was almost beaten to death at one of them for refusing to comply, there is a youtube video somewhere of it. News like this is buried just like all the gun deaths every week in Chicago, it never makes national news for some reason I don't quite understand.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The only videos I've seen are of people refusing to comply and being waved through. In one of those videos, the driver was asked for proof of citizenship, and spent 4 minutes attempting to demand proof of citizenship from the agent before they finally waved him through. It's pretty great. Also: be careful that we're talking about the same thing. There are CBP searches that protect border integrity and search for contraband, and then there are ICE checkpoints that aim to catch illegal immigrants. In practice, ICE's authority is nothing like CBP's: CBP's is much more potent, and CBP is what this article is talking about.
    - stephenbez 13y ago
      This video shows a pastor being beaten and tased by border patrol after not answering their questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duSiAwGzU9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duSiAwGzU9c http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/17/20090417borderbeating0417-ON.html http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/17/20090417bo...
      - tptacek 13y ago
        CBP attempted to have this guy charged as a result of this incident. A judge dismissed all those charges with prejudice, in part because CBP couldn't show that the search was legal. He's now a plaintiff in a civil suit, where that dismissal will presumably be damning evidence. Additional wrinkle in this case: a dog authorized the search.
rayiner 13y ago
This is total misinformation: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-in-america http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constituti....
- _red 13y ago
  Print out your blog post and go driving around in southern TX / NM. When you are stopped, show them your blog post.
- thesis 13y ago
  Jump on highway 77 in Texas coming from Houston to South Padre... you will be stopped. Pretty sure they take pictures of license plates, dogs sniff cars, and they ask for your identification. It's basically a check point. The line to get through it can take a while and some vehicles are heavily searched. I've never had that opportunity fortunately.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Have you ever seen the videos of the people refusing to comply with these checkpoints? For CBP to search you under the aegis of border security, you must have recently crossed the actual US border. The law doesn't require CBP searches to occur at the actual border; for instance, there may be so many possible crossing points at e.g. the Canadian border that, logistically, search only makes sense at some chokepoint 20-30 miles from the border. But they can't search people at random. The CRS says so, and, 30 years before that, so did SCOTUS.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- iisbum 13y ago
  Traveling home from upstate NY, I've been stopped (having never left the USA) at a border patrol checkpoint well inside NY, we were within 100 miles of Canada. They didn't ask to check my laptop or anything, but did want ID etc. Can't talk to the legality of it all but they do exist.
tptacek 13y ago
That's not true. The USG tried to make this case in the 70s and was rejected at SCOTUS. I believe the confusion here is between the notion of a 100 mile wide Constitution-free stripe of the country (which does not exist) and the presence of specific, preordained customs checkpoints fixed within 100 miles of a border (which do). From 'rayiner's post, here's the 3-part test suggested by CRS: * You have to recently have crossed the actual border * "an agent should know that the object of a search hasn’t changed" * Reasonable suspicion must exist The first bullet here torpedoes the idea of a "100 mile wide Constitution free zone". But: that's also just CRS's interpretation; CRS is simply a Congressionally-funded think-tank. Without digging up the SCOTUS cite, I'll suggest that the judicial branch restrictions on these searches are even more severe. One way to think of the "100 mile" concept is that the USG probably has the authority to put a border control check that would have applied to someone crossing the border anyways as many as 100 miles from the border, rather than at the border itself.
- rpedroso 13y ago
  I did some research and found this 1973 SCOTUS case that matches your description: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774... Here is the key quote, taken from section 273: But the search of the petitioner's automobile by a roving patrol, on a California road that lies at all points at least 20 miles north of the Mexican border,[5] was of a wholly different sort. In the absence of probable cause or consent, that search violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment right to be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures." Edit: Reading through the decision, sections (pages?) 280-285 briefly summarize some of the conditions under which warrantless searches are permissible. This is very interesting reading, thanks for the heads up!
- ck2 13y ago
  Here's someone who was stopped and (refused) search at an far inland checkpoint who had not "crossed the actual border". http://www.youtube.com/embed/WVMZUgmrJrk http://www.youtube.com/embed/WVMZUgmrJrk Ended very badly for them. Very badly. So cite all the SCOTUS you want, police are doing whatever the hell they want in that 100 mile zone including false triggers by dogs that are proven wrong most of the time.

by ck2 13y ago

rosser 13y ago

The "Constitution-Free Zone" extends 100 miles from the border or coast, not "HUNDREDS". I find it as abhorrent as you do, but there's no need to exaggerate or FUD. https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-libert...

