Careful where you put that thing
"searching phones is different from searching luggage"
Unless, of course, the phone is in the luggage.
A federal district judge has ruled that authorities must obtain a warrant to search an American citizen's cellphone at the US border, barring exigent circumstances. It is the first court in the United States to do so, to the delight of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which along with other advocacy groups has been fighting …
... the Equal Protection clause applies only to state and local governments, not the Feds.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"You can't have one rule for citizens and another for non-citizens. That's unconstitutional in itself."
Don't be silly. American drug dealers are perfectly welcome to practice their trade (see San Francisco and Oakland), whereas them dern furriner drug dealers need to be turned away at the border after confiscating their drugs. I have never seen even the most liberal of civil rights lawyers argue otherwise, either.
Ask your favourite free legal advisor about "reverse incorporation".
Turning people away at the border is one thing. It's not unreasonable to deny people from entering the country, that's what borders are for, and pretty much the whole point of "citizenship" is that citizens have a personal right that overrides that option. But the Fourteenth Amendment absolutely applies to how they are treated once inside the country.
Remember, if they can do it to us - non-citizens - they can absolutely do it to you.
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
United States v. Windsor (2013)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)
United States v. Virginia (1996)
Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017)
case law seems to disagree that the 14th doesn't apply to federal law as state law.
If you read the 14th amendment, it doesn't actually restrict what the federal government can do - it only restricts what the STATES can do. The US government is not bound by the equal protection clause, so you'd have a hard time getting a court to agree that the 14th amendment means customs can't search non-citizen devices if they aren't allowed to search citizen's devices.
Anyway equal protection under the law doesn't mean that all laws must treat everyone the same. There will always be laws that treat citizens differently. For instance, they are allowed to vote and non citizens are not. Citizens can be convicted for the crime of treason against the United States, non citizens cannot (because they do not owe any duty of allegiance to the United States)
"For instance, they are allowed to vote and non citizens are not". That is not quite a law treating citizens and non-citizens differently. The law specifically states that non-citizens can't vote. A better example would be the law that states that theft is illegal - for everyone. That law cannot then be applied differently to citizens and non-citizens.
YOU might--but the courts really don't. I was chatting with a lawyer friend around '96, complaining about some decision or the other. As soon as I brought up the constitution, he cut me off, "___, constitutional law has nothing to do with the constitution." He was a conservative.
In for this particular purpose, the courts have long applied the equal protection clause to the federal government.
So I think I now understand the 100 mile thing. Americans love to be able to claim to be pioneers. Pioneers are always exploring borders. Therefore by making the borders 100 miles from anywhere you can actually enter the USA, then all those Americans (2/3 of them according to the article!) can claim to be Pioneers.
There you have it, a nation of Pioneers. As defined by law...
I'm actually surprised it is as low as 2/3.
100 miles in from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts is obviously where most people live. 100 miles in from the Canadian and Mexican borders won't add that many people.
But it is also 100 mile radius of any airport, and any decently large city is going to have an airport.
This post has been deleted by its author
> The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.
If only 1/3 of Americans have a passport, and since you obviously can't trust birth certificates, doesn't this mean a lot of pickup truck driving white(*) American patriots will be inconveniently held in cages until their citizenship can be established ?
* - assuming most Africa-Americans can be assumed to be American, somebody probably still has the original receipt
If the exception applies within 100 miles of a border and an international airport counts as a border 'point', then surely the circles on that imgur map should have a radius equal to the thickness of the border stripe. They are slightly larger in diameter than the stripe, but certainly not twice as wide.
First of all, before casting too many stones you Brits might want to compare and contrast the duties and etc. of your very own Border Force.
Just out of curiosity, I spent the morning calling about 70 people I know (friends, family, former students, etc.). These folks range the gamut of American society. (Rich, poor, educated & not, various races and religions, etc. etc.)
I asked them all the same question: "Have you, or anybody you know or have heard of directly, ever been stopped by the US Customs and Border Protection (colloquially known as "the US Border Patrol"), for ANY REASON AT ALL, at any location other than at the actual border, or a proxy for the border such as an airport or seaport?"
They all said "no", just as I suspected.
The border patrol just plain doesn't pull over random people on a whim. They don't have the manpower for it.
They DO target smugglers of various descriptions after their goods have entered the country. Having a 100 mile limit allows them to ignore little things like county and state lines, which would otherwise allow the perps to move on to the next location before being busted.
they were stopping all cars on freeway between San Diego and LA. I was on a work permit and didn't have my UK passport or any other documentation with me.
