It boils down to: 'environmental'/game officers have sometimes very shocking levels of power because of the nature of their job, but the article is correct that the supreme court has been steadily eroding our privacy rights for the better part of at least half a century.
The game warden probably doesn't give a shit about your weed (unless you were high/drunk while carrying/using a firearm); he cares about whether you shot a deer when you weren't supposed to. Game is a public resource and we're sufficiently populated these days, and weapons sufficiently advanced, that unchecked hunting can decimate wildlife populations.
What bothers me more is that a massive portion of the US population falls under the zone wherein Customs and Border Protection can do almost whatever they want. It's something like 100 miles from the border.
Imagine driving down a street in NYC and a customs agent pops out of nowhere, stops you, disassembles most of your car's interior, demands the password to your phone and computer under threat of jailing, and then heads off with your phone, laptop, any papers you had, and the $6,000 in cash you were carrying to buy a used car. 100% legal, as far as the supreme court is concerned.
I wonder if any justices have realized that their courthouse and homes are within that same zone they think the constitution doesn't apply.
Game is a public resource and we're sufficiently populated these days, and weapons sufficiently advanced, that unchecked hunting can decimate wildlife populations.
Sure, but that was true thousands of years ago too. It doesn't take much.
If you're willing to draw the obvious conclusion from the fact that mass extinction of large animals has occurred every time humans were introduced somewhere, it's always been true.
What bothers me more is that a massive portion of the US population falls under the zone wherein Customs and Border Protection can do almost whatever they want. It's something like 100 miles from the border.
I definitely agree that this 100-mile reach is egregious overreach, but have there ever been any cases of this being actually abused, such as in the scenario you describe? Or for instance, have CBP agents ever busted into someone's home?
I definitely agree that this 100-mile reach is egregious overreach, but have there ever been any cases of this being actually abused
There's the Greyhound bus raids. Probably happening still.
Does Suda v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection count? Suda was just hanging out in a small town in Montana and speaking Spanish. Martinez-Castro, et al. v. Village of Wakeman, et al. ? Saucedo-Carrillo, et al. v. United States? Jaimes v. Harris, et al.? Moreno v. United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Mario Unate and the United States of America? Hernandez-Carranco v. USA, et al.? Sanchez, et al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol, et al ? These are just a few of the ones that make it to the lawsuit stage, you understand.
Or for instance, have CBP agents ever busted into someone's home?
Homes are the only thing excluded from this authority but just because it's to hand, Boule v. Egbert et al. The agent got it dismissed in summary judgment, saying the agent was in the wrong but the fourth amendment didn't apply because the house was right next to the border, and if property-owners like that had rights CBP officers might hesitate as they went about their patrols, and let bad guys get way. (They got that reversed on appeal — after two years and the expenses of appeal — and were allowed to proceed with the original suit.)
I'm not arguing any kind of point, in fact like I said I completely agree that the 100-mile limit is absurd, I just want to know if there have been actual examples of abuse to point to...
Or for instance, have CBP agents ever busted into someone's home?
In the pre-dawn hours of Holy Saturday, April 22, agents of the Border Patrol's special BORTAC unit as part of an operation in which more than 130 INS personnel took part[25] approached the house, knocked on the door, and identified themselves. When no one responded, they entered. At the same time, pepper-spray and mace were employed against persons outside who attempted to interfere.[26] In the confusion, Armando Gutierrez called in Alan Diaz, of the Associated Press, to enter the house and enter a room with González, his great uncle's wife Angela Lázaro, her niece, the niece's young son, and Donato Dalrymple (one of the two men who had rescued him from the ocean). They waited in the room listening to agents searching the house. Diaz took a widely publicized photograph of a border patrol agent confronting Dalrymple and the boy.
So, kinda? I don't have a spectacular source, but there's this [1]
Deportations were highest at the end of Bush's term. Obama gradually ramped down internal deportations. You may recall there was a pretty strong emphasis on DACA, the DREAM act, and a bunch of stuff about sanctuary cities. That got rolled back somewhat under Trump.
This has been a politically charged topic, and I'm doing my best to tread lightly.
My understanding is at the end of Obama's term, deportations were mostly driven by criminal activity. If someone got arrested for something, ICE is tipped off, and they're deported. On the other hand, they ran a stop sign, that was generally overlooked.
