Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
I will also reassert that they require implied or active consent, just like the searches at the airport relies on implied or active consent. (don't want the search, don't try to enter or leave the country)
You know, I almost brought that up earlier but didn't want to derail the conversation. Consent is one of ways that some have tried to justify border searches over the years. But there are many others. Some have also suggested that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border and that there is an inherent right of the sovereign to control its borders. They're the main ones.
I do not contest that administrative border searches are generally legal, I do contest that THIS border search was legal because it lacked the administrative search protection due to the circumstances
I guess it's pretty much "agree to disagree" time. I thank you for a civil discussion.
By the CBP's
own statements this search was "slightly" unusual and NOT routine.
When the case law talks about "routine" versus "non-routine" searches, they are really talking about the degree of privacy invasion. For example, a body cavity search is certainly non-routine, while a pat-down of the outer clothing is not. This isn't the type of "non-routine" the case law envisioned.
There was no reasonable suspicion in this case nor was there probable cause.
Again...we don't know that. There very well might have been.
I can not think of any administrative search that begins with guns drawn, can you?
Outside of the border search arena? No. But I've seen dozens of border searches that began that way.