What was their probable cause?
Merged Due process in the US
- Thread starter Aridas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- due process maga spartz
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I've had to stop at temporary immigration checkpoints set up on highways near the border many times. I don't see how this is much different.
If anything, the conductor's testimony is that trains haven't been getting enough attention.
They entered the train, they needed probable cause to do so. Research the 4th amendment and the Carroll Doctrine. Which is why I wondered (wink-wink) if they had a tip.
Let me see your paperzz!
ETA: A checkpoint would be at a station where they could check arrivals and departures.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm pretty sure they need authorization to set up roadblocks on public highways, too.
Ahahaha no.
Sometimes checkpoints are set up on highways near the border, to screen for vehicles that have picked up people crossing illegally in less-monitored places.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
No probable cause needed. It was a bus with people from San Diego to LA.
They entered the train. That's the difference.
Ahahaha, yes.
Checkpoints are different than entering a vehicle. They need probable cause to enter.
They need probable cause to enter a vehicle. The Carroll Doctrine.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Apparently they dont, if its less than 100 miles from any border.
Research the Carroll Doctrine. I am unaware of any court decision that exempts ICE from the 4th amendment.
It gets weird when dealing with trains in the US. They can board a train within 100 miles of the border and ask for citizenship documentation. You are not obligated to answer their questions without a lawyer present, but if you don't things are likely to go downhill fast after that. They cannot ask to search you or your baggage without reasonable cause, but if they know what they are doing they can get the train conductor to ask you, at which point you either have to allow the conductor to search your bags, or the conductor can have you removed from the train.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from random and arbitrary stops and searches. Although the federal government claims the power to conduct certain kinds of warrantless stops within 100 miles of the U.S. border, important Fourth Amendment protections still apply.
www.aclu.org
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.
This is very pre-Trump. This happened to me 13 years ago.
Last edited:
Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from random and arbitrary stops and searches. Although the federal government claims the power to conduct certain kinds of warrantless stops within 100 miles of the U.S. border, important Fourth Amendment protections still apply.
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.
This is very pre-Trump. This happened to me 13 years ago.
I still assert this is a violation of the 4th amendment, and this case would be a good test. The attorney in the link agrees.
Last edited:
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Supreme Court already ruled its legal, 7 to 2.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I'm still of the opinion this incident is a violation of the 4th and would be a good challenge.Supreme Court already ruled its legal, 7 to 2.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
plague311
Great minds think...
Supreme Court already ruled its legal, 7 to 2.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte - Wikipedia
The court ruled abortion was legal too, how did that turn out?
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Your opinion is kinda moot when the Supreme Court rules with such a majority against your views.
The question can be re-litigated. Lots of folks thought Roe V Wade was moot. They were wrong, in case you didn't notice.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This probably falls into the category of "Things that you think should be illegal but aren't."
Yes, ICE can board trains. Yes, ICE can briefly question passengers on a train, including U.S. citizens, about their citizenship and/or immigration status. If questioned, you have the right to remain silent as usual. More to the point, being questioned by an ICE agent while you are a passenger on a "vehicle or vessel" within the border zone is no different than being randomly stopped on the street by a police officer and questioned. You have no obligation to speak to an officer unless you are, in fact, being detained. That's when the 4th amendment kicks in. Generally the longer any officer—including ICE agents—question you, the more reasonable suspicion they need to do so.
But of course when an officer in combat gear and military weapons is on your train, the goal is obviously to intimidate you into tacitly and willfully give up any rights you may still have under court rulings. They count on your fear that by asserting your rights, you will engender more suspicion. If the questioning happens at a "fixed" place such as a train or bus station "near" the border, and every single passenger is questioned, the stop is not considered targeted or individualized and therefore is permitted under the 4th amendment. It's what makes the inspection "routine" enforcement.
It is unlikely that the courts in this day and age will restore 4th amendment protections that have been systematically eroded by rulings such as Martinez-Fuerte. If you want a more comprehensive list, find the bar nearest your district courthouse. It will likely contain a number of public defenders. Buy one a beer (or seven) and ask about routine violations of the 4th amendment that go largely unnoticed and unredressed.
The dissent in Martinez-Fuerte notes with alarm the apparent nonchalance with which the majority condones what may amount to being stopped by heavily-armed goons while going about your lawful business. It also enumerates some of cases the form the erosion of the 4th amendment I alluded to earlier. It warns against the likely pretextual nature of "routine" stops to facilitate racial profiling. Sadly it seems fairly well entrenched that the practical necessity of border patrolling is what the courts consider more important.
mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,016
And it should be said that this area is where 200 million Americans live. So two-thirds of the population of the country.Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from random and arbitrary stops and searches. Although the federal government claims the power to conduct certain kinds of warrantless stops within 100 miles of the U.S. border, important Fourth Amendment protections still apply.
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.
This is very pre-Trump. This happened to me 13 years ago.
ICE has been a disaster for civil liberties from day one. Who would have thought that all those anti-terrorism measures would one day be used against people with no clear relation to terrorism, other than anyone with any sense of history.