Jump to content
Sign Up To Remove Ads! | Purchase An Ad Slot!
crabb

No Fourth Amendment Rights at the Border?

Recommended Posts

 crabb    479

This is the 100 mile Constitution free zone at work. 
While I really dislike the way they are abusing there power this time it did catch a pedo. but that does not make it right.

 

 

https://patriotpost.us/articles/54825-no-fourth-amendment-rights-at-the-border

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in United States v. Vergara that American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights end at the border. Speaking for the majority, Judge William H. Pryor stated that since “the forensic searches of [Hernando] Vergara’s cell phones occurred at the border, not as searches incident to arrest,” the Fourth Amendment protections didn’t apply. He added that “border searches never require a warrant or probable cause.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    28,918

What I'm not getting is why, once SCOTUS rules something is Unconstitutional, it's being dragged all over the rest of the country into other courts to do what? Go back to SCOTUS? Is it a circular thing that never stops going around and around or what?

This ruling will clearly not be the end of the story as it sets up a collision course with the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling that specifically extended Fourth Amendment protections to include cell phones. Indeed, Vergara’s challenge relied on that case. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote at the time, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Roberts concluded, “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 crabb    479

I think this has to do with 
anger, confusion and division 
It keeps people like us angry that they cant seem to get things right with the constitution and it keeps the sheeple confused by not settling on the rule of law and this keeps the people divided over who is right.

divide and conquer 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    28,918
34 minutes ago, crabb said:

I think this has to do with 
anger, confusion and division 
It keeps people like us angry that they cant seem to get things right with the constitution and it keeps the sheeple confused by not settling on the rule of law and this keeps the people divided over who is right.

divide and conquer 

I just had this flash of a bunch of people wearing black robes. Seemed like it was supposed to be court, but those robes... makes it seem more like a dark ritual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 crabb    479
14 minutes ago, Cinnamon said:

I just had this flash of a bunch of people wearing black robes. Seemed like it was supposed to be court, but those robes... makes it seem more like a dark ritual. 

Good point,
Remember when they used to say good guy's wear white? That should have been a warning as I have never seen a judge or other magistrate wearing anything but black and they are satanist to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    28,918
2 minutes ago, crabb said:

Good point,
Remember when they used to say good guy's wear white? That should have been a warning as I have never seen a judge or other magistrate wearing anything but black and they are satanist to me. 

Ha! Look at this:

Why do judges wear black robes?

Colonial judges in England wore robes, and the tradition took off on American soil as well. But English judges also wore colorful robes and ornate wigs—a tradition that was not adopted in the United States. ... It shows that all of us judges are engaged in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 crabb    479
15 minutes ago, Cinnamon said:

It shows that all of us judges are engaged in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.

Thank you for the laugh,
It also tells me that England did infiltrate our courts (the missing 13 amendment).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cygnus    112
1 hour ago, Cinnamon said:

What I'm not getting is why, once SCOTUS rules something is Unconstitutional, it's being dragged all over the rest of the country into other courts to do what? Go back to SCOTUS? Is it a circular thing that never stops going around and around or what?

This ruling will clearly not be the end of the story as it sets up a collision course with the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling that specifically extended Fourth Amendment protections to include cell phones. Indeed, Vergara’s challenge relied on that case. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote at the time, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Roberts concluded, “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”

Slightly different though.  2014 was that the 4th amendment covers cells phones but this is that you have no 4th amendment rights at the boarder.  So it really doesn't matter if they're covered or not by it.  Hopefully this going the Supreme Court and they rule that citizens have 4th amendment rights at the boarder.  Especially since they could start using boarder patrol to abuse civil rights. The boarder patrol has jurisdiction within 100 miles of any boarder.  So technically San Francisco, LA, NY, etc are all within 100 miles of a boarder and they could use boarder patrol agents to subvert the 4th.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 crabb    479
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Cygnus said:

within 100 miles of any boarder

I thought this only applied to the exterior boarder not state to state boarders?

Edited by crabb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cygnus    112
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, crabb said:

I thought this only applied to the exterior boarder not state to state boarders?

It does, but the the coast line is a board.  So anywhere within 100 miles of the coast can be called boarder patrol land.  It's a lot scarier when you realize that coast is a boarder and it's not just the line between US/Canada and US/Mexico.  It puts about 870% of the population in the boarder zone. 

 I even saw someone try to claim once that an international airport counted as a boarder entry and therefore anywhere within 100 miles of one is too.  I think that's stretching it way too far but I wouldn't put it past one of these guys to try it.  

Edited by Cygnus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Full Throttle    2,098
1 hour ago, Cinnamon said:

I just had this flash of a bunch of people wearing black robes. Seemed like it was supposed to be court, but those robes... makes it seem more like a dark ritual. 

William Cooper did a show on that very thing before he was murdered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    28,918
3 minutes ago, Full Throttle said:

William Cooper did a show on that very thing before he was murdered.

We need to post more of his stuff. It is good info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×