This is a common misconception. The 100 mile radius does not waive 4th Amendment protection. A reasonable suspicion of immigration law violation is still required to detain, search and ultimately arrest individuals. To wit: please name a single instance of someone having their rights abused by this so-called "zone".
This article [0] lists several cases of warrantless searches, one of which was in Florida. Apparently that 100 mile radius isn't just from the Canadian border or the Mexican border, it's also 100 miles from any coast, which means that 2/3 of the population lives within that radius.
As far as "reasonable suspicion" goes, I'm increasingly unwilling to support the right of law enforcement to independently, without oversight, determine what is "reasonable".
> strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry
I frankly don't care what's legal or not at this point. The surveillance and police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back. If we constantly just accept past precedent as dictating our future, our rights will be chipped away one by one.
I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at any time. Most Americans don't, that's why we still don't have a proper national ID. I consider that to be a warrantless search regardless of what the law currently says.
> Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
I find that most people who pretend to speak for "the Founding Fathers" are extremely ignorant of the actual motivations of these people who lived 200 years ago. I won't pretend to speak for them, but I will note that I strongly suspect that the smugglers and tax evaders who signed the Declaration of Independence would probably not be in favor of the ever-growing police state we have today.
Regardless, what they wanted is immaterial—they set up this country for us, and presumably expected us to lead it after their deaths.
> I frankly don't care what's legal or not at this point.
Oh, but you should - your freedom may depend on it.
> police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back
Maybe, but this is the world we presently find ourselves living in, and we can either choose to become empowered with knowledge about it, or throw a hyperbolic tantrum and wish for the moon.
> I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at any time.
You don't, at least not in the US. If you took more time to care about the laws you decry, you would know there is no such requirement, unless you have been suspected of a crime by a lawful sworn agent of the state. Which is a reasonable compromise in a society.
> smugglers and tax evaders who signed the Declaration of Independence ... would probably not be in favor of the ever-growing police state we have today
I agree. Those individuals knew well what an unchecked government can do, and took many reasonable precautions to safeguard against such infringements and tyranny. They were of course imperfect in their implementation, but the principals they set forth (freedom of speech, defense, religion, &c.) formed a radically different society to anywhere else on the planet today. Which is why I'm always puzzled when people disregard their hard work to take some agency's word and propaganda at face value, rather than consulting the original tenets which founded this great country.
> You don't, at least not in the US. If you took more time to care about the laws you decry, you would know there is no such requirement, unless you have been suspected of a crime by a lawful sworn agent of the state.
If you took the time to read the article I sent you, you would know that CBP asserts that it has the right to get onto any bus at any time and demand to see proof of citizenship for anyone on board.
You can wave the book at me all day long, but what actually matters is how the law is implemented in practice, and it's pretty clear that law enforcement does, in fact, claim the right to stop anyone at any time and ask for ID.
The format of this podcast is insufferable, like listening to two befuddled people in a retirement home exchange "witty" banter.
I looked it up though. This was 30 years ago. The court issued Border Patrol an injunction and protected students from discimination. A perfect example of the legal system acting justly and prudently, which only supports my argument that unbridled searches within 100 miles of the border is hyperbole only.
Not to get too far off on a tangent here, but I can't agree more. This style of podcast where a simple story is endlessly drawn out with unnecessary audio being inserted, useless details, and constant repetition without getting to the point makes getting any information at all feel like pulling teeth. I've seen it imitated in other podcasts too so the poison is spreading.
Not sure why down voted. Even the quoted article states:
> Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without “reasonable suspicion” of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a “hunch”). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or “probable cause” (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
If you're taking this view, any armed forces can do whatever they want and the constitution is just a piece of paper.
In practice, the evidence gathered by unlawful searches is going to be discarded in a court of law. Other wise said, there is no carving in penal law for "100 miles " from the border.
> If you're taking this view, any armed forces can do whatever they want and the constitution is just a piece of paper
I don't understand how you reach this conclusion.
> In practice, the evidence gathered by unlawful searches is going to be discarded in a court of law
Yes, of course. What I'm talking about is the threshold for when evidence is considered "unlawful".
The "reasonable suspicion" threshold is intentionally an extremely low bar. Low enough that it's barely a meaningful threshold. In practice, it's incredible easy for any officer to make up some articulable suspicion for pretty much anything.
