Slashdot Mirror
DHS Can Seize Your Electronics Within 100 Mi.of US Border, Says DHS
dreamstateseven writes "In a not-so-unexpected move, the Department of Homeland Security has concluded that travelers along the nation's borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. The memo highlights the friction between today's reality that electronic devices have become virtual extensions of ourselves housing everything from e-mail to instant-message chats to photos and our papers and effects — juxtaposed against the government's stated quest for national security. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation's actual border."
Go die in a fire.
But not according to the constitution. It's more unauthorized law from the "SCOTUS says SCOTUS can say whatever it wants because SCOTUS says so" crew.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border.
The failure of the court to enforce the fourth amendment against government usurpation does not change what it says. There is no "border exception" in the bill of rights.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yes and no. They can cross into Canada if they're perusing a suspect and there must be R&PG according to the treaty, same applies to Canada border agents crossing into the US. To the no part, anything else is considered a violation of the border treaty and of other agreements.
Om, nomnomnom...
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-assuming-broad-powers-turning-vast-swaths-us
The claim is that no 4th amendment right exist anywhere within the united states where the border is nearer than 100 miles.
So, for instance, where I live, which is about 60 miles south of Canada, no 4th amendment rights.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So, for all the gun control fans out there, you cannot pick and choose which part of the Constitution you choose to enforce. When you start deciding that one section or another is inconvenient in the modern era you undermine everything, including the parts you like. We have a process for amending the Constitution. It is intentionally difficult.
Just as people argue about what exactly "bear arms" means, now we get to argue about what "unreasonable" means. I think they are both adequately clear. The suspension of the fourth amendment when you are actually at a boarder crossing makes sense because it is voluntary. You have a sign that says "All items entering this boarder checkpoint are subject to search". One mile away is unreasonable.
So it sounds like this applies to anyone living within states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii or Florida, all of which are within 100 miles of the ocean shore. Actually, I think that all of Massachusetts (where I live) is also less than 100 miles from the shore, but I might be wrong.
I wonder what fraction of the US population lives within 100 miles of the national border. I'd guess it's well over 50%, but I don't see any easy way to find the number. Anyone know?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
2/3rds of the US population lives within the constitution-free zone
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It is only temporary. Someday, we will increase it to 1,000 miles.
(For those who don't get the joke, except for maybe a tiny patch near Lebanon, KS, the entire continental United States lies within 1,000 miles of a border, give or take.)
But in all seriousness, nearly two-thirds the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of our nation's borders. The DHS's claims are tantamount to an outright abrogation of the fourth amendment for the overwhelming majority of Americans—an irrefutable and egregious violation of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. So the only real question that we should be asking is this:
Freedom is a myth if our nation is unwilling to take people like this to task for wiping its a** with our nation's highest law. If we do not prosecute the DHS and anyone who commits illegal searches based on their borderline treasonous guidance, then our nation's highest law will have no teeth, and we might as well start calling ourselves the American Democratic Republic right now.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
As a resident of Tucson, this is alarming. If I lived farther north I'd be used to it, as Sheriff Arpaio has already made Phoenix a Fourth Amendment Free Zone.
Further, the US Constitution doesn't grant the federal government immigration authority. It is an "Implied Power" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers
My wife and I went to Charleston SC for our anniversary last year. We were just walking around downtown when a couple of DHS agents walked up to us and demanded to see our ID and our cell phones.
Without even asking, one of them snatched my wife's purse and removed her cell phone from it, and plugged it into some device.
I did not have my cell phone on me, and when I told them that, I was arrested and taken to a mobile "command center" where I was interrogated as to why I didn't have a cell phone, and subsequently stripped to my underwear because they thought I was lying about not having one.
The entire experience was humiliating.
The USA is no longer a free country. Period. And, anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.
It's what the TSA does to passengers.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Look at a map of the original United States, and then imagine a 100-mile zone inside those borders. It looks to me like virtually the entire country would have been within 100 miles of a border. Somehow, I doubt that those who wrote the Bill of Rights would have agreed that they didn't intend it to apply to 90% of their country.
I blame inflation.
I bet 100 miles in 2013 is worth no more than 2 miles back then.
Yes, this includes your home. The local police have to abide by the idea that warrants are required but if the DHS decides you are a possible terrorist threat, citizen of no, you have no rights whatsoever. This was all discussed when the original 100 mile constitution free zone went into effect. And there have been examples of people who wouldn't cooperate with the local police and so, when the local police could not get a warrant of their own, they've call the DHS. The DHS needs no warrants to detain, not arrest, you, has no limits on the amount of time they can detain you, since it's a matter of national security and need no warrants to search and seize any of your property for as long as they wish. The original 100 mile zone has since been extended by various means to include pretty much all of the United States. Whether you want to agree with it or not, you're already living under martial law.
What can cure this? A population that will stand up for its rights, although that does indicate you might be a terrorist in the new FBI guidelines, electing more independents that don't tow a party line and work for their constituents instead and accepting that in order to be free you also have to accept some risk. Give up your freedom for what you think is security and you'll find you have neither. Old Ben said something like that. People should listen to him.
But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.
The "border" is much larger than you seem to imply.
Every airport at which international flights routinely land is also a "border". And, if a small plane from Mexico or Canada can land at a small airport, then that would be declared a "border" as well. And, if you have a few acres of land near you where an illegal flight MIGHT land, it's only a little bit more of a stretch to say that it could be an airport.
This is the slippery slope by which DHS can barge into any home in America. Any. No one is safe.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
What about anybody living within 100 miles of space? That's a border too.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
R&PG = Reasonable and Probable Grounds
Om, nomnomnom...
But it's too late to have that under this government. It's already declared martial law in a covert manner and is testing the military with the question "If your command-in-chief ordered you to fire on American citizens, would you?" The higher ranks are already being purged of those who said no.
+5 Informative for that bullshit? Come on. Prove it.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The claim that the there is no 4th amendment right within 100 miles of a border is false. (Though the federal government may occasionally conduct illegal searches on that basis.)
As wikipedia says, "Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border, the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports)."
Wikipedia offers this Supreme Court decision as an example: a non-US-citizen was busted for marijuana possesion while driving 25 miles from the border; and the SC ruled that the search of his car could not be justified by the border provision.
Who the hell links to an article about the ACLU's work, without Linking directly to the work in question instead
Liberty.
To translate your post so Mashiki could understand it:
A. YWTSWJSTO, RTUASOA.
In Detroit? Everyone foolish enough to bring electronics into Detroit gets them taken immediately. Not by DHS agents.
that map is not entirely accurate.. _official_ international borders between the u.s. and canada in the great lakes are in the water, NOT along the lakes' shores. michigan, for instance, is not entirely within 100 miles of the border; and chicago is not even close to being within 100 miles of an international border (lake michigan is entirely within the u.s. which makes the nearest border to chicago over 200 miles away, near detroit).... http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/373/greatlakeborders.png
regardless, the government has gone waaaaay too far here. i refuse to submit simply because might happen to live or travel within 100 miles of one of the great lakes or an ocean coast. i wouldn't be surprised to see them try to extend this to navigable inland waterways, too.. that would cover most of the rest of the population so they could molest and harass (and steal mp3 players, laptops, tablets, ereaders, etc, just like tsa/customs at airports, from) pretty much anyone, anywhere, without cause (as if anything is really stopping them now)
200 miles is the economic exclusion zone. Territorial waters extend twelve nautical miles from the mean low tide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg
Washington DC is within 100 miles of the border, right? So if a DHS agent wanted to seize the laptop of a senator or representative under suspicion of bribery (a violation of 18 USC Sec. 201) he or she would be within their authority to do so without needing to worry about the li'l old 4th Amendment?
I guess living in peach is too much to ask of this country anymore.
James?
Yes, this includes your home. The local police have to abide by the idea that warrants are required but if the DHS decides you are a possible terrorist threat, citizen of no, you have no rights whatsoever.
And, of course, there has been much discussion recently of the leaked documents outlining the policy that the US government can simply execute anyone labelled "terrorist" at any time. Granted, that hasn't been reviewed by any courts, and the Supreme Court might declare execution without trial unconstitutional. But that might not be much consolation if you're dead.
Then there's the question of where in the world this isn't true.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I don't speak for the TSA, but if I were an honest, god-fearing, terrorist-hating TSA official, hell-bent on winning the good fight for freedom and values we're fighting against our enemies, I'd be hard-pressed not to point out to you the simple fact that terrorists can embark anywhere on the US side of the lake shores, making the shoreline the first line of d-fence. It would be obvious to me that to confront the terrorist threat along the shoreline and marine borders effectively, the 100-mile freedom zones should naturally extend from the beach inland, and not be arbitrarily defined from some imaginary liberal line you call "border".
