

To Whom the 4th Amendment Doesn’t Apply - cpswan
http://policeledintelligence.com/2013/06/09/to-whom-the-4th-amendment-doesnt-apply/

======
fiatmoney
The DHS also claims that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to anyone within 100
miles of an international border - which includes a majority of the entire US
population.

[http://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-
zone-...](http://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map)

Edit: I appear to be misinformed about this.

~~~
rayiner
That's a blatant overstatement of the situation, and is one of the worst bits
of misrepresentation ever published by the ACLU (which is usually pretty
contentious about this sort of thing).

The "100 miles" rule applies to searches at inland border checkpoints:
[http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-
constituti...](http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/does-a-constitution-
free-zone-really-exist-in-america). DHS is _not_ claiming that the 4th
amendment "doesn't apply to anyone within 100 miles of an international
border." It claims that:

"The DHS ruling from last Friday said its 'warrantless searches' applied to
the U.S. “border and its functional equivalent,” with no mention of the
extended 100-mile border."

The claim is that DHS doesn't need a warrant to search at border checkpoints
or checkpoints which are the functional equivalent of border checkpoints. All
the claim means is that searches don't have to be at the literal border (which
might be in the middle of the desert), but can be slightly inland on major
thoroughfares that host a lot of cross-border traffic. But it still has to be
of the nature of a border search.

It is a totally common-sense policy--nobody ever conceived that the warrant
requirement would apply to border searches. Searchers at the border were
authorized by the very first Congress (which was full of framers who probably
would have known if they had intended the 4th amendment to prevent border
searches!) See:
[http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Border_search_exception#cite_not...](http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Border_search_exception#cite_note-0).

~~~
tptacek
As a past ACLU donor, this is the one bit of agita they sponsor that drives me
nuts. There are cases, from decades ago, that establish that the USG cannot
conduct warrantless searches under the border search exemption simply because
the search occurs within 100 miles of a border.

Half the country (well, half the part of the country that pays attention to
this stuff) really believes that they're in a "4th Amendment Free Zone" so
long as they're 100 miles of Canada, or an ocean. One worries that some of
these people will therefore decide not to refuse searches.

------
ccarter84
Interesting theory about helping recipients of large numbers of subpoena's
streamline their responses / minimize workloads. Personally I think that's
giving the government too much credit as if they cared about the burdensome
nature of generating such large numbers of overreaching requests.

------
mpyne
Good article, though I'd argue that the U.S. has considered foreign citizens
not to be fully covered by Constitutional rights since way before 1990.

~~~
rbanffy
Still, this must be very disturbing for H1B workers and other legal non-
citizen residents.

And hugely disappointing.

~~~
refurb
Really? For example, the 15th amendment of the US constitution doesn't apply
to non-citizens (voting rights).

The US actually does a pretty good job of protecting non-citizens. Unless
there is evidence that providing a right to a non-citizen is required for the
proper functioning of the country, it has to be provided.

~~~
rbanffy
I can understand why voting rights would be limited to citizens, but
protection against government abuse shouldn't be.

------
wyager
Go to page 10.

[http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/crcl-
bor...](http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/crcl-border-
search-impact-assessment_06-03-13_1.pdf)

