Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court accepts border search case.
CNN Washington Bureau ^ | Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Posted: 1:06 PM EDT (1706 GMT) | From Bill Mears

Posted on 10/14/2003 1:47:52 PM PDT by .cnI redruM

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a search-and-seizure case linked to the U.S. war on terrorism, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear a case regarding police searches of cars entering the United States across the Mexican and Canadian borders.

The case deals with federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) taking apart vehicles they suspect may be smuggling drugs, weapons or people. A federal appeals court found the practice an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; bice; billofrights; borderpatrol; immigrantlist; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
>>>>>All these cases could establish important precedents as the court prepares to decide whether to hear a number of pending legal challenges to the Bush administration's fight against terrorism.

This is why these cases are there. If the SCOTUS sides against the Border Patrol on this one, America is just not a serious nation. Sometimes I wonder if 9-11 killed enough of us to really make a point.

1 posted on 10/14/2003 1:47:53 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Flame warriors, unite!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


2 posted on 10/14/2003 1:49:06 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Flores-Montano was arrested and charged with drug smuggling, but an appeals court said the seized marijuana could not be used as evidence against him.
Ya gotta have help to be this stupid. NO ONE is this stupid on their own!
Non citizen, smuggling drugs into our country and out courts say unconstitutional????
3 posted on 10/14/2003 1:52:00 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
We are not a serious country. It's only bad when it happens to us personally. 9-11 was just something we read about on the net. No reason to focus on reality here, folks. Just MoveOn.org.
4 posted on 10/14/2003 1:53:44 PM PDT by .cnI redruM (Zot me and my screen name gets even dorkier!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Although it is not stated , I will bet this is the ninth circus again.
5 posted on 10/14/2003 2:04:43 PM PDT by Not now, Not ever! (10101100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Should have waited longer after knocking at the door? KNOCK KNOCK!!! They had a search warrant. No one answers the door, you go in. You don't need permission from the resident! Geeeze.

And as for crossing our border, I believe (according to my memory) there is a sign that openly states - in more than one language - that any vehicles and persons passing through the checkpoints are subject to search.

Vehicles that are searched are not necessarily selected based on the occupant's race (although that plays a part). There are several signs that the agents are trained to look for. Some of the signs are psychological. You give off the wrong signals, and you get tagged. That's an easy one.

Anyone know the party affiliations of the judges making these st00pid rulings? Or is there just an epidemic of lack-of-brainitis going around in the halls of [in]justice?
6 posted on 10/14/2003 2:05:34 PM PDT by freep_toad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
I think what SCOTUS is doing here is trying to reconcile a bunch of different decisions from several different appeals courts,so there will be one national standard for search and seizure.
7 posted on 10/14/2003 2:09:14 PM PDT by Modernman ("In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women."-Homer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
The Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the government should be allowed to take security measures along the nation's often unprotected borders.

That's about the funniest line in the entire article.

8 posted on 10/14/2003 2:09:38 PM PDT by inquest ("Where else do gun owners have to go?" - Lee Atwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freep_toad
last time I crossed the US-Canada border, I had to show proof of citizenship, and submit to a search. No big deal, but even though the border guards found nothing (because there was nothing to find), I was still given a stern warning about trying to smuggle contraband (a couple packs of cigareets that I neglected to mention as they were in plain sight). I also had to completely re-pack my suitcase and the picnic coolers, as they just dumped them out and left them.

They even swabbed down the interior of the car looking for ANYTHING suspect. Tell me truthfully, is this freedom?
9 posted on 10/14/2003 2:15:27 PM PDT by Don W (Lead, follow, or get outta the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
I'm all for strictly observing constitutional restrictions against warrantless searches, but I'd be startled to find that border crossings don't have a totally different standard.

In fact, strong border protections SHOULD replace much of the police-state crap that's in the Patriot Act.
10 posted on 10/14/2003 2:16:08 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
By the way, I noticed that the CNN article curiously failed to indicate the name of this "appeals court" that rendered this decision. Don't look now, but the first full paragraph of this link appears to reveal the answer.

Now I wonder why CNN would be so mum about this?

11 posted on 10/14/2003 2:17:02 PM PDT by inquest ("Where else do gun owners have to go?" - Lee Atwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Three guesses are available to those FReepers who need them, but I will be disappointed if we all can't guess right away what circuit this one came out of. You guessed 'er, Chester! The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against America once again!

I had to know, and quickly found this link to a brief. This sad decision came from the Ninth Circus.
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2003/2pet/7pet/2002-1794.pet.rep.html
12 posted on 10/14/2003 2:17:05 PM PDT by Bluegrass Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; gubamyster
ping
13 posted on 10/14/2003 2:17:55 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
The people of this nation have a VERY short memory coupled with an "if it doesn't affect me, then it doesn't matter" attitude. Really scary - makes me wonder whos watching my back.
14 posted on 10/14/2003 2:18:38 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Don W
Well, either a warrant is required or it isn't.

If border searches require a warrant, what, then, is the meaning of a border? The objective should be to have as much search and surveillance as we need on the border to make real freedom possible within those borders.

Your situation sounds like a misapplication of resources, harassing you for a minor violation.
15 posted on 10/14/2003 2:20:33 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GrandEagle
Correct. Consistency is important. The shoe gets to be on the other foot quicker than any of these "I don't do anything that would attract the attention of the authorities" people ever think.
16 posted on 10/14/2003 2:21:36 PM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: eno_
I'm all for strictly observing constitutional restrictions against warrantless searches
I 100% agree. But ,as you stated, the border is just that - the border! If you don't was us to look, then STAY HOME!
17 posted on 10/14/2003 2:28:51 PM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
explosives or other implements of terrorism that likewise may be concealed in gas tanks,"

Gas in a gas tank is an explosive. Duh.

18 posted on 10/14/2003 2:56:57 PM PDT by Blue Screen of Death (,/i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *immigrant_list; A Navy Vet; Lion Den Dan; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; madfly; B4Ranch; ..
ping
19 posted on 10/14/2003 4:26:48 PM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
"They want more latitude to set up roadblocks, things like that, to prevent terrorism and other violent crimes..."

Right! "other violent crimes" like not having your seatbelt fastened or having a lapsed insurance policy.

This is the way the gubmint camel gets his (bleep)ing nose under our tent all the time.

20 posted on 10/14/2003 4:41:26 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson