Sorry I completely missed this when I made my post today. I have to run to work but I will look over the case and post my reply later tonight.

Disregard my previous post until then, thanks.

Very well. I'll hold my breath until tonight. :)

To be clear, I'm not advocating that the actions of the officers were correct. My only main assertions are:

1). The outbound border search is legal.
2). There is factual dispute over what actually happened. I won't accept the original story as gospel truth.

That said, I do want to make one more point in response to law dawg's post. There have been plenty of times that I've talked to/searched/etc someone based on intelligence and then told them that it was a random check. I concur that it sounds like a targeted enforcement operation and not a random compliance check. But I don't blame the agency for not wanting to give up the details, either.

Outbound check.

Perfectly legal and mandated by Congress since before 9/11.

However, file a complaint on the behavior of the officers.

CBP doesn't have that technology in their vehicles.

...and, for the record, you have absolutely no ethical issue with lying?

Well maybe some CBP vehicles don't have that tech, but I believe I've seen some on the northern border that do actually have them installed. Anyways I believe the Sheriff and Long Beach PD do have that capability, that's one of the many reasons I suggested he file with them first.

Not in that situation, no.

What are the police supposed to say when the pilot asks why he's being searched? "Oh, sorry, sir. Your neighbor John happens to be a police informant and he said you'd have drugs on board."

Edited to add: police deception is a highly-scrutinized, but acceptable tactic. Consider the whole idea of an undercover operation. It's based entirely on lies, but has been deemed allowable by the courts (and by most of society). Certain lies are not okay: lies that coerce consent, lies under oath, etc.

Quick question while I work on my other post. Is the search you are conducting a probable cause search or a routine search?

What is a routine search? Never heard of such a thing.....

Administrative search.

Ummm... why not just say "We cannot tell you," "We made an error," or "You don't have a right to know who accused you of a crime, or to know if we know the identity of the accuser." Vanity? Pride? Fear of liability? :rolleyes:

Aren't we, as law abiding citizens, supposed to be able to trust law enforcement officers?

After reading that definition from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, I will reassert the fact that border searches are indeed administrative searches. I will also reassert that they require implied or active consent, just like the searches at the airport relies on implied or active consent. (don't want the search, don't try to enter or leave the country)

I do not contest that administrative border searches are generally legal, I do contest that THIS border search was legal because it lacked the administrative search protection due to the circumstances

From 936 F2d 136 United States v. Ezeiruaku

By the CBP's own statements this search was "slightly" unusual and NOT routine.

The CBP and the local LEOs triggered the requirement of reasonable suspicion by their own actions. There was no reasonable suspicion in this case nor was there probable cause.

I can not think of any administrative search that begins with guns drawn, can you?

The CBP and LEOs blew this one and violated the pilot and passenger's rights.

Got you. Just remember, though, that there are other kind of searches and seizures, although these are the main two.

Fear of blowing a case. Sometimes we really don't want a person to think we suspect them at all. It's much better for us if they believe it's random so that they don't start changing their methods of operation (i.e. drop their cell phone).

You know, I almost brought that up earlier but didn't want to derail the conversation. Consent is one of ways that some have tried to justify border searches over the years. But there are many others. Some have also suggested that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border and that there is an inherent right of the sovereign to control its borders. They're the main ones.

I guess it's pretty much "agree to disagree" time. I thank you for a civil discussion.

When the case law talks about "routine" versus "non-routine" searches, they are really talking about the degree of privacy invasion. For example, a body cavity search is certainly non-routine, while a pat-down of the outer clothing is not. This isn't the type of "non-routine" the case law envisioned.

Again...we don't know that. There very well might have been.

Outside of the border search arena? No. But I've seen dozens of border searches that began that way.