Federal Cop Accountability Nearly Impossible after Supreme Ct Border Patrol Case: Constitutional Rights don’t apply fully w/in 100 miles of US borders But 2/3 of the US population lives w/in the Zone
FUNKTIONARY explains “rights are myths.”
THE ACLU EXPLAINS:
The Problem
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain additional authorities. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”
Much of U.S. Population Affected
Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose. [MORE]
From [HERE] Attorneys and civil rights advocates fear a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling will make it harder for people to sue federal law enforcement agents who violate their rights during warrantless searches.
On June 8, the court ruled against a man who had sued a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent for excessive force, allegedly violating his Fourth and First Amendment rights.
Now, advocates say they worry, based on past Supreme Court cases, the 6-3 decision could be broadly applied to all federal agencies, not just border agents.
That could mean federal agents are protected from those lawsuits in nearly all of New England because the court has already held the Fourth Amendment doesn’t fully protect people against unreasonable searches and seizures within 100 miles of an international border or coastline.
Save for a southern chunk of Vermont and a small corner of northwestern Massachusetts, all of New England lies within the so-called 100-mile border enforcement zone due to the proximity to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean. About 210 million people — about two-thirds of the United States’ population — live within the zone nationwide, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
“This case really has made it nearly impossible to hold (federal officials) accountable when there’s a Fourth Amendment violation or other constitutional violations,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure by police and other government representatives. Typically, local and state law enforcement officers must obtain a warrant signed by a judge before conducting searches.
Attorneys and advocates are also concerned about the racial implications of the Supreme Court's June 8 ruling because of the disproportionate number of civil rights violations involving people of color in lawsuits against law enforcement officials at all levels.
"I do think that will be made worse by this ruling,” said Garvan.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the largest federal police agency in the country and employs nearly 20,000 agents. It, along with other immigration and national security agencies, has a track record of racial discrimination, according to a two-year investigation by Georgetown University Law Center.
What the Supreme Court's border enforcement ruling does and doesn't do
The Supreme Court ruled June 8 against a man who had sued a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent for excessive force near Washington's border with Canada. The 6-3 decision in Egbert v. Boule blocked the man’s attempts to hold federal agents accountable for allegedly violating his Fourth and First Amendment rights.
The decision doesn’t alter federal agents’ unique authority within the 100-mile border enforcement zone, nor does it gut Fourth Amendment protections.
Instead, Egbert narrows the options American citizens have to hold federal agents accountable for their actions, according to legal experts who spoke to the USA TODAY Network.
Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are authorized under 8 U.S. Code § 1357 to “board and search for aliens” without a warrant on any “railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle” within the 100-mile zone.
The law also allows border patrol to go onto private land, but not homes, within 25 miles of the border “for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.”
Americans may file civil rights lawsuits against state and local police under a Reconstruction-era federal law, but that law doesn’t apply to federal law enforcement. Claims against federal agencies are instead allowed under a Supreme Court precedent from 1971.
Lower courts have been divided since then on whether suits should be allowed against federal police in national security matters such as border patrols, among other circumstances. The debate bears similarities to debates surrounding qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that protects local police officers from liability for civil rights violations in many circumstances.
Under Egbert, federal agents would now be similarly immune unless the circumstances of the alleged violations in the 100-mile border zone match those of previously heard cases, Garvan argued.
“Unless your claim you’re bringing now is just like one of those previous cases, then you’re out of luck,” said the ACLU of Maine legal director.
What the Supreme Court justices wrote about protecting federal agents against civil rights suits
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 6-3 majority in the June 8 Egbert ruling, said Congress is better equipped than federal courts to authorize unreasonable search and seizure lawsuits against government employees.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed in a concurring opinion.
"Weighing the costs and benefits of new laws is the bread and butter of legislative committees," Gorsuch wrote. "It has no place in federal courts charged with deciding cases and controversies under existing law.” [MORE]