Border Patrol points gun and detains scout troop at Canadian Border
Aug 5, 2014, 5:57 pm
#61
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
I think this might be interesting. This is part of the analysis of U.S. v. Guzman-Padilla 573 F.3d 865 (2009) just one of many times border patrol actions were upheld:
The legality of a border search is reviewed de novo. United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir.2006). The border search doctrine is a partial exception to the Fourth Amendment's limitations on searches and seizures. United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616–19, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977). “The primary purpose of a border search is to seize contraband property sought to be brought into the country.” Alfonso, 759 F.2d at 733 (citing Alexander v. United States, 362 F.2d 379, 382(9th Cir.1966)). Accordingly, at least with respect to the Fourth Amendment's suspicion requirements, a routine border search “is by its very nature reasonable.” United States v. Dobson, 781 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir.1986).
Border searches need not occur at an actual border, but may take place at the “functional equivalent” of a border, or at an “extended” border. United States v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625, 628 (9th Cir.1985); see also Almeida–Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1982). Searches conducted at the functional equivalent of a border require no suspicion, provided that they are not “unreasonably intrusive.” United States v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993, 1002–03 (9th Cir.2008). Extended border searches, which “occur after the actual entry has been effected and intrude more on an individual's normal expectation of privacy[,] ... must be justified by ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the subject of the search was involved in criminal *878 activity.” Alfonso, 759 F.2d at 734(citing United States v. Caicedo–Guarnizo, 723 F.2d 1420, 1422–23(9th Cir.1984)); see also United States v. Garcia, 672 F.2d 1349, 1367 (11th Cir.1982). Either type of border search requires that law enforcement possess a “reasonable certainty” that a border has been crossed, either by the vehicle in question, or by contraband suspected to be within the vehicle. See United States v. Sahanaja, 430 F.3d 1049, 1053–54 (9th Cir.2005).
Border searches need not occur at an actual border, but may take place at the “functional equivalent” of a border, or at an “extended” border. United States v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625, 628 (9th Cir.1985); see also Almeida–Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1982). Searches conducted at the functional equivalent of a border require no suspicion, provided that they are not “unreasonably intrusive.” United States v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993, 1002–03 (9th Cir.2008). Extended border searches, which “occur after the actual entry has been effected and intrude more on an individual's normal expectation of privacy[,] ... must be justified by ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the subject of the search was involved in criminal *878 activity.” Alfonso, 759 F.2d at 734(citing United States v. Caicedo–Guarnizo, 723 F.2d 1420, 1422–23(9th Cir.1984)); see also United States v. Garcia, 672 F.2d 1349, 1367 (11th Cir.1982). Either type of border search requires that law enforcement possess a “reasonable certainty” that a border has been crossed, either by the vehicle in question, or by contraband suspected to be within the vehicle. See United States v. Sahanaja, 430 F.3d 1049, 1053–54 (9th Cir.2005).
Aug 5, 2014, 8:48 pm
#62
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 341
I agree that the courts have been fairly solicitous of border searches under the 4th amendment, but I'm not sure how much that can be generalized to other constitutional provisions. Despite what some people might want, the 4th amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and agree or disagree, the courts have said (as in Guzman-Padilla) that it is reasonable to allow border searches with lower levels of suspicion than might be reasonable elsewhere. Other provisions don't have that reasonableness balancing built in, so it's a little harder to completely set aside other protections.
Aug 5, 2014, 8:55 pm
#63
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
I agree that the courts have been fairly solicitous of border searches under the 4th amendment, but I'm not sure how much that can be generalized to other constitutional provisions. Despite what some people might want, the 4th amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and agree or disagree, the courts have said (as in Guzman-Padilla) that it is reasonable to allow border searches with lower levels of suspicion than might be reasonable elsewhere. Other provisions don't have that reasonableness balancing built in, so it's a little harder to completely set aside other protections.
Aug 8, 2014, 3:28 pm
#64
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 288
The 26 Amendments remain in full force anywhere outside the United States? So if I go to a foreign land I can't be searched without a warrant? I can get a speedy trial? The Vice President follows the President in the event of his death? I don't think that's right.
Like I said, I'm just speaking about case law which has given border agents extremely wide latitude at our borders. The way our judges are interpreting the constitution doesn't seem to agree with you.
Like I said, I'm just speaking about case law which has given border agents extremely wide latitude at our borders. The way our judges are interpreting the constitution doesn't seem to agree with you.
Aug 8, 2014, 4:58 pm
#65
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
Yes, anywhere in the world. You cannot be searched without a warrant, and that's been validated by case law. The FBI in some stupid "terror" case tried to argue that evidence it had obtained in Pakistan without a warrant should be admissible because "the 4th Amendment doesn't apply there" and the motion was tossed out. As for Presidential succession, yes, if the President were to die in Pakistan, Algeria, Zimbabwe, on a ship at sea or even in the International Space Station, the Vice President takes over. i know forum rules require us to treat other members with respect, but, with all due respect, your ignorance is troubling.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge, held that:
1 as a matter of first impression, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not govern searches conducted abroad by United States agents and such searches of United States citizens need only satisfy the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness;
2 search of defendant's Nairobi home, when balanced against the manifest need of the government to monitor the activities of al Qaeda, which had been connected to defendant through a year of surveillance, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment;
3 year-long surveillance of defendant's Kenyan telephone lines was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and
4 District Court's ex parte, in camera evaluation of evidence submitted by the government in opposition to defendant's suppression motion was appropriate in light of national security considerations that argued in favor of maintaining the confidentiality of that evidence.
