Talk:Border search exception

message: The article needs some hint of the basis for the exception.  —Tamfang 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  As it stands, the article sounds like it was written by a government operative.  Has this doctrine been challenged before the Supreme Court?  They are the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional.  —Nricardo 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see there are some footnotes which may be Supreme Court cases, but they are not discussed in the article, nor do they provide links to the court websites.  This article has room for improvement.  —Nricardo 11:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article was written by a law student, not a government operative. As far as the Supreme Court's review of the doctrine, it is quite thorough when it comes to the inspection of closed containers and invasive body searches. The interesting area - the gray area - relates to searches of electronic material.  In this setting, there are no clear answers. Only one court has ever addressed the issue head on. I will add a section detailing the history and source of custom's authority to conduct these searches in a couple of weeks (when finals are over). Thanks for pointing out areas that need expansion, though. Bpiereck 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  And congratulations on getting this on the Main Page.  This sort of "exception" makes my American spine chill.fucking bitch —Nricardo 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree that this article appears to be arguing FOR its subject matter- warrantless border searches- and doing so by citing case law which may or may not support the authors POV, but which in any case constitutes "original research" on the part of the author. It appears to be the work of a law student (is this to mean someone who is currently attending an accredited law school or someone who considers themselves a "student of the law"? ) which is at any rate irrelevant except that he's ARGUING the case citing case law to support his argument all the while presenting his argument as despositive, decided law. This is exactly what Wikipedia is NOT about- a debate club or a court of law.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.124.99 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: but why?

message: The Ninth Circuit issued its decision on the Arnold case yesterday.  The court ruled that electronic devices are subject to the same restrictions as other property searches, and refused to require reasonable suspicion. The court overturned the District Court's ruling that equated the search of a laptop to an intrusive body cavity search. I read the 9th circuit opinion and updated the article accordingly. Once the case is published in the Federal Reporter, I will update the citations, including pincites. Currently, the case citations refer only to the Westlaw pagination. Bpiereck (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: <i>Arnold</i> Decided

message: The first two sentences of the second paragraph could use some slight phrasing adjustment.  Right now, it reads  "US BCP are permitted to search travelers crossing the border.  Therefore, the 4th amendment doesn't apply."  The current text makes it seems like BCP simply decided on a policy, and because of that, the 4th amendment doesn't apply.  That is not correct.
The tone should be that "US Courts have held that border searches are not searches and seizures within the scope of the 4th amendment.  Because of this, the 4th amendment requirement for warrants does not apply, and therefore, US BCP is permitted to search travelers at the border without a warrant."    posted 2008-05-15.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.86.64.142 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrasing of first sentences, and the original source of BCP authority (2008-05-15)

message: California has two CBP checkpoints approximately 80 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, one in San Clemente and the other near Temecula. Does the search exception apply at these locations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.120.50 (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Border Patrol's jurisdiction extends to 100 miles from the border. There also have been, at least in the past, CBP checkpoints along southbound Interstate 87 at North Hudson, New York, about 60 miles south of the Canadian border (I went through it once on the way back from a hiking trip in the Adirondacks). Border Patrol agents have also been known to board Amtrak's Lakeshore Limited (which does not cross the border, but runs within that 100-mile limit from about Syracuse onward for most of its New York-Chicago run) looking for illegals. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Border control checkpoints not at the border

message: Well, it would seem that the whole section on how unreasonable it is to submit passengers to body scans and pat downs without cause has instantly become outdated.  Of course, obviously, there was no court case or decision that can be referenced for why.. QuantumG (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no mention of the 4th ammendment underwear which could be worn in protest for body scanners. Might be worth adding somewhere? EdwardLane (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the government can strip search anyone arrested without probable cause. The case in question was that of a man stopped for a seat-belt violation. Its not much of a stretch to conclude that the government might argue that anyone living within 100 miles of a border can be strip searched at any time without probable cause  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.159.210 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The border guards have a duty to protect America from enemies. That trumps other considerations. If you fear being searched, don't bring anything illegal with you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Search of passenger's bodies

message: The map shown on the page is inaccurate. It shows a 100-mile distance from external boundaries only. However, the actual 100-mile border search exemption is inclusive of coasts and waterways (i.e. inclusive of the great lakes). For example, Chicago is covered under the 100-mile exception, but it is not covered on the map shown on this wiki entry.
https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/3-Anthony-100-Mile-Zone.pdf
"...the entire eastern seaboard is covered. This language appears to come from a change to the INA in 1946.44 The statute does not define “reasonable distance,” so a federal regulation implementing the change was written in 1953 establishing the reasonable distance as 100 air miles from any external boundary, including all coasts and waterways." (page 8 of PDF, page 398 listed)
"...(including Washington, D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston), as well as most of California (including San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento), the most highly populated areas of Oregon and Washington (including Portland and Seattle), the entire states of Florida and Michigan, many of the northeastern states, and most of the nation’s other large cities (including Chicago, Detroit, Houston, and New Orleans)." (page 9 of PDF, page 399 listed).
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
See map listed by the ACLU.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:C002:AC00:F0A3:8614:85DA:557A (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border map is wrong - expanded past what is currently shown.