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.
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.
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.
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
287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."
That's the genesis of the current state of affairs. As far as I know, it's not been tested in USSC. However, inasmuch as they've approved ex post facto laws, inverted the commerce clause (and in so doing created the legislative condition where anything they like, they can regulate), usurped article 5 powers for themselves, violated almost the entire bill of rights in other cases... this is why I blame them. If they were doing their jobs, legislators would know better than to make such as laws. As it is, legislators can expect that these absurdities may well be upheld, even though they are on the face obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. That's been no barrier to the sophists on SCOTUS in recent decades, and congress knows it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Pointless without an envelope stuffed with money. They won't even see it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
What about anybody living within 100 miles of space? That's a border too.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
(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.