CBP ID Checks of Passengers Arriving on Domestic Flights
#31
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,498
In a purely consensual stop, yes, you can refuse and the refusal cannot be used as reasonable suspicion.
For detention (Terry stop), most states do not require one to provide identity but almost half the states do require one to provide identity or more. To make it more confusing and worse, some states do not require it but localities may (looking at you, Virginia!)
For an arrest - yes, you must.
This situation would probably be defended as both a detention (Terry stop, reasonable suspicion) and an administrative search (suspicionless, warrantless search). Identity can be required during an administrative search.
I believe that not only would any court would rule such a search was legal under either doctrine and rule that the actual intrusion - merely providing identity - was so minimally intrusive as to be no intrusion at all. Furthermore, it would rule that if identity can be required to get on the plane, it is silly to think it would be a hardship for it to be required to get off the plane.
Even though this incident happened at a port of entry where the CBP necessarily has jurisdiction, I believe that issue would be rendered a non-issue because the officer was performing a different function (ICE) rather than a CBP function; the airport police or another LE agency could have also assisted ICE in this way as they regularly do.
To correct some misinformation in someone else's earlier post: Reasonable suspicion, (articulable, specific and individualized facts) is (generally) required to detain. But not always (administrative searches with or without discretion).
Probable cause is not necessary for a detention. Probable cause is necessary to arrest. Arrest (indeterminate time period) is not the same detention (a brief period).
While refusal is generally not sufficient to establish probable cause (but see above about jurisdictions that require providing identity), refusal can be justification for extending a detention until identity is established. In practical terms, that could be hours and hours......
Last edited by Section 107; Feb 23, 2017 at 5:53 pm
#32
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Radisson Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 3,620
1. If a particular passenger fit the description of the subject they were searching for, that would give them reasonable suspicion to detain that person. I reject the notion that they had reasonable suspicion that each and every passenger, male and female, black, white, and other, was the person they were looking for.
2. I don't know what you mean when you say ID can be required in an administrative search when someone is not suspected of committing a crime. Can you provide a cite to that, I'd like to learn more.
CBP's own press release on the matter says that the agents merely "requested" ID, not that they detained all the passengers and required/demanded ID.
2. I don't know what you mean when you say ID can be required in an administrative search when someone is not suspected of committing a crime. Can you provide a cite to that, I'd like to learn more.
CBP's own press release on the matter says that the agents merely "requested" ID, not that they detained all the passengers and required/demanded ID.
#33
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HKY
Programs: DL-DM MM & RW, UAL- PS, Marriott Lifetime PLT, SPG-PLT, Hilton-Gold
Posts: 4,468
I have heard ignorant officers say "You have no consitutional rights at the border."
This is contrary to the law and contrary to CBP's training of its officers. It's well settled that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches applies everywhere. However, courts have ruled that searches of your belongings at the border without a warrant and without probable cause are reasonable under the 4th Amendment.
Other types of searches by CBP at borders, like pat downs, strip searches, stomach x-rays, cavity searches, etc. require suspicion supported by articulable facts, or in some cases either consent or a court order, otherwise they violate the 4th Amendment.
This is contrary to the law and contrary to CBP's training of its officers. It's well settled that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches applies everywhere. However, courts have ruled that searches of your belongings at the border without a warrant and without probable cause are reasonable under the 4th Amendment.
Other types of searches by CBP at borders, like pat downs, strip searches, stomach x-rays, cavity searches, etc. require suspicion supported by articulable facts, or in some cases either consent or a court order, otherwise they violate the 4th Amendment.
Last edited by TWA884; Feb 24, 2017 at 8:58 am Reason: FT Rule 12.1
#34
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Radisson Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 3,620
If the constituion didn't appky and CBP officers could do anything they wanted, that decision would have been about one sentence long.
I have personally been in airport secondary inspection seven times. I have refused ti answer questions on 5 of those occasions. Yes, the officers may raise their voices and make threats, but they can't make you answer, and as a US citizen they have to let you enter whether you answer or not. I've never been held for more than three hours, notwithstanding their claims of "You have to answer" and "We'll keep you here until you answer."
If every US citizen simply refused to answer CBP questions, they'd stop asking us these questions pretty quickly because they don't have the time or resources to send everyone to secondary to try to sweat us out.
Last edited by TWA884; Feb 24, 2017 at 8:59 am Reason: Conform quoted post to moderator's edit
#35
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,876
So you're saying they know as much as every bank, insurance company, and credit rating agency?
#36
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 579
Here is a great article on the topic from Rolling Stone.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-right...order-zone-map
"Asked to clarify CBP's authority over domestic passengers, the spokesman replied that "at this time this is all I have."
Rolling Stone asked CBP to clarify whether the CBP document search was truly a "request" – or instead a legally binding demand by the agents. The spokesman again could not clarify CBP's legal authority, warning only, "It is always best to cooperate with law enforcement, so as to expedite your exiting the airport in a timely manner.""
