Originally Posted by
law dawg
There is no expectation of privacy at a checkpoint.
From a right-of-publicity perspective, probably true.
The government can prohibit certain video or photos if they exposure security procedures, otherwise its a public place.
Please cite the law that permits the government to prohibit photography in public.
As for the other, tell me, if you go in and talk to an IRS agent regarding an audit, do fourth or fifth amendment protections attach? The answer is - it depends. If you're being deported, is there a right to an attorney? Is the TSA required to notify you of any rights if they find anything in your luggage? Nope. Only when the LEO shows up are they.
All state actors, including administrative agencies, must comply with the Constitution. Saying otherwise suggests that you don't understand the nature of our Constitutional government. I've explained this here before, but I'll go through it one more time because "law dawg" suggests that you're a LEO and, if so, it's important that you understand.
Ours is a government of limited powers, meaning that, at formation, only those powers expressly ceded to the government are available to it. This is very different from most national governments in that the source of all powers is, usually, "the sovereign" or "the state" who is free to dispense and dispose rights and powers as it chooses. The Bill of Rights is an iteration of those rights that were, specifically, never ceded to the federal government (and, through the 14th Amendment, to the states). When the government, i.e.
any state actor, trespasses on a protected right, it usurps power that it does not have
and acts as a tyrant.
This limitation of power applies to
every state actor, i.e. adminsitrative agencies, as well as LEOs.
The fact is that many Bill of Rights protections only apply where criminal prosecutions are contemplated.
Wrong. The Bill of Rights (which does not grant protections, but restricts government power) applies to every state action.
For an example of this, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza states that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to deportation proceedings. And isn't the exclusionary rule a result of the fourth and fifth amendments?
Right on the exclusionary rule resulting from the 4th and 5th Amendment. Wrong on the rationale of the case. Per the Supremes (and I don't necessarily agree), deportation doesn't implicate any reserved right:
"A deportation proceeding is a purely civil action to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry. . . In many deportation cases the INS must show only identity and alienage; the burden then shifts to the respondent to prove the time, place, and manner of his entry. . .The "body" or identity of a defendant or respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest, even if it is conceded that an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred. . .In short, a deportation hearing is intended to provide a streamlined determination of eligibility to remain in this country, nothing more. The purpose of deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws."