Further even if you don’t believe me about the Border Patrol having detainment powers anywhere in the U.S. ICE agents do, whom the Border Patrol reports to. See another doper’s tale of an ICE roadblock in Vermont, here.
Yes, you were. You said that local law enforcement did not have the authority to enforce the Federal laws. I showed you, you were wrong.
I’m going to put this as charitably as I can and say that I think we are talking past each other. It’s clear that you feel strongly about these issues but categorically stating “you are wrong” to anyone who disagrees with you is not really moving the discussion forward.
You are correct–and I confess that I did not know–that an officer of the (inaptly named imho) border patrol can indeed stop someone in the United States if he or she has a reasonable suspicion that the person has entered the country illegally. This is the same “reasonable suspicion” requirement that applies to all peace officers, whether state or federal, and it arises under the 4th amendment.
However, this is governed by the long standing rules regarding “Terry Stops” (referenced above). An officer can detain you briefly to conduct an investigation based on reasonable suspicion. In order to detain you for any length of time, or to conduct a search, the officer must have probable cause. See United States v. Ellis.
The border patrol has broader powers of search and detention AT THE BORDER. Indeed, I mentioned that in a prior post. FWIW wikipedia has what seems to be a pretty good explanation of the “border search exception” to the fourth amendment warrant requirement. While they do not need a warrant they do indeed need to have reasonable suspicion before conducting a search at the border.
There is no requirement that I as U.S. Citizen carry proof of citizenship documentation or present it to a peace officer while I’m in the United States. I may be required to present such documentation at the border, but I am not required to carry it with me at other times. As I mentioned above, if I am operating a motor vehicle, I am required to carry proof of license to drive and must present that to an officer on request.
I was correct. You are misstating what I said. Let’s try it again.
LEOs in Arizona (or any other state) do not have the authority to enforce immigration law unless it’s specifically granted to them (for example, as we discussed under the 287g program). Some Arizona officers have this authority under this program. Most do not. And some had been granted that authority and have had it revoked, such as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
I’ve learned a lot from your replies and yet I’m still really confused. I don’t think most federal officials even know whether the AZ law is truly as bad as so many make it sound, especially when they haven’t read it.
Now my biggest questions are: WHY DOESN’T THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCE IT’S OWN IMMIGRATION LAWS?
WHAT PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING THEIR JOBS? WHO PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING THEIR JOBS? WHY HAS IT BEEN THIS WAY FOR SOOOOO LONG?
Because there is a lot of powerful people and institutions who do not want the Federal Government to enforce the law. For example, in Nebraska one of our major industries is meat packing. In the 90’s, INS wanted to do a bunch of raids on the meat packing plants in central Nebraska and they (the INS) were shut down because the plant owners (corporations) howled and howled about how much money they were going to lose because immigration raids would shut them down for weeks. So the politicians, responding to their donors, pressured INS and pretty much told them they were NOT going to conduct these raids. They put profit for the corporations before the law.
There is as much political pressure to not enforce the law as there is to enforce the law.
This blog post from the Volokh conspiracy include a link to a paper written by law professors at the University of Arizona law school discussing the new law. I have to confess I have not yet read through it, so cannot summarize it, except to say that the professors say that the statute implicates lots of areas of the law (including employment and property law) and so analyzing it is very difficult. It may be more than you want to read right now, but I pass it along because you might find it useful.
I think niblet_head’s point is well taken regarding immigration law. There are forces on each side pushing for more or less enforcement of the immigration laws specifically.
In addition, your question about enforcement of the law is very important because it gets at a crucial, but often overlooked aspect of law enforcement. Namely the great discretion exercised with enforcement. Both law enforcement officers and prosecutors are, like everybody else, working with limited resources, and they have to decide how to expend those resources. So, when the local police chief decides to start arresting street walkers in order to clean up the streets, it’s not as if the officers who are conducting those arrests were otherwise hanging around playing cards at the police station. These are officers who would otherwise have been dealing with other issues. FWIW I think the TV Show the Wire did a great job of illustrating the way these budget issues are always present at law enforcement agencies.
Within 100 miles of the border by the Border patrol, or ICE on a deportation warrant. Not “anywhere in the US for any reason.” The map below shows where you can be questioned by Border Patrol.
That does include every inch of Vermont, most of New York, and about 1/3 of Arizona.
I believe that the “within 100 miles of the border” rule relates to where the border patrol can search you without a warrant. This is part of the “border search exception” that I linked to above.
I believe that Wilbo523 is correct that a border patrol agent can, with certain important limitations, “question you” anywhere in the United States as long as the agent has “reasonable suspicion” that you entered the country illegally.
Here’s my understanding.
Under the fourth amendment, the general rule that applies to all law enforcement officers (whether state or federal) is that, if an officer has “reasonable suspicion” that you have committed a crime, the officer can detain you briefly. The officer can also “pat you down” to determine if you have any weapons.
In order to arrest you, or to conduct a more intrusive search the law enforcement officer must have probable cause.
Both the terms “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” resist hard and fast definitions and both are subject to lots of ongoing debate. Probable cause is supposed to be a higher standard than reasonable suspicion.
So far so good. Now the exception regarding the “within 100 miles of the border” rule. Within 100 miles of the border, the border patrol does NOT have to have probable cause to search you. They just need “reasonable suspicion”.