Big brother is watching you.

So reasonable certainty of a border nexus consists of a person flying to an airport near the border, picking people up, and flying back home? Suspicion? Maybe. Reasonable CERTAINTY? I don't see it.

Add to that the war on drugs is retarded and unconstitutional and I'm not a big fan of this crap. You only have to read page one of the Federal Drug Act to see that it makes no sense.

Don't know what they had, as I wasn't there. So I can't speak to that.

I think the war on drugs is pointless too, as was the war on alchohol. How long have we been fighting it?

My concern is more for illegal weapons and persons entering, that's just my personal opinion.
 
Don't know what they had, as I wasn't there. So I can't speak to that.

I think the war on drugs is pointless too, as was the war on alchohol. How long have we been fighting it?

My concern is more for illegal weapons and persons entering, that's just my personal opinion.

Fair enough. I can agree with that.
 
Has "the fence" even slowed anyone down? Or has it been more to the point of thanks to the economy for the new development?
 
Fair enough. I can agree with that.

Cool. I just see how long the so-called war on drugs has been going on...what since the Nixon administration? It seems like a lesson in futility, on both ends. When Prohibition ended, look what happened.....alcohol is regulated, and there are laws against alcohol usage while driving, etc....the entire population didnt become raging alcoholics overnight. Drive DWI, you get in trouble....so things like that are covered. Could the same be done with what are now considered illegal drugs? Granted, there are many things to consider.....drug dependancy, etc; but who knows? It may be possible it would go the same way alcohol has gone up to to now.
 
Cool. I just see how long the so-called war on drugs has been going on...what since the Nixon administration? It seems like a lesson in futility, on both ends. When Prohibition ended, look what happened.....alcohol is regulated, and there are laws against alcohol usage while driving, etc....the entire population didnt become raging alcoholics overnight. Drive DWI, you get in trouble....so things like that are covered. Could the same be done with what are now considered illegal drugs? Granted, there are many things to consider.....drug dependancy, etc; but who knows? It may be possible it would go the same way alcohol has gone up to to now.

Yeah, I always ask anti drug people what they'd do if drugs were suddenly legalized. I could ask the majority people here on JC. Would you go out and do drugs if they were legalized tomorrow? The answer is almost always a "no" because they are either personally against it or their employer does not allow it and conducts drug tests. Most of the anti drug people are way to preoccupied with trying to tell other people what to do. If somebody wants to smoke a whole bunch of pot in their living room right now, I see no problem with that. I love this country but I'm really fed up with the hypocricy right now.
 
So if you depart from anywhere NEAR the border, they can treat it as if you crossed the border. Is that correct?

I would imagine it is a similar situation to that checkpoint somewhere along a ridge of mountains out in West Texas along I-10, or down in Falfurrias. That one is 80 miles from the border.

So, if an agent or an officer does search your vehicle (car or airplane) and nothing is found and no one is arrested, who is responsible for returning the vehicle to it's original condition?

I've seen searches where the carpet is cut or ripped, plastic broken panels are broken and metal is scratched and dented. Who pays for fixing the damage from performing a search?
 
Yeah, I always ask anti drug people what they'd do if drugs were suddenly legalized. I could ask the majority people here on JC. Would you go out and do drugs if they were legalized tomorrow? The answer is almost always a "no" because they are either personally against it or their employer does not allow it and conducts drug tests. Most of the anti drug people are way to preoccupied with trying to tell other people what to do. If somebody wants to smoke a whole bunch of pot in their living room right now, I see no problem with that. I love this country but I'm really fed up with the hypocricy right now.

You're preaching to the choir, my friend. To me, if someone wants to get doped up, or kills themself doing it, that's their deal. If they drive while doing it or otherwise kill someone else while doing it....then that's like doing the same thing while on alcohol.....there are laws covering that (or would be for drugs, were they legalized). What someone does in their own home, I could personally care less.

I think we have a good many more things to be concerned about in this country...or at least we should be more concerned about these other things. But you know what's weird? The amount of $$$ to be made by keeping drugs illegal......keeps many people employed and making cash....on BOTH sides of the law.

Braunpilot said:
Has "the fence" even slowed anyone down? Or has it been more to the point of thanks to the economy for the new development?

This is my opinion only......but when you construct a border fence that's only 5 miles long and then ends....what's the point? Again (IMO) it's window dressing. In the same way as the TSA...it gives the impression that something is being done; despite how ineffective.
 
This is my opinion only......but when you construct a border fence that's only 5 miles long and then ends....what's the point?

