Comment by forward1
2 years ago
This is a common misconception. The 100 mile radius does not waive 4th Amendment protection. A reasonable suspicion of immigration law violation is still required to detain, search and ultimately arrest individuals. To wit: please name a single instance of someone having their rights abused by this so-called "zone".
This article [0] lists several cases of warrantless searches, one of which was in Florida. Apparently that 100 mile radius isn't just from the Canadian border or the Mexican border, it's also 100 miles from any coast, which means that 2/3 of the population lives within that radius.
As far as "reasonable suspicion" goes, I'm increasingly unwilling to support the right of law enforcement to independently, without oversight, determine what is "reasonable".
[0] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/border-patrol-warrant...
Where is the "warrantless search"?
> [CBP officers] demanded proof of citizenship from the passengers
> CBP officers boarded a bus in Bangor, Maine
None of those are searches, they are temporary detentions with strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry. To wit:
> most people have no idea that they can refuse to be searched at a roadblock or bus boarding
Ignorance of the law != warrantless searches. Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
> strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry
I frankly don't care what's legal or not at this point. The surveillance and police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back. If we constantly just accept past precedent as dictating our future, our rights will be chipped away one by one.
I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at any time. Most Americans don't, that's why we still don't have a proper national ID. I consider that to be a warrantless search regardless of what the law currently says.
> Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
I find that most people who pretend to speak for "the Founding Fathers" are extremely ignorant of the actual motivations of these people who lived 200 years ago. I won't pretend to speak for them, but I will note that I strongly suspect that the smugglers and tax evaders who signed the Declaration of Independence would probably not be in favor of the ever-growing police state we have today.
Regardless, what they wanted is immaterial—they set up this country for us, and presumably expected us to lead it after their deaths.
4 replies →
https://radiolab.org/podcast/border-trilogy-part-1
Poor school kiddos. :( Anyway, if you prefer text, click the transcript. I recommend listening though, if you have time!
The format of this podcast is insufferable, like listening to two befuddled people in a retirement home exchange "witty" banter.
I looked it up though. This was 30 years ago. The court issued Border Patrol an injunction and protected students from discimination. A perfect example of the legal system acting justly and prudently, which only supports my argument that unbridled searches within 100 miles of the border is hyperbole only.
Not to get too far off on a tangent here, but I can't agree more. This style of podcast where a simple story is endlessly drawn out with unnecessary audio being inserted, useless details, and constant repetition without getting to the point makes getting any information at all feel like pulling teeth. I've seen it imitated in other podcasts too so the poison is spreading.
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).
In practice, "reasonable suspicion" means "whenever they want."
If 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.
2 replies →
The potential to abuse power is not a reason to disavow it.
1 reply →