Constitution-Free Zone Alive & Well!

Old Jan 25, 18, 10:22 am
  #61  
Hilton Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: DCA
Programs: Marriott GLD; Hilton GLD; Free Agent (former AA PLT/US GLD)
Posts: 1,301
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
Aren't they marked differently, though?
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.
Beltway2A is offline  
Old Jan 25, 18, 12:41 pm
  #62  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MHT,BOS,PIT
Programs: Marriott Silver, US Dirt
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Beltway2A View Post
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.
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"
jfunk138 is offline  
Old Jan 25, 18, 8:20 pm
  #63  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 34,164
Originally Posted by JamesBigglesworth View Post
Based on past performance, CBP would attempt to deprive her of her rights, coerce her into signing deportation papers, and then deport her.
To where, though? She holds no other citizenship.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jan 25, 18, 8:26 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 471
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The law allows a CBP officer to determine citizenship, how they do that is usually just a question but if they question your status you can be taken into custody until your status is determined.
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.

Last edited by VelvetJones; Jan 25, 18 at 8:54 pm
VelvetJones is offline  
Old Jan 26, 18, 1:44 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BNE
Programs: NZ*G, QF Bronze, VA Red
Posts: 544
Originally Posted by awayIgo View Post
A US identification can be anything--a driver's license, a medicaid or medicare card, a food stamp card, a credit card etc.etc. ALL of these documents are only issued to those who are LEGALLY in the US. --try to open a bank account now a days. --or try to be an illegal and get a credit card. So, holders of these cards are either legal, or they are experts at forgery.
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?
kyanar is offline  
Old Jan 27, 18, 10:47 pm
  #66  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 34,164
Originally Posted by VelvetJones View Post
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.
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.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jan 28, 18, 1:05 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by kyanar View Post
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?
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>.

Last edited by TWA884; Jan 28, 18 at 10:26 am Reason: Please save the political commentaries for OMNI/PR
Katamarino is offline  
Old Jan 28, 18, 9:36 pm
  #68  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by jphripjah View Post
The main problem here, as I see it, is that no one was "required" to provide ID. That's why there's no constitutional violation. 99.9% of Americans are sheep. When dudes with guns and badges uniforms ask them questions, they answer. When those dudes ask them for ID, people give them ID. If every bus riding American told these guys to piss off and refused to answer questions or provide ID, these checks would have to stop.
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.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The law allows a CBP officer to determine citizenship, how they do that is usually just a question but if they question your status you can be taken into custody until your status is determined.
CBP cannot just "question" someone's status. Like any other law enforcement, they have to have probable cause to arrest you.

Originally Posted by aquamarinesteph View Post
Hypothetical situation: You, a citizen of the United States of America, are traveling on a public road. You encounter a random checkpoint where officers are demanding proof of you citizenship. So what proof is acceptable?

In my case, I don't know what I'd offer. My driver's license? That just shows that my home state issued me a driver's license. I do not travel with my Social Security card because the risk of identity theft is high if my purse or wallet were stolen.

I also do not travel within the US with my passport, my birth certificate or marriage license which shows why my last name is different on my driver's license than it is on my birth certificate.

My word on it? Clearly that is not the case, or nobody would have to present papers.

I am not arguing the point that it is against the law to be here without proper documentation. I am asking how everyone here would prove their US citizenship if they ran into a random roadblock tonight in their automobile or while riding a bus, train, etc. within US borders.
​​​​​​​
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.
TWA884 and aquamarinesteph like this.

Last edited by cbn42; Jan 28, 18 at 9:45 pm
cbn42 is offline  
Old Jan 29, 18, 7:51 am
  #69  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,626
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
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.
Isn't that exactly what happens at the inland checkpoints CBP has setup along some interstate highways? That sure is my recollection.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 29, 18, 11:47 am
  #70  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,558
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
Isn't that exactly what happens at the inland checkpoints CBP has setup along some interstate highways? That sure is my recollection.
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.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jan 29, 18, 11:52 am
  #71  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,626
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much View Post
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.
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?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 29, 18, 12:05 pm
  #72  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,558
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
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?
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.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jan 29, 18, 7:56 pm
  #73  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 13,874
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much View Post
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.
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)
TWA884 is offline  
Old Jan 29, 18, 8:54 pm
  #74  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
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?
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.

Originally Posted by TWA884 View Post
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)
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.
TWA884 likes this.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Jan 29, 18, 9:13 pm
  #75  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 471
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
Adults whose English is accented and well below their intelligence are pretty obviously foreign born but that says nothing about their current status.
Hahahaha!! I don't know about that. I bet many of the accented people CPB encounter are well above the CPB agent's intelligence.
PTravel likes this.
VelvetJones is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: