Supreme Court accepts border search case.

CNN Washington Bureau ^ | Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Posted: 1:06 PM EDT (1706 GMT) | From Bill Mears

[.cnI redruM]

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.

[William Tell]

eno_ said: "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."

While it may be reasonable to insist that people crossing the border into the US be US citizens, I am unaware of any "border" exceptions to the Bill of Rights. I do not consent to unwarranted searches by anybody. Every time I have been searched, it has been against my will and through the use of coercion.

[FITZ]

Non citizen, smuggling drugs into our country and out courts say unconstitutional????

He isn't a citizen and isn't under the Constitution. Secure the borders --- no American has leave the country, no foreigner is forced to come over the border. If they don't want inspected, then stay in Mexico or Canada.

[HiJinx]

I'm surprised nobody responded to you...

It happened in San Diego, right? That's square in the 9th Cirus's jurisdiction, and could only have come from there!

My nephew is a clerk to a federal judge in Tyler, TX. When I asked if Texas was 9th of 5th Circuit, he wasted no time in assuring me he would rather be disbarred, tarred, and feathered than to have anything to do with those clowns in the 9th.

[JustPiper]

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. What an oxymoron, keep us from protecting the borders but take security measures against them? I say build a moat!

[Not now, Not ever!]

Smart Nephew, This happens every time they get loaded and get into the "Pending Appeals" file cabinet.

[GrandEagle]

If they don't want inspected, then stay in Mexico or Canada.
I 100% agree! (hoping I was not misunderstood - see post #17)

[GrandEagle]

I am unaware of any "border" exceptions to the Bill of Rights.
I agree with you also. This may seem as contradictory positions however, I think not. As a US citizen entering my home country I can not be searched without consent or a search warrant. As a non citizen I also can not be searched without consent or a search warrant. If officials see the need and don’t get consent, then entry is denied to the non citizen.

Happens all the time in places where I work. A condition of entry is that you consent to a search of your person and vehicle. I don’t have to consent, but they also don’t have to let me enter the plant site either.

I have never been searched entering or exiting any plant site, but I have given my consent by entering the site. I have been searched once on the “side of the road”, without my consent, and of course they didn’t find anything. There have been three occasions when I was stopped and asked for consent. One was the above mentioned time, the second the officer just said OK, your free to go, and the third time he harassed me for a couple of minutes saying that he could hold me here until he got a warrant. I said OK, I’ve got the time to wait, go ahead and get one – he let me go.

[William Tell]

FITZ said: "Secure the borders --- no American has to leave the country, no foreigner is forced to come over the border."

Imagine that you have the opportunity to found a new nation, intending to preserve the liberty of the people. Do you include among the powers of that government the power to confine the people to the borders of that new nation or do you presume that their freedoms include the liberty to travel as they see fit?

If you decided to restrict the movements of the people, how would you include it in this hypothetical constitution. And, finally, do you see evidence of that inclusion in the Constitution of the US?

[FITZ]

No --- no one is confined ---- you have the choice to leave and never come back ---- but you don't have the right to bring whatever you wish over the borders. And foreigners don't either. Just like the 19 terrorists on 9-11 ---- the borders should not be open to any one who has whatever intention.

[William Tell]

FITZ said: "And foreigners don't either. Just like the 19 terrorists on 9-11 ---- the borders should not be open to any one who has whatever intention."

I can grant some power to control non-citizens. My point was that I know of no "border" exception to the Bill of Rights and I was curious whether others thought that there was. If there were to be such an exception, how would it be written?

Would we be secure in our person and effects only when within the boundaries of the 50 states and Guam?

Both Franklin and Jefferson I believe travelled to Europe during and after the founding of our nation. Were they subject to search on their arrival back in the United States? Was their luggage searched for contraban, explosives, or untaxed imports?

Or was the burden on the government to show probable cause that Franklin or Jefferson was attempting to circumvent the laws. Was the presumption of innocence so easily set aside in their day as it is now?

Our present government is so bloated with unConstitutional tax burdens, that voluntary compliance is insufficient to collect even a fraction of what is being taxed. Only pre-emptive measures can collect such a large percentage of peoples wealth. Freedom is incompatible with a government which taxes at 50%.

[FITZ]

Both Franklin and Jefferson I believe travelled to Europe during and after the founding of our nation. Were they subject to search on their arrival back in the United States? Was their luggage searched for contraban, explosives, or untaxed imports?

I've been back and forth over the border quite a number of times and only went through two searches ---- just of the vehicle. Usually they just glance over the vehicle and driver but sometimes the dogs come and sniff the vehicle and the dog's reaction is what gets them to search. The traffic on the bridges is so heavy they search very few vehicles. One time the search was because there was green debris all over the back of my truck ---- from hauling hay for horses ---- they didn't do much of a search but look around and took some of the hay. Once they figured out is was just hay ---- which didn't take them long, they questioned me why I had had hay in the back ---- which was kind of a goofy question I thought. The only other time was coming back over with some couple ---- the guy had lent his truck to someone who left a couple pot roaches in the ashtray and so that got the agents to look through our suitcases and question the roaches ---- but they didn't take the truck apart or anything else --- and that only took a few minutes.

[FITZ]

Any how --- my point was ---- very very few cars or trucks are ever searched which is one reason the Mexican drug cartels have very little problem getting their shipments over the border. They only search with some kind of probably cause, many truck drivers with semi-truck loads of cocaine easily get through the border check points but sometimes they lose their cool and start shaking or acting very nervous and that tips the agents off. I've read where some drivers get so nervous they get almost up to the border and jump out and run back into Mexico and the truck gets confiscated then.