[Vision2020] ACLU: 2/3 of US population lives in "Constitution-free" zone

[Chasuk]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081023-aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.html

Longtime Ars readers know that I've had my own problems in the
"Constitution-free zone" that exists in US airports, but an aggressive
new ACLU campaign highlights a fact of which I was previously unaware:
the Constitution-free zone that exists a US borders and airports
actually extends 100 air miles inland and encompasses two-thirds of
the country's population. The US Border Patrol can set up checkpoints
anywhere in this region and question citizens.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution contains a border-related
exception to unreasonable search and seizure laws, permitting searches
at border checkpoints that wouldn't be permitted elsewhere. But
federal statute 8 CFR 287.1 (a)(1-3) defines the border zone for
enforcement purposes as encompassing an area within 100 miles of the
actual border, with the possibility of extending it further under
certain circumstances. This means that the US Border Patrol could
conceivably set up random checkpoints asking travelers for a passport
in places like Columbus, Ohio; Houston; or anywhere in the state of
Florida. And, in fact, it appears that it has been doing exactly this.

In 2003, the Seattle Times reported on random "spot checks" of cars
and luggage that border patrol agents were performing on US citizens
who were taking the ferry between Washington State and the San Juan
islands. Because most of the passengers on these ferries had not
actually crossed an international border, the ACLU advised them at the
time not to answer any questions asked of them by federal agents.

In the intervening years, the ACLU has been collecting other reports
of such inland "border" checkpoints, and has built its new
"Constitution-Free Zone" campaign around them. Unfortunately for the
ACLU, few of the folks who have been subject to search at such
checkpoints have actually come forward with complaints, but the ones
who did speak up have compelling and troubling stories.

Take the story of Vince Peppard from San Diego, who crossed the border
to buy tiles at a discount store in Mexico. Upon crossing back into
the US, he was subject to the usual check at the border, but on
driving further inland he was stopped a second checkpoint, where
agents asked to search his car.

Peppard, a member of the ACLU, refused the search, at which point he
was questioned repeatedly, and eventually escorted from his car while
the agents searched it. Segments of Peppard's account of the incident,
which the ACLU has posted in video form on their site, would almost be
funny if the issue weren't so serious.

"He starts looking at the passport and the driver's license," says
Peppard, "and he goes to my wife, 'Where were you born?' because she
has an accent, but she's a US citizen. And so she says, 'I was born in
Syria,' and he goes, 'Ah! A Syrian!' like he'd hit the jackpot or
something."

Peppard then goes a little overboard in expressing worry that he may
be stopped and asked for his passport at Home Depot or in other random
locations, but he finishes off the clip with a concern that may not be
so far-fetched. Specifically, Peppard worries that, because he has
talked to the ACLU and has filed a complaint with the Border Patrol,
he may be singled out for further harassment at border checkpoints.

Ultimately, one wonders just how far the Feds will push this internal
checkpoint idea in a non-emergency situation; given the likely
reaction to citizens being asked to show papers on a mass scale, it
seems unlikely that the government will truly install checkpoints
north of Columbus and begin screening in large numbers. But vigilance,
as the saying goes, is the price of freedom, which is why the ACLU and
its allies intend to challenge the practice before we have a chance to
find out.