kthomas

I've only read the transcripts in a few cases and they were probably the most egregious. Lack of diligence certainly plays its role. But when US citizens who have no connection to Mexico, are swept up in raids, imprisoned, dumped in a border town where they have no resources, refused entry, and finally have to litigate to re-enter the United States-- the latter requiring them to find pro bono counsel, because they are often citizens without resources-- then we would seem to have a chilling problem.

Loren Pechtel

How does that guy handle immigration matters anyway? He wouldn't be arriving at border post most of the time!

Loren Pechtel

I thought they were liable for damages other than inherent in inspection (taking samples for testing etc.)

Howste

At the time I posted this was in the Delta forum, where Kryptonium Medallion is a thing (sort of).

FlyingHoustonian

My cousin is a staff attorney at a big immigration firm in Houston so I asked how common it is for them and he said they get a handful to work each month (and that is just one firm), so I would presume it is more common than most people think.

Always Flyin

All I can do is tell you what the law is on the matter. How it plays out is the fault of the people who don't know or don't stand-up for their rights. In the instance that led to the starting of this thread, we had a whole planeload of people who willingly or ignorantly surrendered their Constitutional rights.

No, if they do not state you are under arrest, you are either free to leave or are being detained and do not have a right to an attorney at that point.

No, I meant exactly what I stated. How they conduct an immigration check within the 100-mile border is their problem. They cannot force you to answer their questions and they cannot detain you unless they can articulate reasonable suspicion that you are in the country unlawfully.

All I read is that that they asked her if she used social media on her phone. She was free to tell them none of their business and was free to leave. Nothing indicated she was being detained, and even then that would not give them the right to search her phone.

Law enforcement is free to ask whatever they want. It is the person's responsibility to know their rights (most don't, and many of those who think they do really don't) and assert them.

FliesWay2Much

I agree with you 1000%. It's almost as if people feel like they are true Americans if they blindly surrender to authority. It's the "If you have nothing to hide" mentality that scares the living daylights out of me.

jphripjah

I saw a video a few months back of a buff, cop-looking actor standing on a street holding a clipboard and stopping and asking people personal questions as they walked by, and people answered. Names, addresses, social security numbers, etc.

The point of the video was that people will answer anything if the person asking looks authoritative.

guflyer

Here is an interesting article on the topic from The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...please/517887/

Section 107

The article lays out the facts of the situation accurately and really covers this well, including much of the subtext and the fact that police do not need to tell you that you do not have to answer (but they do have to state whether you are free to go or not - being detained). There was no abrogation of rights in this situation; it is generally held by courts that one must actively assert one's right(s) in certain situations (4th amend. stops, 5th amend refusal to speak). Police can also lie to you in their investigatory efforts but the converse is not true.

Anyway, CBP was not conducting CBP enforcement actions - they were assisting another agency in ascertaining the location of a person with a valid detainer. This happens regularly between agencies in different jurisdictions.

The timing and optics are less than ideal but there really was nothing illegal here.

Section 107

Not "only" at a border crossing; CBP can conduct suspicionless and warrantless searches at international airports (ports of entry) nowhere near a border.

They may detain as long as reasonably necessary to determine admissibility. What length of time is "reasonable" depends upon the situation. The only way to fight that is after you have been detained for some time. And at that point, they have already won.

The police are under no obligation to communicate you that you do not have to answer; they are obligated to answer your question of whether you are being detained and are free to leave.

That is a truncated explanation of what Terry requires (has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime).

Terry would have been used to defend the CBP's actions in that reasonable cause (the information from ICE about the presence of the wanted person). The search would also have been defended using the administrative search exemption being applied to a very limited population.

The balance of the intrusiveness into an individual's rights against the government's interests is a well established factor of con law. In this situation, see Hiibel (2004). This would also be defended using the balance of the gubmints interest in arresting the fugitive was greater than the actual impact of the abrogation of rights (see my earlier response that showing an ID to get off the plane is no more onerous than having to show that same ID to get on the plane).

The flight manifest and list of pax is mostly immaterial. No fly lists are designed to flag threats to transportation; immigration "crimes" are not threats to transportation and therefore, in and of themselves, would not result in someone being denied boarding. Further, a manifest does not necessarily mean a certain person was or was not on a plane.

petaluma1

They were looking for a particular person, a male, IIRC. Why, therefore, were they stopping females and asking for ID? I don't know the age of the person they were looking for, but if he was 30-40, why were older/younger persons asked to show ID.

rickg523

This.
It was either a pretext or they had no idea who they were looking for.
They weren't looking for anyone.
It was a pretext.

kklems

I'm torn. I generally have to carry ID to fly domestically (I know you can fly without ID but it is alot of hoops to jump through) but it also smacks of government over reaching and violating my rights. I wonder if not complying would lead you to be placed on some kind of (official or unofficial) list that could affect you down the line ie subject to more through tsa checks and pat downs every time you fly, or further questions when at Customs when entering the US, etc. I have no problem believing that some of the TSA/CPB are petty enough to do this.

Always Flyin

What does that have to do with asking for ID after a domestic flight?

At international airports, inspection can only occur prior to entry into the country or just before exit. It does not apply to anyone not flying internationally.

The only way to ever contest police conduct is after the fact.

And what does admissiblity have to do with this fact pattern?

Police get very good at avoiding a direct answer to that question when they want to.

Very truncated and incomplete.

No. Terry does not allow the police to stop a group of people to determine which of them committed a crime. Particularly a plane full of people.

You keep saying that and you continue to be wrong. You do not provide a case with a fact pattern justifying seizing (detaining) a group of people in order to determine if one of them is a suspect.

There is virtually zero chance this would qualify as an administrative search, predominately because it was a seizure and not a search.

That is utter gibberish. You do not get to hold a plane load of passengers to find one suspect when the person being held clearly are not the suspect.

<redacted>.

<redacted>.

The manifest will tell you who actually boarded a plane and what seat they were assigned and is therefore very material. It has nothing to do with the no-fly list.

The advance passenger information sent to DHS does not indicate who actually boarded a plane.

The only way this pasts any muster is by claiming that it was a consensual encounter. The passengers were not aware they could have refused to produce identification and kept walking.

<redacted>