Constitution-Free Zone Alive & Well!

Old Jan 30, 18, 7:46 am
  #76  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,625
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
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.
The question as you stated it above, if actually used by CBP, seems to violate the intent of the law. It can be interpreted as if you don't let us run this dog around your car you won't be going on your way. I have little doubt that the question as you stated is actually what is happening in the field and that is part of the problem. The CBP internal checkpoints are for the purpose of determining immigration status and pushing beyond that purpose weakens the country and rule of law.

edit to add:

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...-border-patrol

Border Patrol checkpoints do not give Border Patrol Agents carte blanche to automatically search persons and their vehicles, other then in the manner described above. In order to conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, the agents must develop particularly probable cause to conduct a lawful search. Probable cause can be developed from agent observations, records checks, non-intrusive canine sniffs and other established means. Motorist's may consent to a search, but are not required to do so.
Seems no permission is needed if this accounting is correct on the legal standard.

Last edited by Boggie Dog; Jan 30, 18 at 8:25 am
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 30, 18, 9:17 am
  #77  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
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.
Except that this is NOT what happened. The CBP agents did not randomly approach, but physically detained an entire busload of people and under color of authority demanded answers within the context of it being a federal offense to make false statements to federal agents. There was nothing random or free about this. It was coercive from beginning to end.

This kind of dancing around what is expressly forbidden under the constitution strikes me as not too different from those anti tax people who come up with all kinds of shady constitutional arguments on why they don't have to pay federal taxes. You have a desired end and you fish for whatever could plausibly justify it.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Jan 30, 18, 9:10 pm
  #78  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 34,164
Originally Posted by VelvetJones View Post
Hahahaha!! I don't know about that. I bet many of the accented people CPB encounter are well above the CPB agent's intelligence.
I wasn't talking about the CBP agents, but the people.

When you encounter poor English you're either dealing with an idiot or someone who learned it later. If they are otherwise intelligent you can basically assume it's the latter case. It's very hard to learn to speak a foreign language well if you don't learn as a child.
Loren Pechtel is online now  
Old Jan 30, 18, 10:51 pm
  #79  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,081
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The question as you stated it above, if actually used by CBP, seems to violate the intent of the law. It can be interpreted as if you don't let us run this dog around your car you won't be going on your way. I have little doubt that the question as you stated is actually what is happening in the field and that is part of the problem. The CBP internal checkpoints are for the purpose of determining immigration status and pushing beyond that purpose weakens the country and rule of law.
Law enforcement is trained on how to do searches. They know exactly what the courts consider to be consensual and what they don't. The average person doesn't. It's an unequal relationship, but there's nothing illegal about that.
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
edit to add:

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...-border-patrol

Seems no permission is needed if this accounting is correct on the legal standard.
No permission is needed for a quick administrative check. Anything beyond that requires permission.

Originally Posted by nachtnebel View Post
Except that this is NOT what happened. The CBP agents did not randomly approach, but physically detained an entire busload of people and under color of authority demanded answers within the context of it being a federal offense to make false statements to federal agents. There was nothing random or free about this. It was coercive from beginning to end.
It may be seen as coercive to a normal person, but the courts don't see it that way. No one was required to answer any questions. No one was being detained. They could have walked off the bus and CBP would not have stopped them. (Greyhound staff might, but that's a separate issue.)

Originally Posted by nachtnebel View Post
This kind of dancing around what is expressly forbidden under the constitution strikes me as not too different from those anti tax people who come up with all kinds of shady constitutional arguments on why they don't have to pay federal taxes. You have a desired end and you fish for whatever could plausibly justify it.
There's definitely some legal gymnastics going on here, no question about that. But so far, the courts have allowed it to happen.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Jan 30, 18, 11:40 pm
  #80  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
No one was being detained. They could have walked off the bus and CBP would not have stopped them. (Greyhound staff might, but that's a separate issue.)
Except that there's an officer blocking the door, so how would they leave without assaulting a Federal officer? Also, right or wrong, CBP would use leaving as PC for a much more involved detention.
mauve is offline  
Old Jan 31, 18, 5:24 am
  #81  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: LAS
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Spire Ambassador, Radisson Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 3,012
Yeah, I doubt anyone was really free to leave here. Would have been nice if someone asked that though.
jphripjah is offline  
Old Jan 31, 18, 7:45 am
  #82  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,625
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Law enforcement is trained on how to do searches. They know exactly what the courts consider to be consensual and what they don't. The average person doesn't. It's an unequal relationship, but there's nothing illegal about that.


No permission is needed for a quick administrative check. Anything beyond that requires permission.



It may be seen as coercive to a normal person, but the courts don't see it that way. No one was required to answer any questions. No one was being detained. They could have walked off the bus and CBP would not have stopped them. (Greyhound staff might, but that's a separate issue.)



