Hacker News Reader

Comment by EA-3167 | Hacker News Reader

As someone far from any border, let me join in you a hearty "thank fuck" as well. This always seemed like a terrible and deeply unAmerican thing for the government to engage in. I'm all for oversight, including some that many find overbearing, but warrantless searches of your devices just for crossing a border is some post-9/11 hysterical nonsense.

View on HN

You don't even have to be crossing a border. There's an area some 100 mile distance from the border that the CBP operates. It just so happens that a large percentage of the population resides in that area, so it can affect more people than immediately realized.

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

There's ones on either end of El Paso that always seem weird to me. They're clearly inside US territory on the highway and they're performing analysis on occupants of the vehicle as well as registration and citizenship. I've never heard of one 100 miles inland, not to say it doesn't exist but a maps link might be helpful. For example: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1L872WkbWL11Zob-E9O...

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

> 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. Two-thirds of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region, according to the 2010 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.

Ah, I didn't realize they can warrantless search 100 miles inland. That's pretty wild. I was thinking they were confined to their little checkpoints.

Ah, I was thinking the land borders, which LA and NY are most certainly not 100 miles from. Didn’t realize they were including coastline too. But there aren’t any CBP officers or offices I’ve ever seen outside of the 100 mile land border range, so that’s something.

> most certainly

Southern end of City of Los Angeles is about 105 air miles from the land border.

105 is most certainly greater than 100 is it not?

And I think you mean LA County, The city is around 120 miles. Regarding the county, Long Beach isn’t really LA - nobody from Long Beach would say they’re from LA.

I'm saying I can't be sure if me measuring distances in Google Maps is accurate to within 5%.

City of Los Angeles includes the port area near Long Beach, and the 110 freeway corridor leading there. Yes, it's a really weird shape.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+Angeles,+CA/@34.020161...

This website is neat https://www.calcmaps.com/map-radius/

Didn't realize City of LA wanted to own the port so much, interesting.

CBP has carte blanche to operate within 100 miles of the US border. That includes international airports! Think about it...

The page you linked says that they need probable cause to search any property within the zone. That's different from when actually crossing a border, in which case property is generally subject to search without suspicion.

probable cause is whatever they say it is, so that's really not much of a show stopper. the only way you can prove it is not proper probable cause is through a lengthy (aka expensive) court battle after the fact.

This is no worse (or better) than any other law enforcement agency. What was being suggested is that there's a 100 mile border zone in which CBP may legally conduct searches without probable cause like they can at a border crossing; that's not the case.

The thing they can do that I find problematic is stop all traffic at a checkpoint and ask immigration-related questions without any suspicion whatsoever. This is conceptually similar to a DUI checkpoint, and I think the courts are wrong to allow either in the USA because they constitute a detention not based on reasonable, individualized suspicion of a crime.

That's not different than walking anywhere in the US. If police claim they have probably cause, then they can search you. The border is irrelevant.

A major difference is that federal agents cannot be charged the same for wrongdoing. I believe they are unable to be charged in a civil court.

But charging a police officer who does an inadmissible search is not really a common remedy.

What happens is the search is tossed out in court, which you have the option of federally or state.

It’s common enough to have a cottage industry of lawyers who specialize in it.

Going to court is the only way you can prove any legal wrongdoing made by anyone about anything.

Except 'probable cause' means that the search was in 'good faith' which is my understanding basically makes the officers involved practically immune, (even if you're awarded damages say), and at the very least makes it more likely to happen by them knowing they're off the hook either way.

sure, but leaning on probable cause to prevent the LEOs from doing something to you in the moment is not a sound practice. it will always be retrospective, and not everyone can afford to avail themselves of the legal remedy. the LEOs know this and behave accordingly

Sure, and I bet "probable cause" can boil down to nothing more than "I thought I smelled marijuana" if the particular CBP officer decides that's what they want to do. And from what I've read elsewhere, CBP leadership seems entirely uninterested in retraining or disciplining agents who go too far.

I’m a little confused here, 100 miles from the borders? Even inside Canada for example!? I don’t think so.

Edit: I just read that 100 miles “inland”, but even that’s absurd, never knew that.

i'm sure the US gov't would love to interpret the rule as you initially did

Hey, the mounties are allowed to chase you back into the US to arrest you, it's not fair if the Canadians can do something CBP can't!

>some post-9/11 hysterical nonsense.

That's because it is lol.

Remember this incident? Fun stuff.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230421210739/https://www.theat...

"A NASA Engineer Was Required to Unlock His Phone at the Border

A U.S.-born scientist was detained at the Houston airport until he gave customs agents the passcode to his work-issued device."

Wouldn't that be a violation of NASA policy and possibly some other Federal agency policies?

Yeah but kind of force majeure at that point.

How long can they detain you for?

Foreigners i understand... either give the passcode or go back home... but local citizens?

(i've argued more than once at my countries border, and there's not much that they can do)

Constitutional due process in the United States applies to both citizens and non citizens alike.

In theory, yes. But in reality, a non-citizen has much more to lose (being denied entry, which is a stain that remains on your record for quite some time) from arguing with a CBP officer about their rights than a citizen does.

The law is irrelevant when LEOs can side-step it whenever they want.

This goes for any law, citizen or not. Equal protection does not mean equality of costs. Some people will have more to lose by fighting a traffic ticket in court. It doesn’t mean they have less rights to do so. Saying the system is structured to be unfair is a different argument than saying the system doesn’t afford the same rights.

Recent events cause me to sincerely doubt that.

I think your referring to de facto, my statement was about de jure.

It far predates 2001, key case law is from the 70's:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-u...

Same. 100 miles from the shores of Lake Michigan puts you upwards of 7 hours drive from the Canadian border. That's just bonkers.

unAmerican...

I'm American. I've always liked this way of describing things that we don't like. It somehow (to me) implies something. Maybe I don't know what that is, but it seems mostly anti-bad.

If anyone wants to hate on me, I think that HuAC was tragically misrepresented to the public, and the Hollywood blacklists should have been longer and wider. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it. Many of the jokers that ended up there were acting very irresponsibly and as if there were no consequences for their actions. The actions being a hidden alignment with an internationalist organization actively seeking to undermine the USA from within. (Something we can accomplish without any outside help.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com