4th Ammendment



  • This is more than a decade old and a pretty basic "need to know" thing about the US. You can't talk constitution without addressing if it applies or not.

    Places like NYC, Houston, all of Florida and Michigan and in fact all of New England, no major city in the west is inside the "covered by constitution" zone. Heck, not even Washington DC!



  • imagemap.gif





  • "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."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte





  • @scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:

    "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."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte

    Everything in these pages says it's only Border patrol/ Customs agents within the 100 mile mark that are exceptions to the 4th, Coming into the country they can break the 4th amendment within 100 miles, if they are border patrol - Because they are required to protect the US.

    Cops, can not search your vehicle ,however, A friend of mine once said " As soon as the cops ask if they can search your vehicle- they can. Because if you say no, Its probable cause. If you say yes, You give permission."
    SO...



  • @WrCombs said in 4th Ammendment:

    @scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:

    "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."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte

    Everything in these pages says it's only Border patrol/ Customs agents within the 100 mile mark that are exceptions to the 4th, Coming into the country they can break the 4th amendment within 100 miles, if they are border patrol - Because they are required to protect the US.

    Breaking the law and suspending the Constitution is never the act of defending the nation, it is an attack upon it. Once you can make any excuse to suspend the law, what law would apply? None, obviously.



  • @WrCombs yeah.... cops can literally do anything they want. You might get them in a little bit of trouble later, but they still did whatever they wanted (illegal searches, arrests, etc), and will still have a job after they get a slap on the wrist.



  • @RojoLoco said in 4th Ammendment:

    @WrCombs yeah.... cops can literally do anything they want. You might get them in a little bit of trouble later, but they still did whatever they wanted (illegal searches, arrests, etc), and will still have a job after they get a slap on the wrist.

    Right, since cops cannot be prosecuted, that makes them exempt from the law, which is the same as there not being a law 😞


  • Vendor

    @scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:

    "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."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte

    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?



  • @StorageNinja said in 4th Ammendment:

    @scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:

    "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."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte

    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.


  • Vendor

    @Dashrender said in 4th Ammendment:

    @StorageNinja said in 4th Ammendment:

    @scottalanmiller said in 4th Ammendment:

    "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."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte

    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.



  • @StorageNinja said in 4th Ammendment:

    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.

    Because you'd say the exact same thing about a house. It's not "that intrusive" and whatever the cops' want outweighs the constitution. Once the constitution isn't the law, it's nothing.



  • @StorageNinja said in 4th Ammendment:

    This isn't 100% removal of the 4th amendment within 100 miles of the border.

    Once the law doesn't exist, it's removed. That's the thing, it's all or nothing. Either it is the law, or it isn't the law. Clearly, it is not the law, and since the 100 mile doctrine is not law, that's not the limit of it, either. So essentially, the US is legally not under the constitution. The constitution is casually seen as a recommendation, but if it isn't strictly the law, then it strictly is not.



  • @StorageNinja said in 4th Ammendment:

    Doesn't it only work for the purposes though of border enforcement, and only by border patrol?

    That's the excuse that they used to get a ruling removing the constitution. But as there is no law to create limits, there are no limits.


Log in to reply