4 ms·

I wonder if this will have an affect on the 100 mile border zone (constitution free zone) One can hope: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-m

I wonder if this will have an affect on the 100 mile border zone (constitution free zone) One can hope: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-b...

PopeOfNope 11y ago
I grew up near the Canadian border. When I left for SV 7 years ago, you never saw border patrol outside of the border crossings. When I came back last year, I saw their patrol cars roll by every couple of days. That may not sound like a lot, but I live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. I see them more than I see the local cops. I also heard they put surveillance cameras and licence plate readers all over Massena[0]. There's nothing there. College kids roll through it all the time to go to Cornwall to drink. That's about it. [0]: http://www.newzjunky.com/news/0601massena_cameras.htm http://www.newzjunky.com/news/0601massena_cameras.htm
tptacek 11y ago
There is no 100-mile border zone. That's a marketing creation of the ACLU. This question was put to the Supreme Court in the 1970s, and the Supreme Court unequivocally held otherwise. The nexus with reality of that "100 mile" figure is that it represents the limit of the distance at which the USG can establish a permanent checkpoint --- at which CBP is allowed only to stop people who have actually crossed the border. Some DHS person misspoke when describing that process, and ACLU picked it up as "the USG believes it has border search rights for anyone living within 100 miles of the border". Which is a farcical position.
- splat 11y ago
  > The nexus with reality of that "100 mile" figure is that it represents the limit of the distance at which the USG can establish a permanent checkpoint --- at which CBP is allowed only to stop people who have actually crossed the border. That's not been true in my experience. I've done some traveling in the southwest and have been regularly stopped at these checkpoints. They are on U.S. highways far from the border and they stop everybody, not people actually crossing the border or who have recently crossed the border. Now, it is true that their search powers are more limited at these checkpoints than at the border, but they do have the power to stop everyone who passes through. (Whether or not they have the power to question you doesn't seem to be settled, but to try to exercise your right to remain silent is a risky endeavor. Some civil libertarians who have tried to exercise this right have ended up in the hospital.) Which court case are you referring to?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I should say first: I have zero doubts that CBP, immigration, DHS --- whatever --- are pushing way past the bounds of what's lawfully allowed by the border search exception. Have you been forcibly searched at any of those checkpoints? There is a popular series of Youtube videos of drivers refusing to comply at some of these checkpoints.
    - eyeareque 11y ago
      Link to said youtube series?
      - awor 11y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8U4Qn6iIIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8U4Qn6iIIg
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    They have the power to stop everyone in order to find out whether they have recently crossed the border. That's what a checkpoint is: everyone stops and answers a question or two. What they do not have the power to do is conduct a warrantless search in the absence of any evidence that the person has actually crossed the border on that particular trip.
    - neonfreon 11y ago
      Sure they do - if they have probable cause otherwise. The last few times I went through these checkpoints (in Texas) they ran dogs around my truck looking for probable cause. Whether or not you've crossed the border recently seems like fairly ineffective criteria. Are you sure that's the case? Where did you see that?
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Stopping cars and then walking drug dogs to generate cause for a search is no longer constitutional.

PopeOfNope 11y ago

I grew up near the Canadian border. When I left for SV 7 years ago, you never saw border patrol outside of the border crossings. When I came back last year, I saw their patrol cars roll by every couple of days. That may not sound like a lot, but I live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. I see them more than I see the local cops. I also heard they put surveillance cameras and licence plate readers all over Massena[0]. There's nothing there. College kids roll through it all the time to go to Cornwall to drink. That's about it. [0]: http://www.newzjunky.com/news/0601massena_cameras.htm http://www.newzjunky.com/news/0601massena_cameras.htm

tptacek 11y ago

There is no 100-mile border zone. That's a marketing creation of the ACLU. This question was put to the Supreme Court in the 1970s, and the Supreme Court unequivocally held otherwise. The nexus with reality of that "100 mile" figure is that it represents the limit of the distance at which the USG can establish a permanent checkpoint --- at which CBP is allowed only to stop people who have actually crossed the border. Some DHS person misspoke when describing that process, and ACLU picked it up as "the USG believes it has border search rights for anyone living within 100 miles of the border". Which is a farcical position.

splat 11y ago
> The nexus with reality of that "100 mile" figure is that it represents the limit of the distance at which the USG can establish a permanent checkpoint --- at which CBP is allowed only to stop people who have actually crossed the border. That's not been true in my experience. I've done some traveling in the southwest and have been regularly stopped at these checkpoints. They are on U.S. highways far from the border and they stop everybody, not people actually crossing the border or who have recently crossed the border. Now, it is true that their search powers are more limited at these checkpoints than at the border, but they do have the power to stop everyone who passes through. (Whether or not they have the power to question you doesn't seem to be settled, but to try to exercise your right to remain silent is a risky endeavor. Some civil libertarians who have tried to exercise this right have ended up in the hospital.) Which court case are you referring to?
- tptacek 11y ago
  I should say first: I have zero doubts that CBP, immigration, DHS --- whatever --- are pushing way past the bounds of what's lawfully allowed by the border search exception. Have you been forcibly searched at any of those checkpoints? There is a popular series of Youtube videos of drivers refusing to comply at some of these checkpoints.
  - eyeareque 11y ago
    Link to said youtube series?
    - awor 11y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8U4Qn6iIIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8U4Qn6iIIg
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  They have the power to stop everyone in order to find out whether they have recently crossed the border. That's what a checkpoint is: everyone stops and answers a question or two. What they do not have the power to do is conduct a warrantless search in the absence of any evidence that the person has actually crossed the border on that particular trip.
  - neonfreon 11y ago
    Sure they do - if they have probable cause otherwise. The last few times I went through these checkpoints (in Texas) they ran dogs around my truck looking for probable cause. Whether or not you've crossed the border recently seems like fairly ineffective criteria. Are you sure that's the case? Where did you see that?
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Stopping cars and then walking drug dogs to generate cause for a search is no longer constitutional.