I’m listening to the most recent episode of On The Media (link goes to specific story), and a lawyer from the ACLU says that the Department of Homeland Security claims that they have special rights for searching people’s property in a zone that extends 100 miles into the US.
I don’t want to be overly alarmist here, but I live within that zone. Are my rights really lesser because I live close to the border? What’s going on here?
Thank god it’s into the US.
They do have inland border patrol stations, such as the one on Interstate 5 between San Diego and Los Angeles. That’s not new, of course. It’s been around since I’ve been living in California – more than 30 years.
I’m sorry to tell you that there is also a 100 mile deep Constitution-free zone outside of the US border.
161 kms - not American remember? 
Hell, if you count coasts as borders, that means somewhere between 1/3 & 1/2 of the country, including the entire states of New Jersey, Florida, Hawaii, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, and possibly 1 or 2 others, are constitution free zones.
ETA - That’s 1/3 to 1/2 by area. By population, I’m betting it’s well over 1/2.
Kyla basically its like this. Normally, for a search to be reasonable you either have to consent, or there has to be probable cause to believe you have commited a crime, or a warrant (I’m being very simplistic here). However, suspicionless searches of your property are allowed at the Border. You probably are subconsciously aware of this from travel experience, even though you’ve probably never said to yourself “ah, I am now undergoing a suspicionless Border search.” Border searches must be conducted by Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other Border-based federal agents and not by local police (please anyone correct me if I’m wrong on this).
However, The Supreme Court has defined “the Border” as not just the literal border but a 100-mile zone on the inside. If the border is in the water, the coastline is considered the practical border.
Almost all of Michigan is within the 100-mile zone, since it is narrow, and a (pleasant) peninsula bordering Canada.
I would love to see a cite for that Hello Again.
My own understanding of “border” as I have seen it defined in multiple statutes is that it exists at any point of entry, not just physical areas. near the frontier. So entry rules apply to me even if I enter at St Louis International, not whether I enter 100 miles inland of the coast or a land frontier.
Fact sheet from the ACLU’s website.
Sorry - not the Sup. Ct. but a Federal reg, defines the Border for CBP purposes as the U.S. “external boundary” including only 12 miles offshore – which is much nearer to shore than the the actual US-Canadian Border adjacent to Michigan.
8 CFR 287.1 (definitions)
(1) External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.
(2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the district director, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
Quick checklist:
Almeida-Sanchez v. US: random stops of cars inside the 100-mile zone not permitted.
US v. Brignoni-Ponce: brief detention of cars inside 100-mile zone based on reasonable suspicion allowed.
US v. Martinez-Fuerte: fixed checkpoints within the 100-mile zone permitted.
This thread over in great debates and the link in the OP might be of interest: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=576579&highlight=border+patrol
Basically, it’s about how the border patrol been doing inspections on domestic E-W travelling trains and buses, which they can do because the routes happen to wander within 100 miles of the Canadian border. These inspections are turning up lots of people with visa problems and the like, but as far as I know nothing actually related to the northern border.
Since I live about 100 miles from the border, I suppose it means I should carry my green card at all times, especially if I travel north of here. (The nearest Canadian land to me is Middle Island.)
And the interactive map that goes with it (which, for some reason, the fact sheet doesn’t link to).
I wonder if I’m misreading their fact sheet, though. It says:
I interpret that to mean if any portion of the county you live in lies within 100 miles of the border, they’re counting the entire population of the county.
Their conclusion was that 2/3 of the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of an international border or coastline.
You’re required to carry your green card at all times regardless of where in the USA you are. But yes, the odds of you being asked to produce your green card is higher within 100 miles of the border.
I think the ACLU’s inclusion of the coastlines as being within this “zone” is disingenuous, if not deliberately incendiary disinformation. I’ve lived in various points of that zone literally all my life, and never seen a customs officer except at airports. Heck, even the old Customs Houses are all closed or converted into other uses. CPB operates out of the occasional small office at a few ports of entry dealing with commercial shippers, but you don’t see them roaming the highways setting up suspicion-free checkpoints in the Berkshires.
