Beltway2A

The real-ID compliant ones are. Usually something to the effect of being invalid for federal purposes. There are still a lot of states who have failed to comply with Real ID though.

jfunk138

At this point, it should be clear to everyone that the "real" push for "Real-ID" is to make these random checkpoints even more effective. "Oh I see your ID doesn't have the special real id markings: you are either a pain in the neck libertarian or here illegally, please step out of the vehicle"

Loren Pechtel

To where, though? She holds no other citizenship.

VelvetJones

If you think this in anyway should be legal when the context is a bus on a city street then you need to go back day one of law school and start over.

Edit: Ok, I want to edit this as I've cooled down and my reply did sound a little harsh. I should clarify that the CBP still needs probably cause, or at least suspicion, to detain someone away from the border. As others have posted, a US citizens is not required to carry any ID, let alone a passport. So if you speak fluent English and say "I don't have ID, too bad" then said CBP better have a darn good excuse for detaining you unless they enjoy a long and drawn out ride through the court system. But even this is a not a clear cut case. For example, my wife is originally from Asian and though she has been here for 25 years and a citizens for 15 years, she still has an accent. Unlike a green card holder, she is under no obligation to carry "papers". So here you have what most lawyers would call a "sticky situation", thanks to our black robed morons. As a US citizens you are free to travel without restriction and without documentation, but you may well raise reasonable suspicion if you happen to encounter an CBP who thinks they're about to catch the next Bin Laden.

kyanar

I walked into a Citibank branch in San Francisco and opened a bank account with nothing more than a New Zealand passport and an Australian Driver's License. Not a single piece of US documentation whatsoever (not even a US Immigration Visa). They asked if I'd like a credit card with that. From what you're saying, I could then pass myself off as a legal US resident even if I were to overstay my visa simply because I have a bank account and credit card?

Loren Pechtel

Exactly. Adults whose English is accented and well below their intelligence are pretty obviously foreign born but that says nothing about their current status. My wife is like yours--Asian born, long term citizen. She's also a non-driver (eyesight isn't up to it) and a non-smoker so she has little need of ID. She also doesn't like carrying things--her ID normally resides in my stuff. That means if she's out without me she probably doesn't have any ID on her.

Katamarino

This must have been a long time ago. When I moved to the US in 2012 I needed to provide a SSN, copy of my visa, and a bunch of other stuff to get a bank account. This was in PA though; <deleted by moderator>.

cbn42

Absolutely true. This search was completely constitutional, because no one was required to provide ID. When law enforcement randomly approaches you and asks you questions, it is usually seen as a casual conversation, not a legal demand.

My guess is that this lady slipped up and said something indicating that she was not in the country legally. That gave them probable cause to arrest her. If she had simply said "I am Jane Roe, and I decline to answer any further questions", they would not have been able to arrest her. Refusal to provide ID, refusal to answer questions, having a foreign accent, and so on, are not probable cause that a crime has been committed.

CBP cannot just "question" someone's status. Like any other law enforcement, they have to have probable cause to arrest you.

​​​​​​​
Almost everyone who gets arrested by CBP or ICE accidentally says something to indicate they are not in the country legally. Law enforcement officers are trained on how to get people talking, and how to get them to admit to a crime. Seemingly innocent questions like "did you grow up around here?" can be very effective.

This is why you do NOT talk to police, whether they are your local municipal cops, or federal agents. Unless you are driving, going through an actual border, or carrying a firearm, you do not have to show ID. State your name and address if asked, and then (politely, of course) decline to continue the conversation.

Boggie Dog

Isn't that exactly what happens at the inland checkpoints CBP has setup along some interstate highways? That sure is my recollection.

FliesWay2Much

That is the court-legislated legal purpose. I think the words are something like "brief stop to determine citizenship status." This does not include running the drug dog around your car during this "brief stop" but they do it anyway because nobody has the fortitude or the Constitutional ethics to tell them to stop.

Boggie Dog

Two thoughts. Would running the dog around the car taint any evidenced if the dog alerted during one of these stops and are the rules different in the 100 mile zone compared to one of the checkpoints?

FliesWay2Much

Apparently not, because the CBP website is full of these kinds of "big catches". I'm all for drug interdiction but I care about our constitution and rule of law a heck of a lot more.

TWA884

Such searches and seizures are illegal if bringing and using the dogs prolongs the detention beyond the time reasonably necessary to determine citizenship or legal status. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015)

cbn42

Without reasonable suspicion of a crime, officers can only do a quick administrative search/questioning. This can include the use of dogs, provided it does not unduly prolong the detention as TWA884 mentioned. My understanding is that this rule is the same anywhere.

That is why the officers will always get consent. "Hey, mind if we quickly run this dog around your car so you can get on your way?" Very few people will say no.

VelvetJones

Hahahaha!! I don't know about that. I bet many of the accented people CPB encounter are well above the CPB agent's intelligence.