Comments on: Border Patrol Panicking?

By: jerry

jerry — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:44:13 +0000

Steroids is my guess….muscles grow…brain and testicles contract

By: El surfer

El surfer — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:47:21 +0000

It isnt any better flying into SFO Ive been harrased many times and its seems allways by a minority agent. with a attatuded. you would think the surfboards would give them an Idea what I went for. the older agents have allways been cool. one pissed me off so much I asked him how he got the job because I couldnt understand his English… the other agents just laughed and sent me on my way. I understand they have a job to do but resently its got worse. same in nogales driving up from down south seems like the older agents are cool but the younger ones are on a power trip. I dont mind the searches, do your job but leave the attatuded @ home

By: preciosa

preciosa — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:35:52 +0000

The problem with the border crossing is not only the searches but the longer times. It takes 2-3 hrs to cross to Nogales,AZ and the worse part is the attitute of these CBP agents that has gotten worse over the years. These peoplo have no education and too much power and they know it. they can do whatever they want and the mexicans will not complain. They take your passport/border crosser for not good reasons and you have no say in the matter. Some of these agents speak worse english than me and yet they feel superior. Is fine is they have the right to search you but is their whole attitute that makes it an issue. And if you dare to ask why the lines are so long you automatically get send to a second search, you are a criminal by definition. Their response is “why do you go to mexico” just like that, even when there is no cars they manage to make you wait 20 minutes. I crosses one time and there were only 5 cars and yet we have to wait 20-25 minutes to cross.
I think the problem now is that before the people that work there were locals. They knew the 2 nogales and had some common sense but know most agents are not even from arizona. It seems like the CBP is purposely trying to hire prejudist people.

By: vinotinto

vinotinto — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:02:23 +0000

thanks girl…I had the 25-mile limit confused. It’s in the statute for entering private lands but not dwellings: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001357—-000-.html

By: Valentina

Valentina — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:02:15 +0000

Nadien had mentioned something about that a while ago, but there’s no such thing as a “Constitution-free zone.” Border searches other than the actual border, according to the Congressional Research Services, are as follows:

Border searches can also occur in places other than the actual physical border. Two different legal concepts authorize such searches:

(1) searches at the functional equivalent of the border; and

(2) extended border searches. These concepts allow federal officers to conduct border searches even in situations when it is not feasible to conduct the search at the actual point of entry (e.g., examining a person upon arrival at a U.S. airport rather than during a mid-flight crossing into the country).

Here’s the link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf

You have to understand the Fourth Amendment and the exceptions, in order to make sure that your rights are not violated.

Fourth Amendment Clauses: Reasonableness clause: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”

According to the 4th Amendment, in your home (regardless of the fact that you live near the border), you have an expectation of privacy, and therefore, law enforcement agents (including border patrol) are not allowed in your home without a warrant signed by a judge or a magistrate (there are exceptions, but under emergency situations only). By emergency, I mean, life or death situations.

Also, the warrant clause, states: “…and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

By: vinotinto

vinotinto — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:15:58 +0000

Didn’t a court decision extend the definition of the border to everything upto twenty five miles from the actual border? My friends and I say we live in the “deconstitutionalized zone”

By: Valentina

Valentina — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:59:29 +0000

You’re welcome, but remember, outside of the border, a law enforcement officer needs to articulate probable cause if he’s going to conduct a warrantless search. For example: during a traffic stop, he can write up a citation for any minor traffic incident, but if there’s nothing in plain view (nothing suspicious), according to the Plain View Doctrine, he can not ask to search your vehicle without a warrant.

By: vinotinto

vinotinto — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:33:22 +0000

pobre elefante

By: vinotinto

vinotinto — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:50:25 +0000

THANKS!

side note: they hate it when you giggle while their hands are probing your balls…the red-faced anglo got redder-faced jajaja

By: Valentina

Valentina — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:38:30 +0000

I’m going to check with Professor Barman (he’s also an attorney), as to the reason why you were also detained/seized with the suspect that had the vial. If I’m correct, the reason why you were also detained was probably because you were behind him. Since it was a border search, they didn’t need any probable cause/reasonable suspicion to detain you as well.

Here’s what I have for you, straight from class lectures (hope it helps):

Fourth Amendment Stops and Frisks are:

Brief detentions that allow law enforcement officers to briefly freeze and investigate suspicious situations.

“Once-over-lightly” pat downs of outer clothing done to protect officers by taking away suspects’ weapons.

The greater the invasion, the greater the objective basis require by the Constitution to back it up. Officers need to prove (or articulate) fewer suspicious facts and circumstances to back up stops and frisks than they do for arrests and full-blown searches.

The Reasonableness Test: Most searches and seizures are warrantless. These must pass the reasonableness test (Note: Your search and seizure at the border).

The RT requires the government to prove:

Balancing element: The need to search and/or seize outweighs the invasion of liberty and privacy rights of the individuals.

Objective basis: There are enough facts and circumstances to back up the search and/or seizure.

Your search and seizure (because you were detained), was a full-blown search, but not a body cavity search (those are only conducted when they have reason to believe a cavity search is necessary and you’re booked at a jail or when you arrive at a state/federal prison). And the reason for the thorough (felt up) search was for their safety. So, technically, according to their procedures, yes, being felt up is totally reasonable. Even if you feel it’s unreasonable (which is understandable), they have to follow through with procedures – as invasive as it is to an individual.