Also, were I working for the TSA, I'd say that your soft position on the threats facing this great country makes you a help to the terrorists and a conduit of the dangers terrorism poses to the American way of life. You should repent and amend your ways.
And don't forget, all your airports that serve planes that travel in/out of the country also count as being on the border, so there's a 100 mile radius around them with this constitution-free zone as well.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Not sure what the situation is now, but during the summer of 2002, just about 9 months after "9/11", a friend and I sailed from Kauai to San Francisco. We saw basically no one out at sea, and could have met up with anyone carrying whatever sort of munitions. When we arrived in SF, we sailed/motored to his dock, tied up, were picked up by his wife and went home. No customs agents, no TSA, no nothing. If a nuke were available, I've got no doubt that terrorists would have no trouble killing millions.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
You didn't notice the sub shadowing you? The Satellite overhead that tracked your progress? You only think you were unobserved.
My entire state, according the the ACLU map, is in this zone. Our state motto is: "Live Free or Die". I laugh, sadly, every time I hear somebody say that here with pride.
Oh, we don't have to wear seat belts though. I guess I just don't understand what "Live Free" means as obviously not being required to wear seat belts is more than an even trade for losing your 4th Amendment rights.... Riiiiiight.
Idiot. Go back and read it again. You missed the part about the 100 miles being bullshit according to the Supreme Court. They threw the case out because it was 25 miles from the border and the exception is for THE border not miles inland. The TSA can say the moon is purple but it doesn't change the damn color of the moon does it? They can't change the Constitution either no matter how hard they try.
Reall good huh! What suckers you all were to believe the "Obama is good on civil liberties!" line. The man has proven himself by word and deed to be even more evil than Bush and Cheney. Not only does he not reverse their policies, he expands and extends them. But not a peep out of his supporters because he's "their" guy.
Really? The guys that drew up the Bill of Rights were, as defined by the current administration, Terrorists. If they were alive today they'd stick 'em in Gitmo. They rebelled and overthrew the legitimate government of the colonies by force. I could make an argument that they actually were more free back then than we are now. If John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today they'd be on the no fly list for sure.
What stops DHS from continuing to arrest people wherever they want? Was anyone at DHS *punished* for this drug bust? Possession is 90% of the law, and DHS has you cuffed on the ground. Supreme Court is far away.
there is no ammo box option. it's not an option in a civil society
That is correct. The ammo box is to be used when the society is no longer civil. For example, when your lords and masters tread upon you and enslave you. At one point it had something to do with taxes, at another - with slavery. Thirst for power also works. The society can drop the pretenses of civility very quickly (technically, at any time when civil methods are no longer advantageous.)
shooting people does what? turns you into a target for a manhunt. that's it
Largely yes, it does that. However it also tells others that their actions have consequences. Some people understand only the language of force; you can find many such people in your local MS13 gang - or, as Chris Dorner tells us, at LAPD headquarters. He may be wrong even in theory; and killing people over verbal offenses or over dismissal from a job is a terrible overreaction. He is very likely to be a mental patient because even in his manifesto you can see explosive rage where a reasonable man would record the conversation on his cell phone, then call his lawyer and get rich.
i don't really know why this stupid idea appeals to some people unless you are actually an unhinged individual
Mr. Dorner is unhinged, it is obvious from any one out of the many hints that he provided. Naturally, he is absolutely sure that he is perfectly sane and his actions are "necessary evil." All insane people are sure that they are sane. Half of his manifesto is talking about petty offenses that he was subjected to at work. He then proceeds to make a mountain out of that. A normal person would simply quit and move to a city with better PD, or he would take a different job altogether.
Time for the old standard: "The law is what the cop on the beat says it is." If you live long enough to get a lawyer and a trial, you have the opportunity to bankrupt yourself to get out of jail. Good luck.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I regularly sail between Seattle and Vancouver, and never declare myself or register with customs. I've been doing it for decades. I once even called customs like you're supposed to when I docked, and they were confused and told me I didn't need to do anything. The coast guard has stopped me before and doesn't care.
Its not just the water either. Near Vancouver there are numerous dirt roads that simply go right across the border, and no one seems to care.
Border security is a joke.
What a load of bullshit and slashdot is of course gobbling it up, it's 100 miles from any land and sea border. The airports themselves are constitution free zones as well, but there's no 100 mile bubble around them. 10/10 troll good sir.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is the slippery slope by which DHS can barge into any home in America. Any.
So could any terrorist. It's the duty of the citizens to protect themselves, thus we never needed a DHS in the first place.
No one is safe.
Not true. Freedom doesn't imply safety; However, by taking away freedoms the government is now fairly safe from its citizens. Life is dangerous, "safety" is a disease; Use caution instead. The DHS was founded under the guise of providing safety, see? Instead of panicking we should have just used personal caution, and not rely on others to provide non-existent preemptive safety.
If you read the US Declaration of Independence, down near the bottom in the list of abuses of the citizens it cites that the King of England "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." It's pretty much like what's happening now: We're being forced to pay for the many new offices of the DHS which only serve to harass us while eating away our sustenance in the form of taxes, and eating the funds of other beneficial programs.
I encourage everyone to read those list of abuses and compare them to events of today: "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." Hell, they go worse than this and simply try coming up with laws decided in Secret via treaty, remember ACTA? Kangaroo Courts, where the famous and police can get away with murder or massive fraud -- Corporations frequently try to file suits in such a way to make them more expensive to get to, just ask G.Hotz. I could go on, but it really is quite uncanny how many of the abuses listed by our forefathers are now mirrored in today's happenings. The founding fathers thought many of the practices today's people are subjected to were intolerable and that it was their duty to fight a revolution and not "suffer, while evils are sufferable", instead they chose to "right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". If only they could see us now... The once brave now cower, because their Land of the Free isn't.
I guess some good has come of it all: If we every did want to turn it off and on again, we could simply re-use the same declaration, and just add some new signatures.
Then there's the question of where in the world this isn't true.
How about most places? There has been a tendency for people who admit that things aren't well in the USA to tack on a "but it's like that everywhere, right?" to make it seem less bad.
The trigger for the US introducing many of these heinous laws was the 9/11 suicidal plane hijackings, which killed 0.001% of the population. In contrast, Norway was hit by a comparatively larger terrorist attack in 2011, resulting in the death of 0.0015% of the population, which resulted in no new "security" laws.
The rest of the world does not automatically become a police state just because the USA does.
You do understand that such action would be in response to abuse, not in anticipation of same, right? Right?
Even the American revolution didn't just fire up the first few times King George abused the colonists. It was a cumulative thing. Now, as to whether current events could reach such a crescendo of abuse as to actually inspire revolution... I doubt it. The average American today seems more intent on sitting in front of the television and chowing down some fast food. While the television in turn keeps them enthralled with nonsense about terrorism, saving the children, and whatnot. So I think it'll have to get quite a bit worse before anyone meaningful seriously contemplates violence.
The question seems to be, will it get worse, and just how bad would that be?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
(a)(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 chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
No, international airports does not count as an external boundary.
And no, embassies does not count as an external boundary because contrary to common misconception embassies are not foreign soil.
And no, Indian Reservations does not count as an external boundary because they are not external.
I am correcting all these misconceptions because there is no need to twist the truth when it's on our side. There's no need to make up imaginary international boundaries within our country in order to inflate the numbers; even if only 1% of the population is living in the constitution-free zone that would be far too high. The truth is on our side and we just need to present it as it is; sugarcoating it or even tempering with it simply undermine our own argument and our own credibility.
I brought up the constitution-free zone map in an argument once and my opponent immediately pointed out that the international borders cut across the middle the of great lakes. In a single stroke both ACLU and myself lost our credibility in that argument.
If a nuke were available, I've got no doubt that terrorists would have no trouble killing millions.
Why would they bother? Killing people is just the horrible means terrorists use to achieve their aims. The terrorists goals are usually to oppose the US' historical championing of freedom and democracy throughout the world. From what I see sitting well over 100 miles north of your border they don't need to bother anymore: if you can't support freedom and democracy in your own country you have zero credibility when you try to promote it to the rest of the world. The US might still be more free and more democratic than a lot of nations but to champion it you need a squeaky clean image not a "ho-hum and getting worse" one.