State law v. Federal border protection law

Great Debates
1

We are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the 4th Amendment. That protection is lessened near a national border, which allows warrantless searches of luggage and such.

According to federal law, though, 2/3 of the people living in America live in a border zone.

Recently in New Hampshire, federal border checkpoints were established 90 miles from any national border. Cars were searched with dogs without probable cause–which is strictly prohibited by New Hampshire law–and small amounts of weed were found.

The border agents turned the weed over to the state cops, who arrested the offenders. The court case is proceeding.

The question raised in the Slate article is “Can federal officers conduct a search that is prohibited under New Hampshire law, then turn over the evidence to state police so that state prosecutors can file charges in state court?”

Is it legal? Is it morally right? Is it federal overreach into state matters?

Additionally, I’m curious why state charges would have been filed, since NH typically declines to prosecute for small amounts of marijuana.

2

There is a fairly good article on Slate about this case. This is my comment to that report:

I don’t understand how the case made it this far. I was a narcotics detective for 20 years in NJ and worked many cases in cooperation with DEA and the FBI. In almost all of the cases the feds prosecuted the big fish and the state got the rest. In order to do this we “paralleled” all search warrants, subpoenas etc. to state standards. If we didn’t, the evidence seized by the feds under their more lax rules couldn’t be used in state court. For example, the feds can search your trash cans at the curb without a warrant. In NJ you need a search warrant. Anything seized without a warrant (and any evidence seized in the future as a result) is excluded. It only makes sense - if you are going to be prosecuted under state law, state rules of evidence apply. It wasn’t even debatable. BTW, what a waste of resources. This kind of effort for an amount of weed that most cops would just dump on the ground and send the person on their way? The marijuana laws are a joke. Legalize it and be done with it.

3

Thanks for your insight. I, for one, have never head of paralleling before.

4

Is it possible that someone wanted this case to go to court specifically to lose, in order to set a precedent and/or to challenge the federal border zone search laws?