"The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
I assume this is like the 4th amendment really doesn't apply much to game wardens for the purpose of looking in your freezer etc. Doesn't it only work for the purposes though of border enforcement, and only by border patrol?
Very likely - but meh, the cops will simply call in border patrol to do the searching, etc.
Couple things here..
that case involved a fixed internal checkpoint on a highway (Not my house, or an arbitrary checkpoint setup on my local street).
The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual - I don't see how searching my house is ever going to fall under this.
The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry - The courts cool with casual racial based policing when near a border.
one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 896 n. 2; see Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583, 417 U. S. 590-591 (1974) Basically, again if it's in a car your expectations are a lot lower.
we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints - The checkpoint has be reasonable. I-35 North coming out of Larando? reasonable. I-35 north of San Antonio? yahhhh unlikely.
This isn't 100% removal of the 4th amendment within 100 miles of the border.
It IS still a questionable ruling.