Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Monday, October 27, 2008

Pardon Me, I'd Like to Cash in My Constitution

Recently the ACLU has been making a big deal about the US Government's declaration of a "constitution-free zone" around the perimeter of the country. The government has assumed that within 100 miles of the "external border" of the United States, border patrol personnel may detain and search any person or vehicle, including U.S. citizens, for the purposes of border enforcement activities. Get that? Even though you might never have crossed the border, you may be stopped and subject to being searched if you are within that zone, without a warrant. The ACLU site opines that this assumption places up to 2/3rds of the population within the so-called constitution free zone. My part of the country looks like this.


Yes, I live in the zone, and could be subject to searches. In fact, I am subject to such a zone every time enter or leave the security of my place of work. But these "border searches" are taking place far from any real border, on public roads, and are practiced on the general public.

I appreciate that the ACLU is resisting these types of actions, but I wanted to understand from where exactly this authority derives. After a little research, I found some answers. The authority comes in two parts, one from the law, and another from administrative regulation. The law is 8 USC 1357, whose crucial part reads,

1357 (a) Powers without warrant
Any [authorized] officer ... shall have power without warrant—...
(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle

So there you have it, within a "reasonable distance," border agents may search any vehicle without a warrant. But what distance is reasonable? Well, that's where we need to turn to the administrative regulation, as encoded in the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR 287.1 specifically), which specifies,

287.1 Definitions.
(2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance ...

These regulations are written by the executive agencies, as a way of codifying and interpreting how the law will actually be implemented. In this case, 100 miles is seen as "reasonable" by definition, rather than by any other claimed rationale.

But is this anything new? No, in fact. The definition of a 100-mile wide border has existed for at least several decades, and does not begin with the current administration. I found that the 100-mile limit was specified in the CFR as early as 1953 (Fernandez v. United States; 321 F.2d 283). The appeals court in that case found that a search 70 miles from the Mexican border was reasonable -- given the specific geographical and immigration situation. As of the date of that case in 1963, the "border" checkpoint 70 miles from Mexico had been in operation for 31 years, so this practice has existed for at least 75 years!

However, it is clear that the practice of unwarranted border searches is expanding, and it's a troubling sign. The truly scary part is that the search for illegal immigrants is being used as a pretext for other searches, such as for contraband. For law enforcement, it's a no-brainer. Why send "regular" police to do inspections if they need complicated stuff like warrants, when it's easier to send "border protection agents," who don't really need anything to start tearing through your personal belongings. As various agencies, including the border patrol, immigration and customs have been consolidated into the Department of Homeland Security, it is even easier to designate an everyday enforcement activity to be a warrantless border patrol activity. As more "border crossing" inspection sites are instituted, the more more we become a police society.



As a postscript, there are some daring people challenging new inspection sites. Consider Mr. checkpointusa.org, who has been documenting the increase of the interior "border" checkpoints in the southwestern U.S. for the past few years. You can see some of his encounters here and href. He routinely approaches the checkpoints and takes control of the situation. Dude has balls of granite.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

We'll Tell You How Much Democracy You Can Have

Slashdot Headline: In MN, Massive Police Raids On Suspected Protestors

I have no doubt these people were planning some kind of disruption, but is disruption necessarily illegal? No, but it would be embarassing during the convention. Unfortunately there is no such thing as embarassment in the first degree, so the police and FBI went for bogus fire code violations instead. I would think that the house I live in is a "free speech zone." Yay for democracy.

My friend Tod says it more forcefully. And Glenn Greenwald is all over the issue. It's very disturbing.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Police Release Me

Yesterday I was waiting at a traffic light to turn left. Waiting. Waiting. Waiting. For three full cycles I waited with another car in front of me while all the other traffic directions were allowed to pass, but we were not. Finally both of us realized that something was wrong with the traffic light (or the sensor), and decided to turn left against the red light, when the way was clear.

Of course, a police car appeared out of nowhere immediately and chased after us. Not surprising since it's next to a police station. I pulled over, but the police car zoomed past and snagged the first guy. At first I drove away, but eventually I realized it wasn't fair for the other guy to get tagged for a defective traffic signal1, so I drove around and talked at the officer. I say "talked at" because he wasn't really interested in hearing anything I had to say. After I explained my version in twenty words, he ignored me for about fifteen seconds, and then blurted some kind of joke (I guess) which was meant to get me to leave (I guess). Me, being Mr. Slow-on-the-uptake, took a little while to figure this out. I did park and give my phone number to the guy being cited, in case he needed a witness for court.

Later the guy in the other car did call me to thank me. It turns out the officer did not cite him for a moving violation, but did write a citation for some other minor infraction. It turned out mostly okay.2

The thing that ticked me off was that we could have been waiting at that light for 20 seconds, or 20 minutes, and no matter when we finally decided turn, that cop could have showed up just at that moment. Police officers do a great service to our community, which I appreciate. In principle he did the right thing for pulling (one of) us over. On the other hand, it's pretty unfair that citizens should be punished for a defective traffic signal.

1 - The other man was African American so I was a little concerned he would be arrested for DWB, while I got a free pass.
2 - The other man wondered if the traffic light problem was a set-up. It is the end of the month. Did officer have to meet a quota?