Fortunately the office looked in the car and based purely on a glance was able to determine that there was no need to question any of us - I assume they have some sort of pyschic powers.
"they were stopping all cars on freeway between San Diego and LA."
Perfectly normal when a perp is suspected to be running along that particular highway. We had a roadblock on Hwy 12 here in Sonoma a couple months ago; some entitled twat figured he could out-drive the police+Motorola. He'll be cooling his heels for the next 5 years or so, and the rest of us won't have to worry about his antics.
"Fortunately the office looked in the car and based purely on a glance was able to determine that there was no need to question any of us"
Becuse they were looking for a Mexican national in a blue Ford pickup, and you were obviously pastry white Brits in a green Chevy sedan?
"I assume they have some sort of pyschic powers."
Yeah. That must be it.
Original: "Fortunately the office looked in the car and based purely on a glance was able to determine that there was no need to question any of us"
Reply: Becuse they were looking for a Mexican national in a blue Ford pickup, and you were obviously pastry white Brits in a green Chevy sedan?
If that was the logic, that's terrible logic. If they're willing to use "Not the right kind of car" as a reason not to question them, then they don't need to pull over that car, do they? If they're willing to assume that the person they're looking for could have changed cars, then that part of your argument has no importance. As for the appearance of the person, there are a variety of time-tested ways to make yourself look different which actors have been testing for decades. You can't prove that one of those people was the person in disguise along with some compatriots who had provided the replacement car. Either the situation justifies pulling over every vehicle and questioning the occupants or it requires a more specific search pattern, most likely the latter. The anecdote they supply doesn't appear to have followed either.
This was (probably) not TV or the movies. This was (probably) the RealWorld, on Interstate 5 somewhere between San Diego and LA. Probably.
RealLife perps on the run from the cops and actively being pursued rarely change vehicles (On the rare occasion that they do, the carjacking victim tells the cops EXACTLY what the new vehicle is, so there is no point; all it does is waste time), and they certainly never take the time to don theatrical makeup.
Then follow the other branch of that if statement.
"RealLife perps on the run from the cops and actively being pursued rarely change vehicles (On the rare occasion that they do, the carjacking victim tells the cops EXACTLY what the new vehicle is"
In that case, any time spent on pulling over a car which isn't the type of car they're looking for is time wasted and people needlessly harassed. The original statement confirmed that they were testing every vehicle, hence they were not following that logic. I stated this already, so I see no reason why you think the point is as ridiculous as your reply implies.
"and they certainly never take the time to don theatrical makeup."
A better point, but if I was on the run from the law and made a career of it, I might try that approach; it seems it would have worked in this case, at least if the police use the same logic you do, which as the car example shows, may not be as certain.
"In that case, any time spent on pulling over a car which isn't the type of car they're looking for is time wasted"
They are not pulling over "a car". Rather, they are slowing traffic. The cops know that the slower traffic is moving, the lower the chances of anyone getting hurt when the perp does something stupid.
The original report was from a Brit who clearly didn't understand the big picture. You are extrapolating from that.
"but if I was on the run from the law and made a career of it"
You wouldn't be dodging roadblocks somewhere on Interstate 5 between San Diego and LA. Idiots who do that get arrested, which is a bad move if you are trying to be a career criminal.
Again, RealLife isn't a written in Hollywood and made for TV movie, no matter how fervently you wish it were so.
If you are getting searched for at roadblocks, you've stolen the wrong amount of money.
Steal $10 because you have none and need to eat, get 20 years (Previously, transportation for 7 years to a sunny climate)
Steal $10,000 from another crim, get 5 to 10 years.
Steal $10,000,000,000 from half of the country, get a pardon and the chance to run for the presidency.
The issue we have with that 100 mile limit is that the *vast* majority of Candians live inside that limit. (Albeit on the other side). And, although I'd have to go digging, I'm pretty sure that there is already a case here where the US border patrol stopped a Canadian, in Canada, and attempted to arrest them, based purely on that law. AFAIK it did not end well for the US officials *or* the individual being arrested.
As for the "we're just gonna grab an image of your phone before you go" bit, it won't matter if you're a citizen or a "foreigner", that bit they will get a judge to approve, one way or another. Might involve a dead judge or two, but they will get that written into law, somehow.