Perhaps, but the only way to bring correction to these types of problems is through the courts.

Yes the most costly and the slowest path, but the only one that might have some chance of changing current happenings.

Outbound border searches have been upheld by courts for as long as inbound ones. There are plenty of laws which regulate what people can export and what paperwork they have to file to do so.

For example, 31 USC 5317(b):

Searches at Border.— For purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of section 5316, a customs officer may stop and search, at the border and without a search warrant, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance, any envelope or other container, and any person entering or departing from the United States.

And how do you know they didn't have one?


What's your legal reasoning for that one?

By what logic? Sure, laws may permit the searches, but how do courts justify them as Constitutional? How does the fact that some things cannot be exported, and paperwork might have to be filed to export other things, justify searching random people without suspicion (let alone probable cause)?

What logic did the SCOTUS use to grant the Feds this power?

I don't have any references at home just now pertaining to outbound border searches. And a quick cruise through Google doesn't find any SCOTUS cases on point. But I did find a 3rd Circuit case which directly addresses that question.

http://openjurist.org/936/f2d/136/un...es-v-ezeiruaku

Is it possible that the constitutionality of this has not been tested by the Supreme Court?

Totality of released information.

Both sides claim that the search was a normal random administrative search. During an administrative search there has to be consent, either active or implied. Once a weapon is drawn to compel the subject of the administrative search there is no longer consent as the subject is seized. This would push the normal administrative search that both sides claim to a criminal search governed by the 4th amendment. Seeing how neither side is claiming a criminal search tells me that the officers did not have good cause to draw weapons.

Add in the fact no one was arrested pretty much seals the deal.

No reasonable person would agree that threatening someone with bodily harm or death is the proper way to facilitate an administrative search.

Don't know if this has already been posted:

CBP Justifies Ramp Check

The most frightening part:

Border searches are not an administrative search. And they are not based on consent. They have their own exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The traveler has no choice in the matter. Therefore, I disagree that weapons alone make a border search unreasonable.

Not at all. Perhaps one of the officers simply saw what they thought to be a furtive movement. That's enough reason right there.

This boggles my mind. I never have heard of such a thing, minus intel which states that those people might be armed or engaging in certain criminal activities. Random, typical search? Never.

I need more info to make an informed decision, because this is extreme for a simple random check, and this is me saying that, a jack-booted thug and then some. :)

This looks like some bad information was passed on and (improperly) acted on. I've seen instances of police breaking down the door of the wrong apartment and the tenant being either wounded or killed in the ensuing melee.

Worse case this is a nibble at the edges operation to see what they could get away without having it go to court.

Before we go too far with this let us agree that there are NO exceptions to the Constitution as any exception would automatically unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

What we have is circumstance based reasonableness. Is it reasonable to search passengers boarding a plane? Yes. Would it be reasonable to search someone walking down the street? No. Ok now on with the show.

Border searches for INCOMING travelers and cargo is not an administrative search but is still subject to the reasonableness clause of the 4th Amendment.

The courts have deemed it reasonable to search incoming travelers and cargo at the border in order to facilitate the right of the Government to protect the country from illegal importation of goods, contraband and people.

EDIT: Disregard the following until I can review the case Deeg posted yesterday.

Outgoing is another story. Do a case search for border searches and you will find no cases upholding outgoing searches, like the one described in this story, as non-administrative searches.

If I were to guess I would guess that this was either a bad tip, or mistaken identity.

I never understood why LEOs can't/won't admit they made a mistake. One time I got pulled over and the first thing the cop did was get on his loud speaker ordering me to stay in the car, keep my hands visible and not to move. When he finally approached the car his gun was out of the holster except for maybe the last inch of the barrel. He approached using my car as a shield.

Once he got a good visual of the interior of the car and my license he relaxed a bit. Then he says "do you know why I pulled you over?" I said "no" and he said "it was because you have a cracked windshield".

Come on, at least own up to the fact the car or myself matched the description in a BOLO. :mad: If this is how he acts on a cracked windshield I would be terrified to see how he would act for a busted tail light.

It's not an exception to the Constitution, but is an exception to the warrant requirement of the Constitution.

This was a raid, not a random, routine check. From my perspective, anyway.