Also of interest: "Rolling Stone asked the New York Civil Liberties Union for its understanding of the law in this incident. NYCLU Staff Attorney Jordan Wells writes that "CBP does not have carte blanche to refuse to let people off a domestic flight until they show ID." His advice: "While one may choose to produce identity documents to avoid further hassle, it is important to remember that in the United States people have a constitutionally protected right to remain silent.""
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-right...order-zone-map
"Asked to clarify CBP's authority over domestic passengers, the spokesman replied that "at this time this is all I have."
Rolling Stone asked CBP to clarify whether the CBP document search was truly a "request" – or instead a legally binding demand by the agents. The spokesman again could not clarify CBP's legal authority, warning only, "It is always best to cooperate with law enforcement, so as to expedite your exiting the airport in a timely manner.""
Also of interest: "Rolling Stone asked the New York Civil Liberties Union for its understanding of the law in this incident. NYCLU Staff Attorney Jordan Wells writes that "CBP does not have carte blanche to refuse to let people off a domestic flight until they show ID." His advice: "While one may choose to produce identity documents to avoid further hassle, it is important to remember that in the United States people have a constitutionally protected right to remain silent.""
Last edited by guflyer; Feb 23, 2017 at 11:29 pm Reason: Additional point of interest added
#37
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: LA
Programs: AA Plat Pro, SPG/Marriott Titanium, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,191
#38
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Radisson Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 3,620
CBP is often deliberately vague about this sort of stuff because they don't want people to know they have a right to refuse to answer questions, refuse to enter phone passwords, refuse to show ID away from the border, etc
CBP's entire process of "inspecting" US citizens returning to the country only "works" because 99.5% of US citizens answer their questions, and many of those citizens answer because they think they are required to, or they are afraid of what will happen if they don't.
If people knew they didn't have to comply, more people would refuse, and CBP wouldn't have the manpower to detain/hassle/intimidate all of them, and they would have to just stop asking Americans intrusive questions.
CBP officers can search your belongings without your consent. You have no right to refuse that. You don't have to answer questions. I always offer to answer any questions regarding my citizenship, where I was born, etc.
They can absolutely delay you for a few hours, because as of now, almost everyone answers, so they have time to retaliate against the few who don't. I usually get delayed 1-2 hours myself.
CBP's entire process of "inspecting" US citizens returning to the country only "works" because 99.5% of US citizens answer their questions, and many of those citizens answer because they think they are required to, or they are afraid of what will happen if they don't.
If people knew they didn't have to comply, more people would refuse, and CBP wouldn't have the manpower to detain/hassle/intimidate all of them, and they would have to just stop asking Americans intrusive questions.
They can absolutely delay you for a few hours, because as of now, almost everyone answers, so they have time to retaliate against the few who don't. I usually get delayed 1-2 hours myself.
Last edited by essxjay; Feb 26, 2017 at 1:16 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
#39
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: LGA
Programs: Double Unobtainium, Grace L. Ferguson Airline & Storm Door Co.
Posts: 154
I think you may have copied the wrong link; were you thinking of this one?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...irport-w468643
I remain unconvinced of CBP's jurisdiction or authority here, even if they were asked for help by another agency. This was a domestic flight, even if it did land within the 100-mile border zone claimed by CBP for giving them extra powers. These passengers were not crossing a border, nor were they seeking to enter the United States. They were attempting to get off an airplane.
So a law enforcement agency of the US government is urging passengers -- innocent people moving about a free country and not crossing a border -- to comply with their requests to avoid (illegal) detention.
I am no lawyer, but I'm not sure that this would meet the Terry stop requirement for individualized, articulable, reasonable suspicion. (In New York State, the ID law is a stop-and-identify law requiring a Terry stop, though I don't know how that governs federal LEOs. Also, New York law, under People v. De Bour, outlines four escalating tiers of intrusiveness in police encounters, the first two of which are suspicionless or require "founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" but do not allow the officer to detain a suspect...that requires the reasonable suspicion of a Terry stop.)
I am a little disappointed that apparently no one on the flight told them to pound sand, as it would be interesting to see what would happen next.
TSA, through its screening and administrative searches, has already determined to their satisfaction that everyone on that airplane isn't on a no-fly list, does not have WEI, and has presented identification matching the name on their ticket.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...irport-w468643
"Asked to clarify CBP's authority over domestic passengers, the spokesman replied that "at this time this is all I have."
Rolling Stone asked CBP to clarify whether the CBP document search was truly a "request" – or instead a legally binding demand by the agents. The spokesman again could not clarify CBP's legal authority, warning only, "It is always best to cooperate with law enforcement, so as to expedite your exiting the airport in a timely manner.""
