In this particular case, the 100 mile debate is irrelevant. The argument here is not that CBP doesn't have the right to do a warrantless search at the border, it's that that right does not extend to searching the contents of a mobile device. Border-crossings are an "exception" to the fourth amendment, and that exception is a "narrow" exception that only applies to what is needed in order to balance the governments interests (here, securing our border against illegal immigration and importing goods not permitted) against the rights of the individual. The search is scoped, and should not exceed that scope; the argument is that searching the contents of electronic devices exceed that, since CBP has no business there.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in...
This whole "well, they need some space around the border to operate" seems to be a red herring. No one's objecting CBP from setting up checkpoint buildings at the US border. They've been doing that since 1789. The extension of this space to 100miles is a travesty. Make it 0.5Mi so CBP can't waltz around random bus stations, and no one will complain.
[1] https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/01/28/border-patrol-c...
It's also reasonable for CBP agents to be able to enforce border-related laws anywhere near the border, subject to the usual law enforcement requirements of reasonable suspicion of a crime based on objective evidence for brief detention, and probable cause for any kind of search.
What I find unreasonable is any kind of checkpoint where a substantial number of people passing the point are unlikely to have crossed a border. For example, there's a permanent checkpoint on I10 about 15 miles west of Las Cruces, NM. It's over 30 miles from the border with Mexico in a straight line, and much farther by road. Most people passing this point are traveling between two locations in the US. Everyone is stopped and questioned, and while the questioning is usually not very invasive, it's done with zero individualized suspicion.
I’m not saying that’s a good place for a border check station. I’ve always thought it was silly, but it’s been there for a while.
If what you described reflected reality I'd agree with every word of it. Clearly it's absurd in say the case of Alaskan wilderness to require CBP to setup a checkpoint anywhere near the actual border.
But as you can read in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte[1] the ACLU is more correct than not, although clearly "Constitution-free zone" is a bit of hyperbolic marketing.
The defendant in that case was stopped at a CBP checkpoint halfway up to Los Angeles from the Mexican border. Millions of US citizens permanently live in the San Diego area between the Mexican border and that CBP checkpoint.
I don't see how you can look at a map of San Diego and reasonably conclude that the CBP couldn't do its job using only border stations placed within a mile or two of the border.
> New York City is not within the extended border, even though it’s within 100 miles of the border, and CBP has never claimed otherwise.
So far, but what's at issue is that if they plop down a CBP station between Brooklyn and Manhattan they have existing Supreme Court judgments to back them up.
1. http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep428/usrep428543/usr...
An alternative is to not have a CBP that is part of the Homeland Security apparatus and which does not patrol at all, and only conducts searches at specified border crossings and only based on suspicion of smuggling.
This was the configuration of things from 1789 until 2003.
Sure. To the degree that we still want borders (and I think it's a decreasing degree as time moves forward), this will remain true.
> And it’s absolutely incorrect to claim that historically we only patrolled the border to prevent smuggling.
Yeah? My understanding of the history of the US Customs Service is that it was a revenue generating agency and not a law enforcement arm.
Did it conduct widespread police-style patrols like those we have today? I feel reasonably confident that the answer is "no", but this is not my primary area of historical study.
> The border patrol was established in 1924.
But again, compare it to CBP today. It was what, a few hundred men on horseback in the desert? At least that's my understanding. Around WW2 it ramped up to a couple thousand, but it still wasn't an established, militarized police force comparable to today's CBP.
> Exercise of the authority of the US to expel aliens for national security purposes dates to the founding era.
But the Alien and Sedition Act (for example) is nearly universally regarded as a shameful period in the early history of the country. It's certainly not something to point to as a precedent of this being done well.
I suspect you and I disagree quite strongly on that point. Borders are really important (and the U.S. would probably be better with more borders and internal political separation, not less).
> But the Alien and Sedition Act (for example) is nearly universally regarded as a shameful period in the early history of the country. It's certainly not something to point to as a precedent of this being done well.
Maybe, but they give a pretty good idea of what the founders thought about the constitutional scope of the federal government's power over the borders.
Well, it shows what the Federalist Party thought; the Democratic-Republican Party didn't support the acts and was systematically targeted under the pretext of the acts. (And actually went to state legislatures in D-R leaning states to pass bills protesting the unconstitutionality of the federal laws and declaring them void.) “The Founders” were split between the parties (both Madison and Jefferson were Democratic-Republicans), and the Federalists were the more authoritarian faction.
The idea of “The Founders” as a unified group with a singular view on issued like this is ahistorical.
Could you expand on this?
Or, consider guns. Most Marylanders support gun control. But Virginians love guns. We have no border so whatever gun laws we make are easily circumvented.