There's definitely some legal gymnastics going on here, no question about that. But so far, the courts have allowed it to happen.
Right, LEO's never have evidenced tossed from conducting illegal searches.

I maintain that the question, as you stated it in your earlier post, ["Hey, mind if we quickly run this dog around your car so you can get on your way?"] , implied that the person would not be quickly going on there way unless they agreed to the search. I question if such phrasing would comply with the letter or spirit of the law. Things like this build distrust between citizens and LEO's and it is pretty apparent that police have a problem with public support.
muji likes this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Feb 1, 18, 5:11 pm
  #83  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,558
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)
I agree, except "reasonably necessary" is a huge loophole that doesn't favor us citizens.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Feb 1, 18, 8:01 pm
  #84  
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
I agree, except "reasonably necessary" is a huge loophole that doesn't favor us citizens.
Unfortunately, you are right. Most, not all, the judges in front of whom I've appeared over the years tend to accept law enforcement's claims of reasonable necessity way too often. However, I can't comment any further without venturing into OMNI/PR territory.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Feb 4, 18, 11:09 pm
  #85  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 34,977
Originally Posted by cestmoi123 View Post
It's not a crime. It's a civil violation.
Exactly! They violated of fourth amendment rights. That's not right! All they want to leave those people alone! No reason to be arrested her. No one ever deported her. No one! Let her stay in US.
N830MH is offline  
Old Feb 5, 18, 7:19 am
  #86  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,625
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
Exactly! They violated of fourth amendment rights. That's not right! All they want to leave those people alone! No reason to be arrested her. No one ever deported her. No one! Let her stay in US.
She overstayed her visa. She should be taken in to custody and removed from the country.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Feb 5, 18, 9:27 pm
  #87  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Florida
Programs: Delta SkyMiles; Hilton HHonors; NEXUS; National Emerald Club Executive
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
What section of the constitution makes providing proof of citizenship/ID to CBP a violation?
The threat of arrest if unable to provide proof of citizenship violates the guarantees of the 4th amendment against unresonable search or seizure. There is a generally accepted exception within 100 air miles of a US border, however, which would effectively cover all of Florida. (I don't agree with this exception, but the courts have repeatedly upheld such searches as "reasonable".)
txviking is offline  
Old Feb 5, 18, 9:31 pm
  #88  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Florida
Programs: Delta SkyMiles; Hilton HHonors; NEXUS; National Emerald Club Executive
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by JumboJet View Post
-->As a veteran of at least 150 crossings of random immigration check points I was never once asked for my papers, how ever, Iím clearly white and fluent in English.Occasionally I would be driving a box truck and they would ask to look inside, which I gladly obliged (I didnít want CHP doing it as they can find something wrong with any truck). While giving a cursory glance inside I would be subject to questions like where was I born, where I grew up and so forth. Questions the average Mexican citizen probably couldnít answer effectively.If Iím not mistaken how you react to these interactions determines a lot. I was totally cool I knew I was suppose to be there.
I'm clearly white and fluent in English. I'm not a US citizen. So that's not really an effective check.
txviking is offline  
Old Feb 5, 18, 9:51 pm
  #89  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT USA
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by txviking View Post
I'm clearly white and fluent in English. I'm not a US citizen. So that's not really an effective check.
Do you live within a mile of the US-Mexican border? It's a little more effective there.

The school bus was filled up every day on the way home so they did seem to know who to stop.
JumboJet is offline  
Old Feb 5, 18, 10:00 pm
  #90  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Florida
Programs: Delta SkyMiles; Hilton HHonors; NEXUS; National Emerald Club Executive
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by JumboJet View Post
Do you live within a mile of the US-Mexican border? It's a little more effective there.

The school bus was filled up on the way home so they did seem to know who to stop.
Nope. I live in Florida. However, I have experienced racial profiling in Texas.

In the late 1990s, a friend and I did a road trip down to McAllen to spend a weekend with her relatives. On the way back to Austin, we were stopped at an inland border patrol checkpoint.

She was asked if she was a US citizen. When she answered affirmatively, she was asked for proof. Her Texas driver license was sufficient. No drama, really. However, I wasn't even asked.

My friend was a US citizen, born and raised. I am a Norwegian citizen who was legally in the US on a student visa. We both speak fluent English; however, I have a slight accent. She doesn't.

In terms of documents, we both had Texas driver licenses. In those pre-Real-ID days, I did not have to prove legal presence to be issued a license, so there was no difference between our licenses. I was driving the car. Since we weren't traveling abroad, neither one of us had passports. (I was legally required to carry mine at all times, but back then that requirement was not enforced and a passport is inconvenient to carry. These days I'm more paranoid and thus more law-abiding about such matters.)

I am convinced the only reason she was questioned and I wasn't was because she looks obviously Hispanic.
txviking is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: