Posted on 11/25/2019 1:31:56 PM PST by bkopto
Hey now. This ruling applies to Citizens of the United States of America as well.
I’ve had my electronics searched and swabbed for no damned good reason.
An interesting article:
Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights?.
https://victormalcalaw.com/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights/
Well certain states have ruled that. Because of this some states dropped doing dui checkpoints.
Paging Mike Gallagher...
I don't think it's unconstitutional if they don't single anyone out. The drivers still have their fourth amendment protections against illegal search and seizure, meaning the police cannot demand that drivers open their car doors or trunks for inspection without a warrant.
-PJ
“America’s robed mullahs again. Extending constitutional protections to non citizens?”
I’m with you, although I extend that to Americans too - either we CONTROL our borders, or we leave them wide open. If you have something that you’re worried about (and you’re American), then don’t take it overseas. If you have 50 pounds of coke in your luggage, I’d prefer to NOT give that person a free pass, if he happens to have been born here (or naturalized).
As far as I’m concerned, one of the PRIMARY PURPOSES of the federal government is to control everything and everyone that comes in or goes out of our country, and that also includes communications. To me that is the reason counties exist in the first place.
OK, then Vendome. I was unclear on that. I do know agents who have uncovered child pornography during these searches. One of the persons was a university professor. No, I do not condone a surveillance state. The profilers behind the scenes pick out many. Not everyone is surveilled. A lot is taken into consideration.
Don't like it? Great...just don't try to enter the US and your stuff won't be searched by US officials.
While searching through the phone of Zainab Merchant, a plaintiff in the Alasaad case, a border agent knowingly rifled through privileged attorney-client communications. An immigration officer at Boston Logan Airport reportedly searched an incoming Harvard freshman’s cell phone and laptop, reprimanded the student for friends’ social media postings expressing views critical of the U.S. government, and denied the student entry into the country following the search.
IOW, the ACLU only gives a **** about non-American foreigners -- every American's phones and laptops are still fair game.
I have several other first-hand reports from agents that I know that would startle most Americans (they shocked me) but I can’t go into details.
The Supreme Court has ruled that sobriety check points are constitutional. I am the first to admit that just because the Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional or not does not mean it is constitutional or not; however, it does become the law of the land.
Why doesn’t this apply to all sealed or locked items that come across the border? My luggage might contain information I don’t want the Feds to see.
This will be struck down soon.
About 10 years ago I,a US citizen,entered Canada (by car) and was sent to "secondary inspection" by a Canadian official. I was held there for about 90 minutes while my car was pulled apart and an agent demanded the password to my laptop.He said that if I didn't give him the password the laptop would be seized and sent to some office for criminal examination.
Although a bit annoyed...and surprised...I complied,knowing that I was subject to Canadian law.After about 90 minutes I was allowed to enter and I've entered Canada a dozen times since with no problem.
Bottom line...as a non citizen I figured I didn't have much of a right to complain.OTOH,if a US official pulled that kind of stuff I'd be on the phone to a lawyer...and the press...in a heartbeat.
Can you tell us generalities, along the lines of whether they are abuses by our government, or Americans doing really bad things?
Americans doing really bad things.
OK, this might be too far...but an American bringing back heroin hidden in carved out candlestick holders. The question, “what was the purpose of your travel?”
Went to Africa to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro. A check of the luggage showed he smoked cigarets and looked out of shape. The agents put 2 and 2 together and still had to jump through a lot of hoops to drill out the candlestick holders.
There are many, many other stories. One agent I know was working the day the shoe-bomber tried to detonate and bring the plane down.
That’s fine, thanks. I thought that was the case. In your example, the system worked fine. It was a destructive test of personal property, so yes, needing some approvals makes sense - and the fact that they were granted means things worked out good.
...and it makes me think of World War 2 (at least per the movies about it). A stranger arrives at a US camp and they question him. They determine he’s American and thus conclude that he’s on our side.
Fast forward 70 years - you figure out the person is American - and now the next difficult task is figuring out which side the person is on. Go figure.
A good start. Now shouldn’t ALL suspicionless travel be protected from illegal search and seizure.
You are stopped for a broken tail light. There is no open container in your car. No smell of pot. You are obviously stone cold sober. Yet police can pull you out of your car on the sole premise “I need to check you for weapons”. They find an empty wrapper with an almost imperceptible dusting of fine white powder — that THERE IS YOUR REASONABLE SUSPICION to search the vehicle.
Happens all the time in the current police state.
Patently false. The Supreme Court has ruled that DUI checkpoint are indeed legal and constitutional. Don’t get me wrong, they are categorically Unconstitutional and illegal. But SCOTUS ruled they are not, just like the illegal Obamacare mandate and illegally creating a right to abortion out of their ass. It is insane, but a power grab is a power grab baby! Got to feed that police state!
“In spite of the general rule, the Supreme Court has found that temporary DUI checkpoint stops (without reasonable suspicion) do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers. Basically, the Court said the importance of keeping impaired drivers off the road generally outweighs the inconvenience and intrusion to motorists. (Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).”
________________________________________________________
So THERE you have it. AS long as there is a “public importance” the Supreme Court has ruled you can shred the US Constution into confetti. The Founders are rolling in their graves.
Yep. It’s tough to figure these days.
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.