It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fourth Amendment exclusion zone reaffirmed

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:23 AM

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by Vrill

Who is John Galt?

The libertarian version of Twilights Bella?

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by Vrill

He was handcuffed and then jailed for three hours while the authorities looked through his computer while numerous agents questioned him, according to the suit, which is pending in New York federal court.

I both understand the neccessity to search electronic devices on the border as well as the need to protect our civil liberties.

Checks and balances...The case above is pending in Federal Court...and folks should challenge this law whenever they are able. Believe it or not the courts welcome these challenges and the SCOTUS has been fairly fierce in thier defense of constitutional rights. This law has utility, but it also needs to be widdled down via the court system to insure that it is within constitutional bans. I'll be watching as these challenges make there way through the courts.

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 PDF 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 Government:

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)

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:22 PM
I have a problem with the ACLU map that shows all of Michigan, and parts of Wisconsin and Illinois in this constitution free zone. Technically, Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake completely within the U.S. borders and it's much farther from our international border with Canada than 100 miles. Maybe they consider Lake Michigan international waters? I bet they would have a problem with the Chinese and Russian navy doing exercises in any of the Great Lakes, much less Lake Michigan.

Just go to Google maps and check the distance from the Canadian border. Basically, in the southern lower peninsula, if you are west of 127, and north bound 69, then your rights should still be safe. Then starting with Midland and going north to I-75, west of there should be safe. Now cut across from Roscommon to Kalkaska and most of that northern tip of the lower is inside the 100 mile constitution free zone. Most of the eastern U.P. west to about 41, and all of the Kewinaw peninsula is also in the constitution free zone.

I wonder about 100 miles from Indian reservations, if that is included considering they are more or less foreign countries within our borders. That would cover most of the western states.

Does anyone know why Lake Michigan is considered inside this 100 mile border zone? The ACLU wasn't too helpful in this respect.

I'll be posting this in every thread with this topic. Thanks for any replies in advance.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:36 PM

originally posted by: Tardacus
The orange on that map isn`t correct. lake michigan is entirely within the us border as is the chesapeake bay so the 100 mile zone would not begin at the shoreline of either of those bodies of water and extend inland 100 miles.

The great lakes border with canada extends through the center of lake erie then north up through the center of lake huron, which puts lake michigan firmly within U.S. territory. 100 miles south from the center of lake erie is no where near columbus.

The entirety of the chesapeake bay is also with U.S. territory the border runs along the shore line of the atlantic ocean and the states of Maryland, Delaware and Virginia.

if the 100 mile inland zone is being calculated starting at the shoreline of bodies of water within the U.S. borders then there should be a 100 mile zone extending inland from every river, pond, and lake over the entire country.

I think the orange zone on that map is just someones fear mongering propaganda.

I don't believe the ACLU made the map. I am from MI and I noticed that Lake Michigan was incorrectly included as an international water.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: georgezip

My thoughts too. I wouldn't doubt they will patrol the Great Lakes water ways, but Lake Michigan is far from the border.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in