Only this “checkpoint” wasn’t at the border. True, SCOTUS says that they may set up at a “reasonable” distance from the border.
I don’t think that’s a good idea. Slippery slope and all that.
The border is the border. It’s on the map. I’m all for checkpoints there where you have to show papers and submit to complete searches without probable cause.
But not inside the borders.
Molon labe.
Here is another thread somewhat related.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2255628/posts
Trio says traffic stop was ‘out-of-control’ (Libertarian ping)
Laurel (MS) Leader Call ^ | May 21, 2009 | Charlotte A. Graham
The SCOTUS upheld the law.
It is law, not SCOTUS ruling.
I’m not familiar with the geography of the area. While it looks like this pastor got what he had coming to him as far as police “abuse,” there does seem to be a reasonable issue as to whether these border checkpoints are reasonable.
Reasonable to accomplish what? If the goal is to patrol cities near borders to stop and check for illegal aliens, this checkpoint is quite reasonable, but maybe I have problems with that court’s assertion that such a goal is constitutional. (maybe not, I haven’t considered it carefully enough.)
If the goal is to provide a secondary line of defense against intruders (as in, “You bolted past the border checkpoint, but we’ve got you now!”), then the ruling seems imminently valid... but the checkpoint isn’t “reasonable” under the ruling, from what I can tell just from maps.google, anyway. I could see US 95 having such a checkpoint, since it connects Yuma with the border, 30somthing miles away, but most people on US-8 are passing through at quite a distance from the border