I am no lawyer, but I'm not sure that this would meet the Terry stop requirement for individualized, articulable, reasonable suspicion. (In New York State, the ID law is a stop-and-identify law requiring a Terry stop, though I don't know how that governs federal LEOs. Also, New York law, under People v. De Bour, outlines four escalating tiers of intrusiveness in police encounters, the first two of which are suspicionless or require "founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" but do not allow the officer to detain a suspect...that requires the reasonable suspicion of a Terry stop.)
I am a little disappointed that apparently no one on the flight told them to pound sand, as it would be interesting to see what would happen next.
TSA, through its screening and administrative searches, has already determined to their satisfaction that everyone on that airplane isn't on a no-fly list, does not have WEI, and has presented identification matching the name on their ticket.
#40
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,498
CBP definitely has authority here. They were conducting a search for a fugitive based on reasonable suspicion (information from ICE). The search could just as easily have been conducted by the local airport police agency. (Jurisdictions have laws that probable cause exists and a police agency may arrest an individual when a police agency in another jurisdiction provides information that a valid warrant exists.)
This search would be defended on several levels - the first of which would be that it was a consensual stop.
The search would also be allowed both under Terry (reasonable suspicion) and under the exceptions allowed for suspicionless searches for special populations.
Further, Courts would rule the search allowable because the government's interest in arresting the fugitive outweighed the level of intrusiveness (merely producing ID). The Court would especially point out that the intrusion (producing identification that was needed to get on the plane in the first place) was so minimal as to be negligible.
TSA only matches names on ID to names on BPs to allow an individual to enter the screening checkpoint; TSA does not check to ensure the person who passed through the checkpoint actually got on the flight indicated on the BP presented to the TDC.
This search would be defended on several levels - the first of which would be that it was a consensual stop.
The search would also be allowed both under Terry (reasonable suspicion) and under the exceptions allowed for suspicionless searches for special populations.
Further, Courts would rule the search allowable because the government's interest in arresting the fugitive outweighed the level of intrusiveness (merely producing ID). The Court would especially point out that the intrusion (producing identification that was needed to get on the plane in the first place) was so minimal as to be negligible.
TSA only matches names on ID to names on BPs to allow an individual to enter the screening checkpoint; TSA does not check to ensure the person who passed through the checkpoint actually got on the flight indicated on the BP presented to the TDC.
#41
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,741
They can absolutely delay you for a few hours, because as of now, almost everyone answers, so they have time to retaliate against the few who don't. I usually get delayed 1-2 hours myself.
CBP definitely has authority here. They were conducting a search for a fugitive based on reasonable suspicion (information from ICE). The search could just as easily have been conducted by the local airport police agency. (Jurisdictions have laws that probable cause exists and a police agency may arrest an individual when a police agency in another jurisdiction provides information that a valid warrant exists.)
This search would be defended on several levels - the first of which would be that it was a consensual stop.
The search would also be allowed both under Terry (reasonable suspicion) and under the exceptions allowed for suspicionless searches for special populations.
Further, Courts would rule the search allowable because the government's interest in arresting the fugitive outweighed the level of intrusiveness (merely producing ID). The Court would especially point out that the intrusion (producing identification that was needed to get on the plane in the first place) was so minimal as to be negligible.
TSA only matches names on ID to names on BPs to allow an individual to enter the screening checkpoint; TSA does not check to ensure the person who passed through the checkpoint actually got on the flight indicated on the BP presented to the TDC.
#42
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 245
Also, as a citizen flying domestically, I frequently carry no proof of identification beyond a non-RealID driver's license. How could I establish my citizenship to the satisfaction of the officers?
#43
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,741
Is there any reason to think they were seeking an actual, specific, fugitive as opposed to using this as a pretext to examine documents?
Also, as a citizen flying domestically, I frequently carry no proof of identification beyond a non-RealID driver's license. How could I establish my citizenship to the satisfaction of the officers?
Also, as a citizen flying domestically, I frequently carry no proof of identification beyond a non-RealID driver's license. How could I establish my citizenship to the satisfaction of the officers?
They were looking for a particular person and wanted everyone to prove they were not that person.
#44
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 245
If that were true, why did they bother screening people who were obviously not race/gender matches? And why do all of the reports say that they asked for "documents" or "papers" rather than ID?
#45
Join Date: May 2015
Location: South Florida
Programs: DL Skymiles KE Skypass
Posts: 2,361
I was hearing of multiple searches like this at MIA on Friday morning on different airlines' domestic arrivals. Many people mentioned this to our CSR's as they waited for their shuttles, especially to the cruise ports and a few barely made their cut-off to board the cruise ships.
Quick question: Isn't the reason State issued ID's/DL's now require proof of citizenship before being issued and if you are a foreigner on a visa, the ID/DL expires on, or shortly before the visa expires?
Quick question: Isn't the reason State issued ID's/DL's now require proof of citizenship before being issued and if you are a foreigner on a visa, the ID/DL expires on, or shortly before the visa expires?