Maybe it's really a "border funnel." :buck: That way, you at least catch more of the lazy ones.
 
I would imagine it is a similar situation to that checkpoint somewhere along a ridge of mountains out in West Texas along I-10, or down in Falfurrias. That one is 80 miles from the border.

So, if an agent or an officer does search your vehicle (car or airplane) and nothing is found and no one is arrested, who is responsible for returning the vehicle to it's original condition?

I've seen searches where the carpet is cut or ripped, plastic broken panels are broken and metal is scratched and dented. Who pays for fixing the damage from performing a search?

For those searches you talk about, I've never seen one that didn't turn up something. The initial search is done with tools and in a careful manner in order to get check something that needs to be checked...normally as the result of some reasonable suspicion.....remember, these kind of searches are manpower and time intensive...not something you want to routinely perform if there's no suspicion to do so. If one was done and nothing was found, and items were damaged, I imagine you couild file a claim; but this is more port officer and BP legal stuff that we don't really delve into.
 
Maybe it's really a "border funnel." :buck: That way, you at least catch more of the lazy ones.

But you know what's funny? The "pro-illegal immigration" crowd says just that. That "illegals are dying and it's the fault of the Border Patrol, because their fences and enforcement actions are forcing the illegals to no longer cross at or near towns, and forces them to the outlying areas to cross into the USA....thus putting the illegals in danger and directly contributing to their deaths."

As if someone has a gun to an illegal's head and is forcing them to walk north........

sheesh...
 
There is nothing in the 4th amendment that grants law enforcement a so-called "border exemption" and stating that it exists is misleading. The doctrine exists based on judicial interpretation of the Constitution based primarily on the fact that all parties recognize that the border patrol should be able to search people coming over the border.

However there is a big difference in what would be a "routine" search and what is a "non-routine" search. If you didn't already know following someone hundreds of miles would be "non-routine". Disassembling part of your aircraft would also be "non-routine" (potentially, depending on how much was disassmebled.) It might even be argued that dissambly of your aircraft would require not just RS but also PC based on case history requiring PC for other very invasive searches, although they would really have to start taking it apart because removing a gas tank on a car is allowed.

In any event, a case of at least reasonable suspicion is needed for this kind of non-routine search and the fact that you traveled to a boarder town, picked up passengers and then returned is in no way RS. Any cadet studying for their peace officer license could tell you that.

I'm pretty pro-law enforcement but in many cases the CBP's use of the boarder search exception doctrine is borderline disgusting. You have people who live their entire lives inside the 100mi border zone -- are they just SOL and don't get protection by the 4th amendment?
 
There is nothing in the 4th amendment that grants law enforcement a so-called "border exemption" and stating that it exists is misleading. The doctrine exists based on judicial interpretation of the Constitution based primarily on the fact that all parties recognize that the border patrol should be able to search people coming over the border.

The border search exception to the 4th Amendment is almost as old as the 4th amendment itself, and is limited to the border area and functional equivilent.
However there is a big difference in what would be a "routine" search and what is a "non-routine" search. If you didn't already know following someone hundreds of miles would be "non-routine". Disassembling part of your aircraft would also be "non-routine" (potentially, depending on how much was disassmebled.) It might even be argued that dissambly of your aircraft would require not just RS but also PC based on case history requiring PC for other very invasive searches, although they would really have to start taking it apart because removing a gas tank on a car is allowed.

Yes, removing a gas tank is allowed. And care is taken when doing do. I wouldn't imagine more invasive searches are conducted without PC, due to the liability involved. So far as routine vs non-routine, it really depends on what was going on with that particular situation; neither you nor I can viably Monday Morning QB it, as you're attempting to do.

In any event, a case of at least reasonable suspicion is needed for this kind of non-routine search and the fact that you traveled to a boarder town, picked up passengers and then returned is in no way RS. Any cadet studying for their peace officer license could tell you that.

Again, since you and I weren't there, we don't specifically know what was seen or when it was seen. RS isn't too difficult to establish and articulate in situations such as these depending on when things were noticed.

I'm pretty pro-law enforcement but in many cases the CBP's use of the boarder search exception doctrine is borderline disgusting. You have people who live their entire lives inside the 100mi border zone -- are they just SOL and don't get protection by the 4th amendment?

Thats a ridiculous comment not worth even remotely responding to. You had fine points to be made up until this.
 
MikeD -- I have PERSONALLY been on a city bus when it was pulled over by the CBP (in unmarked cars/SUV) many miles away from the canadian border when they walked up in and asked us all for our papers.
 
MikeD -- I have PERSONALLY been on a city bus when it was pulled over by the CBP (in unmarked cars/SUV) many miles away from the canadian border when they walked up in and asked us all for our papers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there have been questionable incidents as well as questionable persons within CBP......to say there haven't or aren't would be ignorant. But that doesn't make anyone living near a border suddenly lose their 4th Amendment protections. Actually, many of the people living in remote areas of the border are well-known to BP and BP is usually their first law enforcement response for anything they'd need a police officer for.

Granted, I can only speak for the southern border, as I haven't worked the northern border. I can't answer to or otherwise address why you'd have been in the situation you were put into above. As written, it does sound odd. I too would love to know the rest of the story about it.
 
MikeD, I was a little unreasonable in my previous posts. Sorry. I shouldn't let one bad experience bias me against an organization that is comprised of thousands. Even the CBP guys who boarded my bus and talked to everyone were very nice about it (didn't even make a big stink when one young womand refused to show them anything or even speak to them -- they were a little annoyed, though. One of them got clever and said something like 'Well... okay... do you give me permission to search your belongings? If you do... don't say anything at all.' The lady looked conflicted, but he said it with a huge grin on his face so it was obvious he was joking.), they were probably just doing what people higher up had tasked them to do.

For all I know the guys who followed the OP to the airport were just looking for an excuse to get some flight time :) And you are right, it is incredibly easy to articulate RS.


I should have been more clear that I don't agree with some of the policy decisions that were made by the DHS / CBP / ICE but I have the utmost respect for all of its employees, sworn and not-sworn alike. When i said disgusting I was referring to the lawyers and Bush appointed cronies at the top.
 
MikeD, I was a little unreasonable in my previous posts. Sorry. I shouldn't let one bad experience bias me against an organization that is comprised of thousands. Even the CBP guys who boarded my bus and talked to everyone were very nice about it (didn't even make a big stink when one young womand refused to show them anything or even speak to them -- they were a little annoyed, though. One of them got clever and said something like 'Well... okay... do you give me permission to search your belongings? If you do... don't say anything at all.' The lady looked conflicted, but he said it with a huge grin on his face so it was obvious he was joking.), they were probably just doing what people higher up had tasked them to do.

It's no problem partner, its all good! I can understand your situation....one minute you're on a bus ride within the states, the next you're getting pulled over and wondering "what the heck?" I'd probably be annoyed enough too to be just as upset. That's what I figured....I mean, I've known you around here long enough to know your personality, and we've never had a beef.

Again, I don't know the specifics behind your situation, though I'd love to if there was any way I could. I'm glad the guys doing the checking were friendly, as the guys I know on the ground (the ones I personally know, can't speak for all) do try their best to be friendly, down to earth, and people-oriented with the public when dealing with them, since we work for them. It only helps make the job that much easier. Reminds me of Iraq, working ground ops with the Army, we'd continually remind guys during searches, etc, that we're in their country, we're their guest. Treat them as such. Politics of the conflict aside, that's how we strived to be.

For all I know the guys who followed the OP to the airport were just looking for an excuse to get some flight time :) And you are right, it is incredibly easy to articulate RS.

It's possible, LOL! We check out stuff if it's suspicious, enough to either be quickly able to disregard it; or occasionally follow up on it when it does indeed turn out to be something. Here's an interesting one for you: A group of people were flying ultralights out in the southern desert.....wanting to stay away from any airspace congestion, etc. Turns out, they were using them to shoot back and forth across the border, low and very slow with contraband. Now, ultralights are something to check out when you see them flying in middle of nowhere areas like that...not harass them of course, but at least take a double-take at what they might be doing.

I should have been more clear that I don't agree with some of the policy decisions that were made by the DHS / CBP / ICE but I have the utmost respect for all of its employees, sworn and not-sworn alike. When i said disgusting I was referring to the lawyers and Bush appointed cronies at the top.

Oh man....you're preaching to the choir, my friend. [Opinion follows...] DHS in and of itself was created in the same vein as the TSA....a post 9/11 security piece of "window dressing" made to show the scared public (at the time) that the government was doing something, regardless of how effective or ineffective it was. I've never advocated creating additional federal bureaucracy, and further bloating the already big government we have. Prior to 9/11, the system was working fine vis-a-vis USBP, US Customs, USCG. DHS was created, mashing
Customs and BP together and dragging the CG over from Transportation.....and we still haven't fully sorted everything out. Guess they never figured out the "if it ain't broke...." moniker.
 
Back
Top