The Supremes themselves also live and work within 100 miles of the coastline. If the ACLU’s interpretation is correct, the Court has subjected itself to being without Constitutional protections.
I don’t think inclusion of the coastlines is disingenuous but rather extrapolative. The regulations do not specify land borders; therefore the Border Patrol could legally act within 100 miles of any coast. That they have not yet so far done so except in conjunction with other agencies in significant crimes conducted in whole or in part by non-American nationals.is immaterial – the issue the ACLU is making is what the law permits, not what is actually being done under it. For a parallel, prior to Lawrence Idaho had a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for sodomy. I suspect strongly that one would have to do serious historical research to find anyone actually given life imprisonment for consensual adult sodomy, but the fact remains that the potential punishment, and its chilling effects, were there, even if not actively used.
Americans have an expectation that they may go as they list, free from any requirement for “Your papers, please!” – and with a tacit exception that they generally will not find if offensive if they are licitly doing something a reasonable man might deem suspicious. The warehouse manager attempting at 2 AM to retrieve his son’s expensive and needed-now medicine that he picked up during lunch hour the day before and accidentally left at work is happy to answer the police patrol’s firm but courteous inquiry why he’s entering the warehouse in the wee smalls – he knows that if it had not been him, they would be protecting his bosses’ property and his own livelihood from a breakin. But change the scene and have skeptical cops stopping a black man for jogging on a suburban street, and people’s reactions change greatly.
Likewise, the expectation that you can be stopped without reasonable cause – and since we’re discussing emotional reactions, let’s make that evident reasonable cause, not something that would legally satisfy an expansively pro-regulations judge – within 100 miles of the land borders, and with the regulations so written that this could be within 100 miles of any coast, and you have a serious problem. However useful the regulations may be in meeting their stated purpose, the rank and file citizen is going to find them objectionable when his own behavior is questioned by a uniformed official without damned good reason.
Except that the whole point of the ALCU’s presentation on the point is to spread a “You could be next” fear. Either they can’t or won’t make the case that these decisions are just plan bad in restricting constitutional freedoms unreasonably. No, they have to try and say that almost the entire population is liable to experience baseless searches and seizures. Let’s be honest, though, CPB is not going to stop you on your next trip to the Outer Banks.
The dissemblance is not in saying that there is a problem with the line of decisions Bricker cited, but in the implied “you could be next!” message of the map.
I agree. I hate all arguments based on hypotheticals and “slippery-slopes”. Instead, talk about what is actually happening right now, or what is actually proposed. Is it right or not? In this case, the border patrol stations that are already situated inland in California, Texas, etc., and that might pop up in New York, from my understanding.
I wish things were that simple. My problem is when someone in authority looks at their oath and the law and says well it may be unreasonable, but the law is the law and I swore to uphold the law. Reasonable cause isn’t needed within 100 miles of the coast and these people are within 100 miles. Therefor…
I think the same thing happened when Customs started searching peoples laptop hard drives. They certainly weren’t looking for drugs or physical contraband. Which is what I think of when Customs conducts searches at the border. They are looking for something illegal, child porn, but I for one expect the Government to have a reason to search my person/property. Not “lets search just because we might be interested in what we find”. I understand the logic-Customs searches shipping containers for drugs/bombs/illegal immigrants, so why not my hard drive/USB stick/camera memory/cell phone/iphone/ipod/LCD picture frame/etc. But I don’t like it. To me, it isn’t reasonable. But I am not one of the nine so I guess it doesn’t matter.
I guess such things act as a deterent for a few people, but it certainly doesn’t reduce the flow of child porn into the US. Not when one can ftp to anywhere in the world from any coffee house hotspot using a $400 disposable laptop or a spoofed MAC address.