Boggie Dog

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

Seems no permission is needed if this accounting is correct on the legal standard.

nachtnebel

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.

Loren Pechtel

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.

cbn42

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.

mauve

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.

jphripjah

Yeah, I doubt anyone was really free to leave here. Would have been nice if someone asked that though.

Boggie Dog

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.

FliesWay2Much

I agree, except "reasonably necessary" is a huge loophole that doesn't favor us citizens.

TWA884

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.

N830MH

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.

Boggie Dog

She overstayed her visa. She should be taken in to custody and removed from the country.

txviking

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

I'm clearly white and fluent in English. I'm not a US citizen. So that's not really an effective check.

JumboJet

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.

txviking

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.