Conceivably, if a CBP interrogation led to a criminal trial, the answers could not be introduced into court. However, until then there is no constitutional violation.
CBP interrogations of passengers have lead to criminal prosecution trials, and passengers answers used in the trials.
__________________
Like TSA, DL SkyMiles management treats airline customers as if they are the enemy or sheep to be fleeced and it shows.
Surely the big giveaway in this whole debate is that the agency the officers work for is Customs & Border Protection. While the information they ask might not be useful to deny a citizen entry (which is impossible), it is essential to decide whether you and your belongings need further searching to make sure you are not carrying anything you should including drugs, dutiable products, quarantine risk material, weapons, etc.
Sure, you may not have to answer but it is unreasonable not to given that while you have a free right to cross the border, your goods and property don't.
This has been an interesting thread. 2 days ago I entered the US through a quiet border post in eastern Montana. I was driving down from Alaska where I am resident to visit family on the east coast. The CBP officer began to question me about many things that I felt extended beyond reason. I have been doing contracting in Afghanistan and Iraq and so my passport has stamps from these countries (along with many non- conflict countries). He asked me at the beginning what I was doing over there. I told him. He asked again, and then for more detail. I was compliant and friendly. He then asked me what my current job was, where I was going in the lower 48, how long I was staying, where I was staying that night, what I was going to be doing while I was there, twice where I lived in AK, and then again at the end what I was doing previously overseas.
I remained friendly and answered all his questions. Please note that when I returned from Afghanistan one month ago I had already cleared immigration from that trip. My current trip (transiting through Canada to go from my state to another state) was irrelevant to what I had been doing for work overseas.
I am a US citizen going to the US. I am clean cut, well spoken, and in my early 40's. If they are into profiling I do not fit the bill.
I'm sorry, but I felt this was completely inappropriate questioning. I have experienced what I felt was too much questioning at our airport entries before (although only once became snippy as the guy was a real D Bag), but never to this level.
At this point I am so sick of CBP that in the future i will refuse to answer questions that are not relevant to establishing my citizenship or residency. They shoot themselves in the foot and are their own worst enemy, making law abiding citizens feel like enemies. They clearly are very limited in their abilities to use their brains and apply logic and reason to their job duties. And certainly have received no training on how to be respectful to the citizens whose tax dollars pay their dad gum salaries.
The unfortunate thing is that we citizens have no recourse. If we speak out, they will just attempt to cause us inconvenience, as many here have experienced. It's disgusting really.
Sorry for the rant, but googling the legal limitations of CBP led me to this site, and at least it's comforting to see I'm not the only one picked on at the borders of my own country!
I'll be honest, I like to watch the wheels turn in their head when I answer their questions.
Recent experience:
Immigration officer: Where were you before coming here?
Me: Since I left the U.S.? Ummm, Canada, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Scotland, England, Czech Republic, France, Morocco, and Kazakhstan.
Immigration officer: *raises eyebrow at mention of Kazakhstan* flips through passport and finds my Germany work/resident visa What kind of work do you do?
Me: I tell him what I do
Immigration officer: And you can't do that here?
Me: Nope.
Immigration officer: So was Kazakhstan for work?
Me: No. Vacation. I notice the officer's eyebrows move into a puzzled look. He then flips through the passport again and finds my Kazah visa.
Immigration officer: How long were you there?
Me: Two weeks.
Immigration officer: Where did you go?
Me: Almaty, Aralsk, Aral Sea, Semey, Semi Test Site, Atomic Lake, Astana.
Immigration Officer: That puzzled look again. You didn't bring anything radioactive back, did you?
Me: Well, I wore these shoes to Atomic Lake and the Semi Test Site but I'm pretty sure they're fine.
Immigration Officer: <pause> OK. Have a nice visit.
And he didn't even make me go through customs. Good thing too.
The 5th (right to remain silent) says that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself in a criminal case. If you are, your answers cannot be used in court. Conceivably, if a CBP interrogation led to a criminal trial, the answers could not be introduced into court. However, until then there is no constitutional violation.
The courts don't agree with your interpretation of the 5th. They've held that a person cannot be compelled to give testamentary information to any government actor unless they are assured that the information cannot be used in court (e.g., a grant of immunity).
The courts don't agree with your interpretation of the 5th. They've held that a person cannot be compelled to give testamentary information to any government actor unless they are assured that the information cannot be used in court (e.g., a grant of immunity).
That is true, but if the government violates this rule, your only remedy is to have the evidence withheld from your trial. For example, a police officer cannot compel you to answer questions without a grant of immunity, but should he inadvertently (or even intentionally) do so, all you can really do is make sure the jury does not hear your answers.
That is true, but if the government violates this rule, your only remedy is to have the evidence withheld from your trial. For example, a police officer cannot compel you to answer questions without a grant of immunity, but should he inadvertently (or even intentionally) do so, all you can really do is make sure the jury does not hear your answers.
No, that's false. If you're in a position where the government is compelling you to answer questions, you can seek an injunction (or somebody can do so on your behalf) to prevent the government from continuing to do so. And then you have Bivens Actions where you can sue the Federal employee.
We had a participant of this forum who was an attorney and ran into a situation where he refused to answer a question asked by CBP (in that case because it was privileged, but the same rule applies) and they were threatening to not permit him into the country (this was pre-clearance in Canada). The attorney was in the process of getting his office to seek an injunction when CBP changed their mind about the requirement to answer.
A CITIZEN crosssing the border into the US must provide a local address, unless participating in the Global Entry program.
A NON-CITIZEN (Dutch, Mexican or Canadian) crosssing the border into the US must provide a local address, unless participating in the Global Entry program.
I guess that throws out the idea that this information is actually required or even used!
Why must a US citizen provide a local address? Just because the CBP form says so, at question 4?
Question 7 already provides the information about residence.
As for public health reasons, what is the consequence if I decline to cooperate? Some sort of quarantine period? And, assuming I could be held for a reasonable quarantine period, could I be held even longer than that, as a punishment?
No, that's false. If you're in a position where the government is compelling you to answer questions, you can seek an injunction (or somebody can do so on your behalf) to prevent the government from continuing to do so.
In theory that option is available, but it really isn't practical to "seek an injunction" from a judge while you are standing in front of the podium being questioned by a CBP officer. The questioning would probably be over long before a judge gets around to hearing your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
And then you have Bivens Actions where you can sue the Federal employee.
I hadn't heard of that... it looks like an interesting option, but you would be suing the CBP officers themselves, not the government, and you would have to prove that they acted outside the scope of their official duties. As long as they were acting within their duties, they would have official immunity and you would have to sue the government under FTCA instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
We had a participant of this forum who was an attorney and ran into a situation where he refused to answer a question asked by CBP (in that case because it was privileged, but the same rule applies) and they were threatening to not permit him into the country (this was pre-clearance in Canada). The attorney was in the process of getting his office to seek an injunction when CBP changed their mind about the requirement to answer.
That makes sense, since someone who runs a law office and is prepared to sue the government is obviously not a terrorist.
I would be interested in reading this report. Can you provide a link?
He asked me at the beginning what I was doing over there. I told him. He asked again, and then for more detail. I was compliant and friendly. He then asked me what my current job was, where I was going in the lower 48, how long I was staying, where I was staying that night, what I was going to be doing while I was there, twice where I lived in AK, and then again at the end what I was doing previously overseas.
Welcome to FT.
It seems obvious to me that this questioning had nothing to do with determining your eligibility for admission (you had a valid US passport) or with determining if you were carrying items that were contraband that would be an issue for Customs. What it was is a fishing expedition from an agent at a usually quiet road crossing hoping to make a Big Catch (TM).
Quote:
They shoot themselves in the foot and are their own worst enemy, making law abiding citizens feel like enemies.
Totally agree. Law enforcement as a whole, not just CBP, frequently seems to either not understand or not care about the negative consequences of treating law abiding citizens poorly.
I personally have had no negative encounters with the police, but just reading the details of the Cheye Calvo case, the Brett Darrow (James Kuehnlein) case, Anthony Graber case, etc., tell me all I need to know about the mentality of most law enforcement officers and their management. Management inevitably starts with trying to cover up what happened, and even those officers that don't participate in these sorts of abuses refuse to publicly condemn their colleagues that do.
They can and they will. I usually bring in $0-$100 of goods, but I have been threatened with spending the night in the airport by CBP with nothing but a carryon holding two changes of clothes.
The real worry is if you have a pc or other electronic device (phone, pad, usb stick, etc) because then they can really have fun. If you're lucky it will still be in working condition when they return it to you sometime in the next 6-12 months. There have been cases of longer retention period, but these were usually porn or business espionage related.