In re TERRORIST BOMBINGS OF U.S. EMBASSIES IN EAST AFRICA 552 F.3d 157 (2008)
All that is required overseas is "reasonableness"
Furthermore, in U.S. v. Stokes the court upheld a conviction based upon Thai investigators telling US investigators they had a valid warrant when they did not. Evidence recovered was ruled admissible. 710 F.Supp.2d 689 (2009). Just as background, this might be of interest:
Generally, Fourth Amendment principles do not apply to searches by foreign authorities in their own countries, even if the targets of the search are American citizens. See United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 490 (9th Cir.1987). An exception occurs, however, when the participation of United States agents in the investigation is so substantial that the action is a joint venture between the United States and foreign officials. Id.; United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.1995).
In Verdugo, the Supreme Court held that only “persons who are part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection” with the United States are entitled to Fourth Amendment protection from U.S. actions abroad. See Verdugo, 494 U.S. at 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056.
Aug 10, 2014, 12:33 pm
#66
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 288
Oh I misunderstood you, I thought you meant vis a vis any country's authority, you mean the US government has to honor my constitutional rights anywhere in the world. My apologies. Though frankly I don't think you needed to insult me just because I misunderstood you. Especially as, it seems caselaw is not as much on your side as you think it is:
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge, held that:
1 as a matter of first impression, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not govern searches conducted abroad by United States agents and such searches of United States citizens need only satisfy the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness;
2 search of defendant's Nairobi home, when balanced against the manifest need of the government to monitor the activities of al Qaeda, which had been connected to defendant through a year of surveillance, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment;
3 year-long surveillance of defendant's Kenyan telephone lines was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and
4 District Court's ex parte, in camera evaluation of evidence submitted by the government in opposition to defendant's suppression motion was appropriate in light of national security considerations that argued in favor of maintaining the confidentiality of that evidence.
In re TERRORIST BOMBINGS OF U.S. EMBASSIES IN EAST AFRICA 552 F.3d 157 (2008)
All that is required overseas is "reasonableness"
Furthermore, in U.S. v. Stokes the court upheld a conviction based upon Thai investigators telling US investigators they had a valid warrant when they did not. Evidence recovered was ruled admissible. 710 F.Supp.2d 689 (2009). Just as background, this might be of interest:
And:
All of that shows your 4th Amendment rights are vastly depleted when you head overseas.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge, held that:
1 as a matter of first impression, the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not govern searches conducted abroad by United States agents and such searches of United States citizens need only satisfy the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness;
2 search of defendant's Nairobi home, when balanced against the manifest need of the government to monitor the activities of al Qaeda, which had been connected to defendant through a year of surveillance, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment;
3 year-long surveillance of defendant's Kenyan telephone lines was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and
4 District Court's ex parte, in camera evaluation of evidence submitted by the government in opposition to defendant's suppression motion was appropriate in light of national security considerations that argued in favor of maintaining the confidentiality of that evidence.
In re TERRORIST BOMBINGS OF U.S. EMBASSIES IN EAST AFRICA 552 F.3d 157 (2008)
All that is required overseas is "reasonableness"
Furthermore, in U.S. v. Stokes the court upheld a conviction based upon Thai investigators telling US investigators they had a valid warrant when they did not. Evidence recovered was ruled admissible. 710 F.Supp.2d 689 (2009). Just as background, this might be of interest:
And:
All of that shows your 4th Amendment rights are vastly depleted when you head overseas.
Aug 10, 2014, 2:16 pm
#67
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
Now you're saying that a single Amendment's provisions are "depleted" outside the United Stes, without acknowledging that this whole thread of discussion started when another poster stated that there is "no law and no constitution outside the United States," and therefore there is no law at the border because "you haven't been admitted yet." You replied to this ludicrous statement by saying "correct," and stating that this is why they do not need a warrant to search you at the border. Now you're trying to pivot to a much more nuanced and informed view without making any acknowledgement of how ridiculous the original statement you endorsed was.
I might add that my brother is an AP Government teacher and he wasn't aware of what a US Citizen's constitutional rights were outside the US. I was wrong, I admit it, and I learned this through research. How many people on the internet do something like that?
Aug 10, 2014, 4:56 pm
#68
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 288
Isn't that a good thing? Someone realizing maybe the way they thought wasn't correct and doing their best to research it and see if they were wrong and someone else was right?
I might add that my brother is an AP Government teacher and he wasn't aware of what a US Citizen's constitutional rights were outside the US. I was wrong, I admit it, and I learned this through research. How many people on the internet do something like that?
I might add that my brother is an AP Government teacher and he wasn't aware of what a US Citizen's constitutional rights were outside the US. I was wrong, I admit it, and I learned this through research. How many people on the internet do something like that?