Later, there was a push to improve those numbers, so there were various people who were suspected or known to be undocumented. Some were visited and deported. There's various stories of homes being busted into. I have some opinions around all of that, but that's a minefield I don't want to walk through.
What is disturbing is, the enforcement varies with the political winds. They have a lot of power. "abuse" is pretty charged in this context. My preference is for the rules to be a lot less fuzzy. We already have a lot of rules around how citizens are treated, my preference is to treat people as citizens until proven otherwise. I'm ok with kicking in the door, if they can get a warrant.
There's lots of special cases, there's lots of horrible outlier examples. Yeah, I get the guy picking tomatoes getting paid under the table is not paying taxes. I know some folks don't report their tips.
Enforcement is super tricky, and I don't want to make it a million times harder, but I would like it to be more consistent. Again, this is a politically charged topic, which makes it tough to really think through (for me anyway).
The game warden probably doesn't give a shit about your weed (unless you were high/drunk while carrying/using a firearm); he cares about whether you shot a deer when you weren't supposed to
No organization gives up or manages out its best and brightest. I trust your average beat cop not to be a power tripping jerk a lot more than I trust the average game warden.
This goes for all the "second rate" law enforcement agencies, DEA, ATF, Port Authority, blue helmets. Some of those guys truly believe in the mission (and I sympathize with these guys, caring about the mission in an organization where 1/10th to 1/2 of people have "settled" for the job is terrible). Some of those guys are just clock punchers. But a disturbing number of those guys quit or got managed out of the state police, FBI or whatever for shoot/taze/beat first ask questions later behavior that tends to result in dismissed charges which tend to result in poor performance reviews.
Yup, a lot of people don't know about this, but it is pretty bad. Within 25 miles of any US border or coastline, they can actually come into your house without a warrant to look for evidence of smuggling people, contraband, items not taxed properly and basically everything under their regulatory authority. 25-100 miles and they're not allowed to go in your house without a warrant, but they can stop you outside, hassle you, search your car and your person without one.
Something like 90% of the US population lives within the 100 mile zone, and the entire state of Florida resides within it because it is less than 200 miles across.
Comments
It boils down to: 'environmental'/game officers have sometimes very shocking levels of power because of the nature of their job, but the article is correct that the supreme court has been steadily eroding our privacy rights for the better part of at least half a century.
The game warden probably doesn't give a shit about your weed (unless you were high/drunk while carrying/using a firearm); he cares about whether you shot a deer when you weren't supposed to. Game is a public resource and we're sufficiently populated these days, and weapons sufficiently advanced, that unchecked hunting can decimate wildlife populations.
What bothers me more is that a massive portion of the US population falls under the zone wherein Customs and Border Protection can do almost whatever they want. It's something like 100 miles from the border.
Imagine driving down a street in NYC and a customs agent pops out of nowhere, stops you, disassembles most of your car's interior, demands the password to your phone and computer under threat of jailing, and then heads off with your phone, laptop, any papers you had, and the $6,000 in cash you were carrying to buy a used car. 100% legal, as far as the supreme court is concerned.
I wonder if any justices have realized that their courthouse and homes are within that same zone they think the constitution doesn't apply.
Sure, but that was true thousands of years ago too. It doesn't take much.
If you're willing to draw the obvious conclusion from the fact that mass extinction of large animals has occurred every time humans were introduced somewhere, it's always been true.
I definitely agree that this 100-mile reach is egregious overreach, but have there ever been any cases of this being actually abused, such as in the scenario you describe? Or for instance, have CBP agents ever busted into someone's home?
There's the Greyhound bus raids. Probably happening still.
Does Suda v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection count? Suda was just hanging out in a small town in Montana and speaking Spanish. Martinez-Castro, et al. v. Village of Wakeman, et al. ? Saucedo-Carrillo, et al. v. United States? Jaimes v. Harris, et al.? Moreno v. United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Mario Unate and the United States of America? Hernandez-Carranco v. USA, et al.? Sanchez, et al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol, et al ? These are just a few of the ones that make it to the lawsuit stage, you understand.
Would you consider the ACLU complaint? https://cbpabusestest2.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/az-aclu-c...
Homes are the only thing excluded from this authority but just because it's to hand, Boule v. Egbert et al. The agent got it dismissed in summary judgment, saying the agent was in the wrong but the fourth amendment didn't apply because the house was right next to the border, and if property-owners like that had rights CBP officers might hesitate as they went about their patrols, and let bad guys get way. (They got that reversed on appeal — after two years and the expenses of appeal — and were allowed to proceed with the original suit.)
Thank you very much. Reading into one of these now [1], and they're just outrageous.
[1] https://holdcbpaccountable.org/2013/12/12/no-312-cv-05186-n-...
Not exactly what you were looking for, but the CBP were deployed to put down the Portland riots and were making arrests without probable cause.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/27/trump-border...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53453077
Shouldn't the question be the inverse? Can you point to any cases where the ability to do this without consequence is actually necessary?
I'm not arguing any kind of point, in fact like I said I completely agree that the 100-mile limit is absurd, I just want to know if there have been actual examples of abuse to point to...
I bet if you searched for "CBP 100 mile arizona" or something similar you would find out.
In the pre-dawn hours of Holy Saturday, April 22, agents of the Border Patrol's special BORTAC unit as part of an operation in which more than 130 INS personnel took part[25] approached the house, knocked on the door, and identified themselves. When no one responded, they entered. At the same time, pepper-spray and mace were employed against persons outside who attempted to interfere.[26] In the confusion, Armando Gutierrez called in Alan Diaz, of the Associated Press, to enter the house and enter a room with González, his great uncle's wife Angela Lázaro, her niece, the niece's young son, and Donato Dalrymple (one of the two men who had rescued him from the ocean). They waited in the room listening to agents searching the house. Diaz took a widely publicized photograph of a border patrol agent confronting Dalrymple and the boy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez
So, kinda? I don't have a spectacular source, but there's this [1] Deportations were highest at the end of Bush's term. Obama gradually ramped down internal deportations. You may recall there was a pretty strong emphasis on DACA, the DREAM act, and a bunch of stuff about sanctuary cities. That got rolled back somewhat under Trump.
This has been a politically charged topic, and I'm doing my best to tread lightly.
My understanding is at the end of Obama's term, deportations were mostly driven by criminal activity. If someone got arrested for something, ICE is tipped off, and they're deported. On the other hand, they ran a stop sign, that was generally overlooked.
Later, there was a push to improve those numbers, so there were various people who were suspected or known to be undocumented. Some were visited and deported. There's various stories of homes being busted into. I have some opinions around all of that, but that's a minefield I don't want to walk through.
What is disturbing is, the enforcement varies with the political winds. They have a lot of power. "abuse" is pretty charged in this context. My preference is for the rules to be a lot less fuzzy. We already have a lot of rules around how citizens are treated, my preference is to treat people as citizens until proven otherwise. I'm ok with kicking in the door, if they can get a warrant.
There's lots of special cases, there's lots of horrible outlier examples. Yeah, I get the guy picking tomatoes getting paid under the table is not paying taxes. I know some folks don't report their tips.
Enforcement is super tricky, and I don't want to make it a million times harder, but I would like it to be more consistent. Again, this is a politically charged topic, which makes it tough to really think through (for me anyway).
[1] https://econofact.org/immigrant-deportations-during-the-trum...
The difference is that judges, justices, and lawmakers are a part of the elite class, and will never be threatened by such abuses.
No organization gives up or manages out its best and brightest. I trust your average beat cop not to be a power tripping jerk a lot more than I trust the average game warden.
This goes for all the "second rate" law enforcement agencies, DEA, ATF, Port Authority, blue helmets. Some of those guys truly believe in the mission (and I sympathize with these guys, caring about the mission in an organization where 1/10th to 1/2 of people have "settled" for the job is terrible). Some of those guys are just clock punchers. But a disturbing number of those guys quit or got managed out of the state police, FBI or whatever for shoot/taze/beat first ask questions later behavior that tends to result in dismissed charges which tend to result in poor performance reviews.
If I remember correctly, being within 100 miles of an international airport counts too.
If you count that too, all of the United States becomes border zone.
Almost as convenient as having no bases in RUS.
Yup, a lot of people don't know about this, but it is pretty bad. Within 25 miles of any US border or coastline, they can actually come into your house without a warrant to look for evidence of smuggling people, contraband, items not taxed properly and basically everything under their regulatory authority. 25-100 miles and they're not allowed to go in your house without a warrant, but they can stop you outside, hassle you, search your car and your person without one.
Something like 90% of the US population lives within the 100 mile zone, and the entire state of Florida resides within it because it is less than 200 miles across.