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.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>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.

[Support Free Republic]

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!

[GrandEagle]

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????

[.cnI redruM]

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.

[Not now, Not ever!]

Although it is not stated , I will bet this is the ninth circus again.

[freep_toad]

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?

[Modernman]

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.

[inquest]

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.

[Don W]

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?

[eno_]

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.

[inquest]

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?

[Bluegrass Federalist]

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

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[GrandEagle]

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.

[eno_]

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.

[eno_]

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.

[GrandEagle]

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!

[Blue Screen of Death]

explosives or other implements of terrorism that likewise may be concealed in gas tanks,"

Gas in a gas tank is an explosive. Duh.

[gubamyster]

ping

[nightdriver]

"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.