Mastodawn

CBP is monitoring US drivers and detaining those with suspicious travel patterns

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveillance-drivers-ice-trump-9f5d05469ce8c629d6fecf32d32098cd

Border Patrol monitors US drivers and detains Americans for ‘suspicious’ travel

The U.S. Border Patrol is monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program to identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious. The Associated Press has found that the predictive intelligence program has resulted in people being stopped, searched, and in some cases arrested. A network of cameras scans and records vehicle license plate information, and an algorithm flags vehicles deemed suspicious based on where they came from, where they were going, and which route they took. Federal agents in turn may then flag local law enforcement. The Border Patrol’s parent agency said they use license plate readers to help identify threats and disrupt criminal networks and are governed by "federal law and constitutional protections.”

AP News

65% of the US population, 200 million Americans, live within the 100-Mile "Constitution-Free Zone".

Supreme Court has established that some established constitutional provisions do not apply at the U.S. border, and protections against governmental privacy incursions are significantly reduced.

The border search exception applies within 100 miles (160 km) of the border of the United States, including borders with Mexico and Canada but also coastlines.

>While the U.S. Border Patrol primarily operates within 100 miles of the border, it is legally allowed “to operate anywhere in the United States,” the agency added.

The Border Patrol probably is allowed to operate anywhere within the United States, but being in the Border Patrol doesn't (at least statutorily) give them any magic powers; in particular, you don't get "border search authority" by being a part of CBP, but rather by being any law enforcement officer confronting someone who you reasonably believe crossed the border recently.

This is mostly a canard, kept alive by fundraising pages at ACLU, but contradicted directly by current pages on the ACLU's site. It feels useful on a message board to call out things like this, but it actually hurts people in the US, who deserve to know that they do not surrender their 4th Amendment rights simply by dint of living within 100 miles of Lake Erie.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041697

(There's a really good Penn State law review article on that thread).

The 100-mile border zone thing is a myth ACLU uses to fundraise. There have been... | Hacker News

> (really good Penn State law review article on that thread)

Yes, and what it says is this:

>The Supreme Court has decided that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border, holding that the government’s interest in monitoring and controlling entrants
outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. Thus, routine searches
without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion are considered
inherently reasonable and automatically justified in that particular
context.32 Fourth Amendment rights are therefore significantly
circumscribed at the border, and CBP is given an expansive authority to
randomly—and without suspicion—search, seize, and detain individuals
and property at border crossings that law enforcement officers would not
have in other circumstances.

The constitution free, means that constitutional rights are reduced within the area.

The whole article is about what at the border actually means.

pdabbadabba Nov 20

I reread that old thread, and then skimmed the Penn State article (a bit quickly, I admit). I gotta say: I think you're overstating your case here. Certainly, the author of that article is skeptical about the 100-mile zone and makes plenty of good (and, IMO, obvious) points about why it is constitutionally suspect. But, to read your comments, you'd think that some important court somewhere has actually placed meaningful limits on immigration enforcement within that zone (outside the context of an actual border crossing). If so, I don't see where you're getting that. If that's actually in the article, could you tell us where?

To be fair, though, I think it is also true that the ACLU is too eager to talk about the "Constitution-Free Zone" as though it is fact. I also agree that people should not simply accept that the Constitution-Free Zone exists. It is definitely not that simple and what would otherwise be 4th Amendment violations should absolutely still be challenged even if they occur within the zone. There is still every opportunity for more good law on this.

Without wanting to recapitulate this argument for the Nx1000th time if we don't have to I'll just say that the points I'm making are points ACLU itself now makes.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

Since the ACLU is largely the origin of this meme, I think that's pretty dispositive.

Importantly: I am (for the Nx1000th time) not saying that federal law enforcement officers won't make abusive claims, or directly abuse the law; they certainly will. As I said in the previous thread, they managed to detain Senator Patrick Leahy more than 100 miles from a border, which, when you think about the implications of the 100-mile-zone, is kind of a feat!

Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from random and arbitrary stops and searches. Although the federal government claims the power to conduct certain kinds of warrantless stops within 100 miles of the U.S. border, important Fourth Amendment protections still apply.

American Civil Liberties Union

superkuh Nov 20

Okay, so you linked to https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone which contains this text:

>The federal government defines a “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S. So, combining this federal regulation and the federal law regarding warrantless vehicle searches, CBP claims authority to board a bus or train without a warrant anywhere within this 100-mile zone. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.

Which, upon re-reading both of your comments in this thread makes me actually think there is no argument at all and everyone here and the ACLU agree: there is a no consitution zone, it has practical consequences, and it does extend out 100 miles from internal foreign borders.

Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from random and arbitrary stops and searches. Although the federal government claims the power to conduct certain kinds of warrantless stops within 100 miles of the U.S. border, important Fourth Amendment protections still apply.

American Civil Liberties Union

pdabbadabba Nov 20

The executive branch asserts that there is such a zone. But the truth is likely that many, if not all, 4th Amendment rights still apply in many situations within that zone. It's situation dependent, so it's difficult to make a sweeping generalization. But some of the executive branch's most aggressive claims and tactics, at least, may well not hold up in court.

dragonwriter Nov 20

> The executive branch asserts that there is such a zone. But the truth is likely that many, if not all, 4th Amendment rights still apply in many situations within that zone.

Technically, the entire fourth amendment applies. BUT All the fourth amendment requires is probable cause for warrants, and that searches and seizures be reasonable. It doesn't require warrants for searches or seizures (although courts have found that that is usually necessary for reasonableness), and it doesn't require probable cause for searches or seizures without a warrant (though courts have found that that also is usually necessary for reasonableness.)

What the courts have allowed is the use of the border zone to justify exceptions to a lot of the things that are usually required for reasonableness. This isn't, technically, an exception to the Fourth Amendment, because searches still need to be "reasonable". Its just proximity to the border makes searches "reasonable" that wouldn't be anywhere else.

Got a case cite on this?

I'm doing ["border search" "miles" site:uscourts.gov], getting cases --- recent cases, including some with cites to Ameida-Sanchez, which of course makes my point --- and not seeing much to suggest that CBP can randomly search random cars in Green Bay WI under the border search exemption.

I think one thing that happens in these discussions is that people lose sight of how big a deal an actual border search is. An actual border search (I've had the pleasure! And mine was on the mild end of things.) is much worse than a search incident to arrest.

What I feel like people do here is map everyday abusive law enforcement behavior onto that border search exemption without realizing that what they're actually suggesting is that people should expect (and thus roll with) a "tear everything apart, search under clothes, maximally invasive" border search, which is what the Constitution authorizes at an actual border crossing.

superkuh Nov 21

Congress asserts this since they passed the 2001 bill that destroyed the country. It was called The PATRIOT Act. It created this, not any particular president's interpretation. All the executives since Bush jr. have asserted it. And I called it out then, in the past, over and over and over. But our leaders were too charismatic to hold to accord. None of them sunset the PATRIOT act in 2003 when it was supposed to or any time it could have been thereafter. Niether that nor the 2001/2002 authorizations of use of military force used for assassinating US citizens(1). Which was formalized via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix created by Obama and used by Obama/Obama/Trump/Biden/Trump. We had our chance. No one cared.

And now here we are with most of the population of the USA without rights and the president able to declare anyone left a terrorist and use the military against them.

(1*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... )

Disposition Matrix - Wikipedia

It's trivially easy to find cases that refute this (see the Google query across the thread). You'll have to do better than "2001".