posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by Indigo5
I typically don't have trouble finding the court-briefs but this was one of the tougher ones. Here is a
of the plaintiff's
motion to deny dismissal.
Found a good site in case you are interested that has all the documents regarding this case but this one is rich and it is the latest move by the
Letter from Janet Napalitano
They are buying time because United States v. Cotterman is instrumental in shaping the case. In that, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the search must
take place at the point of inspection. While it strengthens the "border search" doctrine, it also helps with regards to confiscation of property.
The Government cannot simply seize property under its border search power and hold it for weeks, months, or years on a whim. Rather, we continue
to scrutinize searches and seizures effectuated under the longstanding border search power on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the manner
of the search and seizure was so egregious as to render it unreasonable.
This case will fall on some precedents set back in the 70s regarding searches at the border and not part of this 100 mile inclusion zone. I think
this one will run all the way up to the Supreme Court.
edit on 19-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)