maqr 13y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, but how do you know that's what this means? I would think the ACLU would be all over that and would have at least mentioned it in the press release.

ck2 13y ago
It means the fake "checkpoints" that already exist in certain states like Texas that are a hundred miles inland, are completely legitimized. There was a guy who was almost beaten to death at one of them for refusing to comply, there is a youtube video somewhere of it. News like this is buried just like all the gun deaths every week in Chicago, it never makes national news for some reason I don't quite understand.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The only videos I've seen are of people refusing to comply and being waved through. In one of those videos, the driver was asked for proof of citizenship, and spent 4 minutes attempting to demand proof of citizenship from the agent before they finally waved him through. It's pretty great. Also: be careful that we're talking about the same thing. There are CBP searches that protect border integrity and search for contraband, and then there are ICE checkpoints that aim to catch illegal immigrants. In practice, ICE's authority is nothing like CBP's: CBP's is much more potent, and CBP is what this article is talking about.
  - stephenbez 13y ago
    This video shows a pastor being beaten and tased by border patrol after not answering their questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duSiAwGzU9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duSiAwGzU9c http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/17/20090417borderbeating0417-ON.html http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/17/20090417bo...
    - tptacek 13y ago
      CBP attempted to have this guy charged as a result of this incident. A judge dismissed all those charges with prejudice, in part because CBP couldn't show that the search was legal. He's now a plaintiff in a civil suit, where that dismissal will presumably be damning evidence. Additional wrinkle in this case: a dog authorized the search.

rayiner 13y ago

This is total misinformation: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-in-america http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constituti....

_red 13y ago
Print out your blog post and go driving around in southern TX / NM. When you are stopped, show them your blog post.
thesis 13y ago
Jump on highway 77 in Texas coming from Houston to South Padre... you will be stopped. Pretty sure they take pictures of license plates, dogs sniff cars, and they ask for your identification. It's basically a check point. The line to get through it can take a while and some vehicles are heavily searched. I've never had that opportunity fortunately.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Have you ever seen the videos of the people refusing to comply with these checkpoints? For CBP to search you under the aegis of border security, you must have recently crossed the actual US border. The law doesn't require CBP searches to occur at the actual border; for instance, there may be so many possible crossing points at e.g. the Canadian border that, logistically, search only makes sense at some chokepoint 20-30 miles from the border. But they can't search people at random. The CRS says so, and, 30 years before that, so did SCOTUS.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
iisbum 13y ago
Traveling home from upstate NY, I've been stopped (having never left the USA) at a border patrol checkpoint well inside NY, we were within 100 miles of Canada. They didn't ask to check my laptop or anything, but did want ID etc. Can't talk to the legality of it all but they do exist.

tptacek 13y ago

That's not true. The USG tried to make this case in the 70s and was rejected at SCOTUS. I believe the confusion here is between the notion of a 100 mile wide Constitution-free stripe of the country (which does not exist) and the presence of specific, preordained customs checkpoints fixed within 100 miles of a border (which do). From 'rayiner's post, here's the 3-part test suggested by CRS: * You have to recently have crossed the actual border * "an agent should know that the object of a search hasn’t changed" * Reasonable suspicion must exist The first bullet here torpedoes the idea of a "100 mile wide Constitution free zone". But: that's also just CRS's interpretation; CRS is simply a Congressionally-funded think-tank. Without digging up the SCOTUS cite, I'll suggest that the judicial branch restrictions on these searches are even more severe. One way to think of the "100 mile" concept is that the USG probably has the authority to put a border control check that would have applied to someone crossing the border anyways as many as 100 miles from the border, rather than at the border itself.

rpedroso 13y ago
I did some research and found this 1973 SCOTUS case that matches your description: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774... Here is the key quote, taken from section 273: But the search of the petitioner's automobile by a roving patrol, on a California road that lies at all points at least 20 miles north of the Mexican border,[5] was of a wholly different sort. In the absence of probable cause or consent, that search violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment right to be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures." Edit: Reading through the decision, sections (pages?) 280-285 briefly summarize some of the conditions under which warrantless searches are permissible. This is very interesting reading, thanks for the heads up!
ck2 13y ago
Here's someone who was stopped and (refused) search at an far inland checkpoint who had not "crossed the actual border". http://www.youtube.com/embed/WVMZUgmrJrk http://www.youtube.com/embed/WVMZUgmrJrk Ended very badly for them. Very badly. So cite all the SCOTUS you want, police are doing whatever the hell they want in that 100 mile zone including false triggers by dogs that are proven wrong most of the time.