[0xcde4c3db]

The rule is apparently phrased as being within 100 miles of any "external boundary", which doesn't just mean borders with other countries, but also the entire coastline, including the coasts of the Great Lakes. Most Americans live in this area.

[jcranmer]

Note that the "border" here is not the coastline, but the limits of territorial waters (12 miles). This also means that proximity to, say, the upper Chesapeake Bay or the southern tip of Lake Michigan aren't relevant, as those coastlines are of internal waters and not the larger ocean.

[dragonwriter]

> Note that the "border" here is not the coastline, but the limits of territorial waters (12 miles)

No, the Border Patrol interpretation of the “reasonable distance from the external boundary rule” is that it extends to at least 100 miles from any land border or any part of the US coastline (whether or not it is or is in proximity to an international border.)

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/

[jcranmer]

That's what the ACLU says the Border Patrol's interpretation is. When I actually read the regulations and the statutes themselves, as far as I could infer, the external boundary was meant to refer to the international water boundary.

I'm afraid I don't recall the exact citation off the top of my head, but I'd like to see more evidence for the ACLU's claims than, well, just the ACLU saying so. Especially when the ACLU itself points out that the law and regulations doesn't actually give the Border Patrol some of the powers it has.

(I should note there's a distinction between the actual legal authority and the actual policies applied in practice--I'm arguing that the legal authority is 100 miles from the international waters boundary; that the Border Patrol is exceeding that is probable, but the ACLU is, IMO, conflating the legal and actual effects to lobby specifically against the law rather than lobbying against the Border Patrol acting illegally).

[fauigerzigerk]

I think the rule applies to incoming travellers only, not everyone who happens to be near the border.

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't just lose force for everyone living in one of the coastal cities.

[dragonwriter]

> I think the rule applies to incoming travellers only, not everyone who happens to be near the border.

No, it applies to where the Border Patrol asserts authority to conduct warrantless stops and searches of any person/vehicle/etc. for potential immigration or violations.

(There's also a similar 25-mile zone where they assert authority to do so on private property other than physically entering houses.)

They also claim similar authority to the 100-mile limit in cities with international airports, if they happen to be outside of the 100 mile zone.

> The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't just lose force for everyone living in one of the coastal cities.

The Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of state governments, it's the Fourth Amendment that is at issue here. But the legal theory is that warrantless searches in these circumstances, are reasonable and thus compliant with the Fourth Amendment.

[fauigerzigerk]

>But the legal theory is that warrantless searches in these circumstances, are reasonable and thus compliant with the Fourth Amendment.

But does that also apply to U.S citizens who haven't crossed a border and cannot possibly have committed an immigration offence?

[dragonwriter]

> But does that also apply to U.S citizens who haven't crossed a border and cannot possibly have committed an immigration offence?

The purpose of the stop and search is to determine immigration status, so, yes, it applies to everyone.

It's like asking if the power to arrest applies to people who are factually innocent.

[fauigerzigerk]

Searching someone's phone or laptop isn't just done to determine their immigration status. So if a person shows their U.S passport, would BP still be allowed to search their electronics?

[sneak]

ICE has imprisoned US citizens, sometimes even while in possession of their passports or other citizenship documents, for months or years in the US.

They have done this almost 1500 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_E...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-citizen-detained-by-ice-fran...

[dragonwriter]

> Searching someone's phone or laptop isn't just done to determine their immigration status. So if a person shows their U.S passport, would BP still be allowed to search their electronics?

Sorry, “immigration status” was not quite what I should have said, it's to determine border violations, both immigration and contraband related. As warrantless electronics searches are for “digital cobtraband”, they would seem likely to have the same status in the border zone (to the extent it is valid) as at the border, where manual checks with no specific basis and forensic checks with “reasonable suspicion” have been upheld, IIRC.