America Has A Constitution Free Zone? WTF!!????

Now find an article proving this that isn't on a quack website.

nixie_nox
Now find an article proving this that isn't on a quack website.

If you're referring to the OP's link, there are TONS of "main stream" news outlets that have this story.

rt.com... (For an example.)

It's things like this "free zone" that really make me raise an eyebrow. Bush should be taken to court as well as Obama for continuing this nonsense.

reply to post by Auricom


Yet, you had to pull up a Russian news site.

STill waiting for legit info that I will never get.

People who start threads like these and everyone who blows up on them are not looking for truth, they are just looking to get angry about something. Or the source would of been the first thing they checked.

reply to post by Imightknow


And Washington D.C. of course.

But still the deniers will say this is perfectly reasonable
for our safety.

nixie_nox
reply to post by Auricom

 

Yet, you had to pull up a Russian news site.

STill waiting for legit info that I will never get.

Posted by me on 1st page in the 3 links I showed from 08

Expandi ng Border Powers Creating ‘Constitution-Free Zone’ That Covers Two-Thirds of Americans

“The authorities can do things at the border that they could never do to citizens and residents inside our country under the Constitution,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Yet the government is asserting that some of these powers extend as far as 100 miles inside the actual border. It is a classic example of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries – in this case, literally.”

At the press conference, the ACLU released a map showing the 100-mile “border region” claimed by the government, and cities and states that fall within it. The map, which was created using the latest census data, shows that fully two-thirds of the U.S. population, including 9 of the nation’s top 10 largest metro areas, is within the border zone.

“Americans and Washington policymakers may believe that this is a problem confined to the dusty sands of Arizona or Texas, or the San Diego-Tijuana border, but it stretches far inland across the United States,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program. “If allowed to stand, sooner or later a factory worker in southern New Hampshire, a farmer in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, or Joe the plumber outside Toledo, Ohio will find themselves trapped in a Constitution-free Zone.”

Should really pay attn when people post things, even if they are older than dirt..

nixie_nox
reply to post by Auricom

 

Yet, you had to pull up a Russian news site.

STill waiting for legit info that I will never get.

People who start threads like these and everyone who blows up on them are not looking for truth, they are just looking to get angry about something. Or the source would of been the first thing they checked.

LOL, and what exactly is your definition of a LEGIT site? CNN, FOX News, ABC?

Freedom is never free. The war is never over.

ThichHeaded
Should really pay attn when people post things, even if they are older than dirt

I agree -

Im gonna post some research information for those interested in this topic. I will say right now my aim is not to defend government actions. I am simply trying to present that side of the argument. The article I linked has some good information and provides links to the germane information for the issues raised.

Does a Constitution-free zone really exist in America? - Fedbruary 15th, 2013

The ACLU’s Constitution-Free Zone

The American Civil Liberties Union has been saying since 2010 that a regulation allowing customs and immigration agents to search electronic devices at America’s borders without cause is wrong. Two years prior to that, the ACLU also warned of a 100-mile-wide U.S. border called the “Constitution-free zone” where such searches could occur.

DHS 2 Page Review on their Policies with regards to searching electronic items - PDF format

DHS Traveler Redress Form

In the 9th circuit court of appeals (Federal - West Coast)
* - justices ruled against the Government, noting that they must have reasonable suspicion to inspect electronic devices. This ruling ONLY applies to states within that Federal Circuit. The ruling can be used by other Federal Appeals Circuit, or it can be ignored and a separate and possibly conflicting ruling will happen.

In that instance it goes to the US Supreme Court for review (9ths decision was appealed to Supreme court in March of this year).

The doctrine used is called -
Border Search Exception - Cornell Law / 4th Amendment

The courts acknowledge the right of the United States, as a Sovereign, to be able to protect itself and its citizens from danger entering this country - However:

Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida–Sanchez v.[p.1244]United States,92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant’s automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent.93

On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are “aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is “modest” and the law enforcement interests served are significant.94

Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.95

So no, Border Patrol does not have carte blanche when it comes to searches, even more so the farther inland they come.

100 Mile "Constitutional Free Zone" - Fallacy based on confusion on allowed actions of Federal Officers.
** The portion below has been edited by me to highlight the specifics. Follow the primary link for the entire entry**

Searches within the 100-mile extended border zone, and outside of the immediate border-stop location, must meet three criteria:
* - a person must have recently crossed a border;
* - An agent should know that the object of a search hasn’t changed;
* - And that “reasonable suspicion” of a criminal activity must exist

Some may not know that all ports of entry into the United States falls into this. In addition to border crossings, harbors as well as airports are covered. Outside of those specific areas, they are required to follow the same laws state / local law enforcement are bound to.

With this said their are conflicting rulings from 2 circuit appeals courts of warrantless searches of electronic devices on traffic stops etc. The Supreme court will get this at some point to define / refine it.

Here is the part I think some are having issues with -
Contrary to popular belief we cannot use a plain text reading of the Constitution. If we did women would not be allowed to vote and certain persons would not be considered a full person.

Why is this important to understand?

There is a clause that states anything not specifically granted to the Federal Government is reserved to the states. This argument is similar to the 2nd amendment argument.

The 4th amendment, like the 2nd, was written during a time where Computers / Electronics were non existent. If we don't allow for the advancement of civilization in our Constitution, it would bind everyone to essentially a death pack. Once could argue that since electronics are not specifically mentioned in the 4th, the 4th does not apply to those items.

Thankfully the founders put the judicial in place to specifically deal with these conundrums. Another example would be travel. The Constitution protects travel within a state in addition to crossing state borders. However, the constitution does not say anything about the "method" of travel. Conceivably one could argue that the government can tell citizens they have to walk everywhere, since the ways its written occurred during a time before cars, airplanes, ships (modern).

What is needed is for people to take a step back and research the issue at hand, from BOTH sides (it does not matter if you like their side or not, you always look at their cards as it helps develop your strategy and hand). If you can understand your opponents position and legal argument it makes defense to the governments argument stronger.

Again, not defending nor condoning the Governments stance. I am simply pointing out their argument and the supporting information for that position.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

edit on 4-2-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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.