Judge Rules Constitution Free Zones 100 Miles Inside Borders are OK

A US federal judge has reaffirmed an Obama administration policy granting officials the authority to search Americans' laptops, citing a controversial premise that makes citizens within 100 miles of the border eligible for a police check.

District Judge Edward Korman made his ruling in New York on Tuesday, more than three years after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit. The ACLU claimed that - since Americans put so much of their lives on their computers, cell phones, and other devices – border officials should have reasonable suspicion before sifting through someone's personal files.

Attorneys argued that searches conducted without reasonable suspicion are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Not so, according to Judge Korman. In his decision Tuesday he argued that the area 100 miles inland falls under a “border exemption.”

http://rt.com/usa/court-upholds-laptop-border-searches-041/

serious problem people.

serious problem people.


Not really. Secondary check points have been a reality for fifty plus years and the Supreme Court has been very clear for longer than that about this exception to the fourth Amendment. Common sense allows the exception, otherwise every person crossing the border you would need a warrant to search them. Common sense has been replaced by the exception to the rule as being controlling. At the same time you argue for secure borders, and blame the President for the lack of security on the border, here you imply that court rulings which allow searches on our border are abusive.....and that too is somehow the President's fault(the implication of the thread)

The Supreme Court is not going to handcuff our security on borders to some black letter mileage from the border, rather it will review each case and apply the intent of the exception. I was stopped in 1975 thirty miles from the border and had my car searched by immigration. It also pissed me off, but I understand the common sense.

"common sense" must be the newest word/slogan in need of re-defining by the current communist/progressives.

Its sure used a lot ^^^^ however used without any true "common sense".

This has been the law for over forty years and some of the most important cases by the Supremes happened during the Nixon administration.

2seaoat wrote:This has been the law for over forty years and some of the most important cases by the Supremes happened during the Nixon administration.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had filed the suit on behalf of the National Press Photographers Association

http://online.wsj.com/article/APc9a65df89bcc4cf2afeabce2f3126849.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Please show me where you get that it is OK to do a search without reasonable cause by a border patrol agent up to 100 miles from the border.

I want to see where your get the 40 year comment from.

**oh and if so, border patrol agents can pretty much do anything they want in the entire state of fl.

Please show me where you get that it is OK to do a search without reasonable cause by a border patrol agent up to 100 miles from the border.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception


Geez, I need to start getting a salary educating those who must have been sleeping in school.


Here is the 1973 Supreme Court case I promised you
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699

2seaoat wrote:Please show me where you get that it is OK to do a search without reasonable cause by a border patrol agent up to 100 miles from the border.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception


Geez, I need to start getting a salary educating those who must have been sleeping in school.


Here is the 1973 Supreme Court case I promised you
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699

You may as well get a federal salary... I've never seen anyone more in love with anti-constitutional govt overreach.

2seaoat wrote:Please show me where you get that it is OK to do a search without reasonable cause by a border patrol agent up to 100 miles from the border.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception


Geez, I need to start getting a salary educating those who must have been sleeping in school.


Here is the 1973 Supreme Court case I promised you
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699

That took you long enough lol

how sad is this. the whole state of florida and all of us have no 4th admend. rights.

must make you proud comrade. you people are good. digging out every little commie victory to implement them all at once in full force. hurray!

must make you proud comrade. you people are good. digging out every little commie victory to implement them all at once in full force. hurray!

You and pk are consistent in trying to blame the commies and government.......however, it was Nixon's war on drugs which caught a guy smuggling drugs into the country, and you of all people want our borders secure.....it is funny how you folks can rationalize your inconsistent generalizations which mean nothing.

2seaoat wrote:must make you proud comrade. you people are good. digging out every little commie victory to implement them all at once in full force. hurray!

You and pk are consistent in trying to blame the commies and government.......however, it was Nixon's war on drugs which caught a guy smuggling drugs into the country, and you of all people want our borders secure.....it is funny how you folks can rationalize your inconsistent generalizations which mean nothing.

Just keep defending an authoritarian police state... there's no justifiable reason (much less probable cause) for a citizen to be detained in any way by border agents unless they are entering or exiting the country. It's intellectually dishonest to rage against law enforcement and prison expansions and not see the momentum in other agencies. There are more than just border patrols too... another dhs agency wants in too... the tsa for one atf for another. The courts have allowed more invasive sobriety checkpoints but are still resisting drug checkpoints... but those limits are quickly fading... the police may now cruise rest areas with dogs even if you have consented in no way or are even aware. The creep is ongoing... even if you are only capable of see some of it within your ideological blinders.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/my-rights-at-checkpoints/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/checkpoint-society

You sir are not well read.  I cannot help you unless you choose to read.  The last three years have seen both factions of the supreme court moving to qualify exceptions to the 4th amendment, which is exactly 180 degrees from what you just posted.  You are years behind the curve.  However, the supremes were correct in their decision on the borders.....have you ever driven into Mexico.........maybe your lack of common sense can be excused by lack of real world experience.