Likewise, we signed up for ACA expansion (extending Medicaid to poor adults) when it was first offered. Virginia didn't get around to doing it until many years later, and even then put in various additional requirements. If we were a country and controlled our own politics (and we could be--we're bigger than Norway, Denmark, or Finland) we'd have universal healthcare. Instead, we have to accept whatever we can get after compromising with Alabama, Mississippi, etc.
Borders enable self determination. When you’re a political unit and you control your borders, you can have your own laws and own institutions. When you tear down borders, you eliminate the ability of smaller political units to control the flow of goods, capital, and people. But those things must be regulated. So there is pressure to push power up to higher level political units to regulate those things. And in the process that pushes politics and political accountability further away from the people. And because it expands the polity, it forces compromises among people with different values and priorities.
A concrete example is guns. Idaho has lots of guns (57% of people own a gun). It also has low homicide rates (lower than Belgium). But because of the lack of internal borders, there is little ability to have different gun laws in different places. So there is a huge push to regulate guns at the federal level. So people in Idaho have to fight federal legislation that is proposed because people in Chicago are shooting each other with guns streaming over the border from Indiana.
You’re seeing that happen in Europe right now. The EU started by tearing down trade borders. But once you do that, you needed EU-wide rules for regulating the economy. That pushed more power to the EU, and now you’ve got bureaucrats in Brussels who can override popular law in Sweden.
Indeed it seems we disagree. Moreover, I'm inclined to assert that you are simply incorrect.
It's hard for me to see how something wholly capricious can also be "really important" - I acknowledge that there are some manifestations of man's imagination that are critical in the functioning of the social and political spaces today, but I'm not prepared to go so far as to call them "really important."
The US border specifically is quite destructive. It separates families, inflames (in concert with the childish and abysmal policy of drug prohibition) the ongoing state of civil unrest in Mexico, and creates a huge and arbitrary barrier for people seeking rest, shelter, and work.
A return to a more open immigration policy (and indeed an evolution past the border as a part of political identity) will be a wonderful happening.
Some of the founders also thought the Constitution should be rewritten every 20 years and that binding future generations to the rules sent down in the past was immoral.
They're not infallable gods and their opinion here should be taken as only that, an opinion
Declaring that the de jure words on paper are the de facto events on the ground is rhetoric, not fact. It doesn't matter what the law says if it's not enforced. There are border patrol checkpoints between major population centers of the United States and they are currently searching people under the suspicion that they crossed the border.
The Constitution says that US citizens are free from unreasonable searches. The border patrol is searching populations that are traveling within the United States based on the concept that they must have crossed the border. If the rules of the Constitution aren't being enforced, how is that not a Constitution free zone?
It’s not as if laws and norms of society are dictated by physics. They’re dictated by the people with guns.
The 100 mile and its associated rules are an arbitrary choice. Security theater.
Why would it be "clear" that we should suspend certain constitutional protections for border security? I personally find it a little unnerving that people would see this as obvious.
Put differently, border searches aren't a "suspension" of "constitutional protections" but a limitation on the scope of 4th amendment rights. If you shoot someone dead in public, a police officer can arrest (i.e. seize) you and search you without a warrant. Your 4th amendment rights aren't suspended, they just don't extend to that scenario. The same thing is true at the border. Nations have a sovereign right to police who and what goes past their borders. Borders are the very things that define nations, and nations defend those borders with guns and blood. Nothing in the 4th amendment provides reason to believe that the framers intended to just throw away that ancient concept.
The “100 mile” regulation involves the scope of CBP patrol authority: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-a-constitution-free....
The law, 8 USC 1357, says that CBP agents have the power to patrol and search “a reasonable distance from the border” to prevent entry of illegal aliens.
First, calling that a “Constitution-free zone” is rhetoric, not fact. 8 USC 1357 only refers to the CBP’s power to patrol and search, not other Constitutional protections. And while there can be reasonable disagreement about where the line should be, clearly there must be some distance within the US where the CBP must be able to patrol and search without a warrant. The border is an infinitely thin line. CBP can’t patrol foreign territory. It necessarily must patrol US territory some distance inward from the actual border.
The “100 mile” regulation was an upper limit on what “reasonable distance” could be. The actual regulation requires the CBP to define “reasonable distance” based on geography, where border crossings are, etc. The idea is that checkpoints must be at the “functional equivalent of the border.” In the middle of the desert or the Alaska tundra, the checkpoint might reasonably not be exactly at the geographic border. But in no event can it be more than 100 miles from the geographic border.
So all those graphics of how many people live within 100 miles of the border were very misleading. New York City is not within the extended border, even though it’s within 100 miles of the border, and CBP has never claimed otherwise.