|
Originally Posted by greentips
(Post 11903742)
There is no old fashioned way. The eAPIS is a brand new requirement. The NPRM was published last year and was the subject of a huge number of comments on how impractical it is to use. Some very minor changes were made, but it is mandatory. As of May 15.
For those who do not know what the eAPIS is, it amounts to an electronic exit visa. You may not leave the country by airplane unless your government grants you permission to leave. This is in addition to filing flight plans with complete transborder routing and detailed itineraries. It requires the following: Using an internet computer (with anti-virus software of the government's choosing), one must file an eAPIS listing the aircraft, flight crew, passengers together with their passport information. Then you must wait for CBP to issue an email granting you permission to leave. Prior to returning to the US, you must do the same, using the internet on a computer with anti-virus software of the government's choosing, and wait for permission to return. In the massive outcry during the NPRM, the compromise was struck that one could file both legs prior to leaving the country, thus depriving one of the ability to be flexible on return. The old fashioned way for inbound flights only, was to ring up the customs man on the phone an hour prior to arrival at an airport of entry and Lord help you if you were early or late in some of the airports, So consider what this means for some of us who go to Canada for fishing and relaxation. If you fly a seaplane, off a lake in the US for a lake in Canada, you can file the eAPIS (in addition to the flight plan), and file for a return from the remote lake before you leave. If you are delayed for your return home, there is no internet service, and they may or may not accept telephone changes. The modification to the Final rule didn't say they had to accept a change, just that they could. There are some places in Canada, and I'm certain in Mexico and the US where there are not reliable telephones let alone a US Government compliant computer system. Break the rules...$5000 fine. Next question: How long do you think it'll take 'em to put exit visa checkpoints at the border along outbound highways sniffing the RFID modules in the new passports? |
My bad. The last time I flew my plane internationally was to the Bahamas in 99.
|
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11902103)
Enlighten me to the others please.
|
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11906599)
Search incident to arrest, inventory search, exigent circumstance search, etc.
As for the inventory search, bad law dawg, no steak for you. :p Inventories are NOT searches, they are merely securing property so it does not get stolen (wink wink, nudge nudge). If you call it a search it is no longer an inventory and you must get a warrant. BTW did you catch the last Supreme Court ruling (couple of months ago) on the search incident to arrest? |
Originally Posted by Deeg
(Post 11902241)
Generally speaking, they have either been people or conveyances (cars, trucks, etc) coming across the border where there is information that someone was armed or otherwise dangerous. It could be a warrant for a violent crime or perhaps previous encounters.
|
Originally Posted by Deeg
(Post 11902254)
You forget that a border search is an exception to the warrant requirement. Even if I could prove 100%, without a doubt, that something due to come across the border would have drugs in it, I wouldn't get a warrant. It's a waste of time when one isn't required.
Additionally, generally speaking, executing a search warrant will eventually require some sort of disclosure of the probable cause used to obtain it. A better investigative tactic is sometimes simply to approach the person and ask for consent to search. Or, as perhaps in this case, to conduct a border search. Under the "border exception" doctrine, customs officials may conduct routine searches of persons and effects crossing the border even in the absence of individualized suspicion. The border search exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement is not new. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886), the Court noted that the same Congress which originally proposed adoption of the fourth amendment also passed a customs statute allowing warrantless searches on the national borders: The Supreme Court consistently has held that searches of persons and items entering the borders of the United States are constitutional without a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537-38, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 3308-09, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54, 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-26, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). 27 Noting that a long line of cases has followed Boyd, we have stated that "it is well established that searches of persons or property at the border are considered reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1197, 1201 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1018, 1068, 85 L.Ed.2d 306, 504 (1985). In United States v. Ramsey, the Supreme Court repeated that 28 [t]here has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless 'reasonable' has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself. 29 431 U.S. at 619, 97 S.Ct. at 1980 (footnote omitted). VI. 30 In applying the foregoing precepts to the case at bar, we begin our discussion by emphasizing that there is a distinction between a routine and non-routine search at a border. An incoming routine search at the border needs no articulable suspicion to justify it; a non-routine search triggers the requirement of reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Turner, 639 F.Supp. 982, 986-87 (E.D.N.Y.1986). The issue we must confront here is whether this search was routine, and if so, what standard should apply to an outgoing search. The only out I see that you may have is by declaring that the informant was the cause for the "reasonable suspicion" and allowed the non-routine search. I still feel you are wrong but I have not had time to chase cases. If you know of any case law that proves your side, please show them. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11914150)
Ok I was counting search incident to arrest, and exigent circumstance search as falling in the probable cause category.
As for the inventory search, bad law dawg, no steak for you. :p Inventories are NOT searches, they are merely securing property so it does not get stolen (wink wink, nudge nudge). If you call it a search it is no longer an inventory and you must get a warrant. BTW did you catch the last Supreme Court ruling (couple of months ago) on the search incident to arrest? |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11914581)
Don't think I did. Link?
It was a reply to my question of what kinds of other searches. Originally Posted by law dawg Search incident to arrest, inventory search, exigent circumstance search, etc. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11914215)
Surely if a non routine search triggers a REQUIREMENT of reasonable suspicion, then a search based on an informant giving you foreknowledge of criminal activity would require a warrant.
The only out I see that you may have is by declaring that the informant was the cause for the "reasonable suspicion" and allowed the non-routine search. I still feel you are wrong but I have not had time to chase cases. If you know of any case law that proves your side, please show them. But, again, the SCOTUS defines non-routine as being more invasive upon a person's privacy or destructive to property than a routine search. They are referring to x-rays, body cavity searches, cutting the lining of a suitcase and the like. (Some have also argued recently that laptop searches should fall into that category.) So I think you're using a different definition than the court is. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11914581)
Don't think I did. Link?
|
Originally Posted by Deeg
(Post 11915360)
It's Arizona v Gant. Short version: SIA of a vehicle is now only allowed if the arrestee still has access to the vehicle or if it's reasonable that evidence of their crime might be found in the vehicle.
|
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 11915764)
Which still leaves inventory if the vehicle is to be seized, no? That was pretty standard when I was on patrol, anyway. Only search if seized (inventory) or in immediate control of suspect.
|
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
(Post 11905302)
As greentips points out, the electronic filing is mandatory.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:06 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.