That includes airports as well so it's defacto the entire US

I guess it's 100 miles from any "external boundary" as well as "points of entry", but not "100 miles from points of entry".

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

But then there's also this:

> In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”

Ignorance of the law is no defense... unless you are a Federal agent violating people's Constitutional rights. America in a nutshell.

This isn't true. But, 100 miles from our two borders is incredibly abusive enough.

You’re forgetting the coastlines, near which a large percentage of Americans live.

You're right. I meant to say that international airports don't yield a 100 mile radius for the CBP to perform arbitrary stops. Shorelines count; the whole situation is ridiculous.

So would you suggest that US Customs not operate at ports of entry?

I guess we could go back to 1910 and only import stuff and admit people in coastal cities. Make everyone from Europe fly to JFK on the way to Atlanta.

Operating at ports of entry is fine.

Pretending I don't have Fourth Amendment rights on one side of the Customs desk at said ports of entry is not.

The customs bubble extends beyond the desk. For example, bonded warehouses.

I said the Fourth Amendment issue is "on one side of the Customs desk at said ports of entry", not "in every coastal area". The idea that you are subject to warrantless seizure on American soil just because you haven't cleared customs yet is a travesty, and I'm glad this ruling has started to address that.

As for coastal areas, though, If CBP can stop me away from the border without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion of a crime, that IMO is a Fourth Amendment violation. The ACLU cites specific cases of this happening: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/14_9...

> Between 2006 and 2010 in the Rochester, NY, area, approximately 300 immigrants with legal status were arrested by Border Patrol agents, then released

They also cite the regulations establishing the 100 mile rule: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1 defines "reasonable distance" and "external boundary", and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 utilizes those definitions to do things like "without warrant... interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States" and "to board and search for aliens... any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle".

It's quite clear that significant parts (all?) of Delaware fall within that claimed jurisdiction.

Man, that 100 mile thing is one of the most successful misinformation campaigns I’ve seen in law.

That's nothing. Check out what the U.S. has done for centuries to misinform us all about the treaties it signed with indigenous tribes, technically binding under the Constitutional

Can you elaborate on what's misinformation?

No they don’t. This is an asinine assertion made because of a misleadingly written ACLU piece.

The border patrol is allowed to operate up to 100 miles from the border or in the vicinity of international airports. They need to meet the reasonable suspicion standard to initiate a stop.

> They need to meet the reasonable suspicion standard to initiate a stop.

You mean, "it smells like weed"?

In this forum right now in fact

Odd because I have been detained at CBP checkpoints inside the US without any sort of reasonable suspicion.

Are you a U.S citizen or permanent resident? If not, then the CBP has more flexibility on who they detain.

Resident status can't be determined until after detaining someone. Your comment is self-contradictory.

Not sure how I'm contradictory. If you're a permanent resident, therefore you have a green card. That is a form of documentation you have to show at the CBP counter before they determine if you're lawful alien or U.S citizen. The line for U.S Citizens and permanent residence is the same. Every port of entry in the U.S has a sign that literally says - "U.S Citizens Or Permanent Residence". All other visa holders have a separate queue and detention usually starts after they've determined if a person has a valid visa or not or is a U.S citizen/permanent resident (green card)

We're not discussing ports, we're discussing so-called "interior checkpoints." The comment you're responding to is remarking said:

"Odd because I have been detained at CBP checkpoints inside the US"

You cannot stop a person inside the US and request they produce any kind of identification without first detaining them. The CBP detains everyone. If you prove you're a citizen, you can leave after being detained.

This is different than everywhere else in the country. It is the fundamental civil rights violation which is being objected to above.

> If you prove you're a citizen

How does that even work? I don't know anyone who regularly carries around their passport, or some other proof of citizenship. A driver's license or state ID isn't enough to establish citizenship, or even legal immigration status. (Though I suppose they could cross-reference your identity, based on the state-issued ID, with whatever databases have that information.)

They just ask most people if they are a citizen and if they look white enough CBP waives them past. If they don't CBP pulls them into secondary where they have a sniffer dog that alerts on their car allowing them to search the car and it's occupants at which point they will check their ID and run it through their system.

Personally I refused to answer, set the parking brake, turned the car off, and removed the key. They told me to go to secondary and I just didn't say anything and kept looking forward. Eventually enough traffic backed up behind me on the freeway they just waived me through to get traffic moving again. I know the courts have found it to be legal, but I don't care. I'm not going to comply. If no one complied they wouldn't be able to get away with this shit. Unfortunately most people don't care.

It’s basically this meme in real life. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/family-guy-skin-color-chart

Lying to a federal investigator is an offense. It's usually how the feds get you if they can't make anything else stick (see Martha Stewart).

Usually with the border patrol stops a vehicle they ask if there are any non-citizens in the vehicle. If you lie at this point and they don't believe you it would likely give cause to investigate further. So either tell the truth or shut up.

Given that any documented not-citizens are supposed to carry their permanent resident card or passport with them at all times then the assumption is that any not-citizens are doing just that so can easily prove their status. Not everyone does and in recent years they've been policing this a lot harder than they used to and you can find yourself in hot water if you encounter the wrong officer (most cases you will get a very stern talking to).

So if you aren't carrying a permanent resident card or passport then the assumption is that you are either a citizen or undocumented. How hard they push to find out which depends on the bias of the officer making the stop.

> How does that even work?

Look up "stop and identify." You don't have to present any kind of documents if you're a citizen. You do have to identify yourself, and yes it's vaguely defined. Generally this means name and address. An ID will also provide this info.

The officers will call in your information, check warrants and resident status, etc.

I lived in Arizona, they have these checkpoints everywhere, many miles from the border. They just stop everyone and harass whomever they want. This is not "at the border", this is 30 miles up the freeway. They questioned my friend from India once, insisting he was pretending to be from that country, he was really from Mexico they said.

You should file a complaint with the inspector general.

I'm quite certain they're aware; it's very much a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in...

> The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal people. The Court further held that Border Patrol agents "have wide discretion" to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.

That’s not detention. It’s the same operating theory as DWI or Registration checkpoints.

I think SCOTUS was wrong to permit those, too, but they're significantly different. Registration and DWI checkpoints rely on something outwardly visible/demonstrable; a sticker or signs of intoxication.

There's no outward sign of citizenship, nor are citizens required to carry proof of it.

* * *