It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Federal Courts Law Review
[II.1] The Fourth Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (18)
The first clause of the Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures; (19) the second clause addresses the requirements necessary to obtain a warrant. (20)
[II.2] Generally, a search requires a warrant based on probable cause, (21) a level of individualized suspicion, (22) or an exception to the warrant requirement. (23) One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is that found for routine searches and seizures which take place at the international border, (24) or its functional equivalent. (25)
[II.3] It is well-established that a traveler crossing an international boundary reasonably may be required "to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in." (26) Consequently, "[a]t the border one's expectation of privacy is less than in the interior and the Fourth Amendment balance between the government's interests and the traveler's privacy rights is 'struck much more favorably to the Government.'" (27) As a result, routine searches at the border "are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant[.]" (28) Under the Fourth Amendment, border searches are deemed reasonable because of "the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside." (29)
Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by PhyberDragon
Im sorry if that seems too out of your league to understand, as this video idiot cannot comprehend the simplicity of answering a very simple question.
Originally posted by jaamaan
The whole point is, why would he answer if he doesnt have to by law ??
By those laws i dont have to answer every silly question some cop, or border patrol askes me.
Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by RFBurns
Whether he is an annoying man is not the issue. The guard said that: "he didn't have any reason to believe that the guy in the car wasn't a criminal"
That's a whole world away from having reason to believe he is a criminal. Very clever wording on his part too I might add. But that doesn't make it a legal stop and search.
If we cant be bothered to follow laws properly what's the point in having them? Having justification for making a search isn't as much of a grey area as some people would like to make out. This guy, if it went to court, would have to show evidence that he had reason to believe this guy was an illegal immigrant.