Are You Living in a Fourth Amendment Exclusion Zone?

http://www.storyleak.com/are-you-living-in-fourth-amendment-exclusion-zone/

by scotty79 • 13 years ago

150 76 13 years ago

storyleak.com

downandout• 13 years ago

Appalling, but sadly, not at all surprising. We have not-so-slowly been losing our rights for a very long time.

JulianMorrison2• 13 years ago

It's the other way around.

The America the constitution talks about never existed. Most especially if you were black or female, but even if you were white and male if you were poor, or a union organizer, or a communist, or an anarchist, or a protester, or a striker, or a member of an unusual religion. In fact basically it was a pack of lies for anyone not already in the mainstream elite. And if you are in the mainstream elite in 2013, rest assured, this one does not apply to you either.

In fact, the virtue of the constitution is that as a lie, it has inspired people to strive to demand it become true. And slowly by piecemeal, always hard fought for, always opposed, the golden age of the past that never existed is being constructed in the present.

icebraining• 13 years ago

Or a descendant of Japanese people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

crusso9• 13 years ago

While I would agree that some segments of the population have increased in societal freedoms to a degree, the general spirit of the Constitution has been severely eroded and is being destroyed.

The beauty of the Constitution was that it limited the powers of the Federal Government, allowing people to make more decisions for themselves at the individual, local, and state levels.

One needs only to look at the legislative and judicial history to see that the Tenth Amendment has been largely nullified in favor of increasing Federal power.

One needs only to look at the budget of the Federal government which is up around 24% of the GDP to realize that it is rather unconstrained by the narrow scope of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were deeply paranoid of an overbearing government and an very powerful political class. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. It was a good idea, but the best set of rules in the world can't constrain people who refuse to live by them.

AutoCorrect2• 13 years ago

bitter, party of one.

Actually, the OP had it right the first time. We've made progress on some fronts even as the government has been growing and trying to circumvent others. Women and blacks can now vote, something which was not true in the start of this great experiment.

You seem to forget (or never knew) that there is a constant tension between a government and it's citizens: the government wants more power, and the people usually want more freedom. Although if you look at the majority today, they'd rather have big brother take care of them. caveat emptor

Torgo• 13 years ago

You are right, we are not losing our rights, we are losing the facade.

jbellis• 13 years ago

I see a bunch of stories about this recently, but they all seem to derive from this 2008 one: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-sec...

Has there been any actual new reporting since then?

ibejoeb2• 13 years ago

Cases are making their way through the courts. House v. Napolitano is the furthest along, I think. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss. http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Cameras/DistrictofMassach...

I really think this just needs to move up the chain. I can't imagine higher level courts weakening the fourth amendment.

largesse2• 13 years ago

Is this a case where the plaintiff actually crossed the border, or an exclusion zone case where he just happened to be within about 50 miles of the border?

IheartApplesDix• 13 years ago

What preschooler drew up this idea? Path of Rome, here we come!

biot2• 13 years ago

The solution to this is to find a whole bunch of DHS employees who feel that these seizures are unjust and who are authorized to perform seizures themselves. Then have them go around rampantly seizing as much as they can from as many high-profile people as they can. Seize the devices from judges, lawyers, congress members, TV reporters, actors, children, and so on. Only by flagrantly exercising the "rights" the DHS claims they have will sanity ultimately prevail. They may lose their jobs, but I'm sure there's people willing to make that small sacrifice for defending liberty.

FireBeyond• 13 years ago

"They may lose their jobs, but I'm sure there's people willing to make that small sacrifice for defending liberty."

Are you? It's remarkably easy to say that getting fired from your job to make a point is but a "small sacrifice" when it's not your job, your livelihood, your family and/or home on the line.

If it's such a small sacrifice, perhaps some people could game the system - apply for a job with DHS (they're hiring! https://dhs.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?Keyword=...), and do this to make a point. In fact, I volunteer you for this noble, but small, sacrifice, that you're so willing to suggest others do.

biot2• 13 years ago

I'm not American but if I were and working at the DHS already and hated where things have been going, then for sure I would. I spent some time in the reserves knowing full well that I could be called to defend my country with my life. How utterly trivial in comparison losing one's job is. I wouldn't recommend it for someone with a family, kids, and a mortgage but if you're young and single, why not? Who cares about keeping a job that consists of depriving your fellow citizens of their constitutional rights?

gcb0• 13 years ago

Why apply? Just get a name tag.

If you want to confirm acop id you know where to call/go... With a dhs employee, you don't.

noonespecial2• 13 years ago

There's the problem exactly. You've got rights with that constitution thingee and all, but the system's now set up so that (even successfully) exercising those rights will cost you everything you have (and increasingly everything you're ever going to have).

rayiner14• 13 years ago

> system's now set up

The system has always been set up this way. There is a reason that the Founders were wealthy merchants, lawyers, and plantation owners, rather than workaday stiffs dependent on a paycheck.

TravisDirks2• 13 years ago

Population is concentrated on the coasts. Has anyone worked out what fraction of US Citizens have lost their 4th amendment rights?

TravisDirks2• 13 years ago

"Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders."

From:http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...

eli• 13 years ago

I think it's a story that deserves to be told, but this particular blog adds very little value over the source material the ACLU published in 2006-2008: http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...

Here's the HN discussion from two years ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1961071

OGinparadise• 13 years ago

In theory this makes sense: you cross the border...or live near the border...blah blah...keep US secure...blah blah... In reality, this is the latest attack and restrictions on our freedoms. Their tactic is brilliant, they pass xx laws that are unconstitutional and overwhelm the courts. Courts try to be reasonable and in many cases give half to one side and half to the other, every year.

I wouldn't be surprised if you still have quite a few rights down the line but only inside your home and a few decades after that only in the bathroom.

pfedor2• 13 years ago

Let me repeat what has been said in the other Hacker News threads about the same story:

This is neither the law nor the actual practice in the US. It is just something crazy that DHS once said. If they ever actually searched someone 100 miles away from the border, that person could sue and there is no reason to believe that the verdict would be different from Almeida-Sanchez v. United States.

ck22• 13 years ago

What you are repeating is wrong.

There are checkpoints a hundred miles from the border in many states and several videos of people suffering horrible results when they refuse searches at these checkpoints.

The TSA also routinely performs searches far from the border with their VIPR team. (because someone might drive a train into a building? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_a... )

stock_toaster• 13 years ago

Interesting section in that wikipedia about Amtrak temporarily banning TSA/VIPR from its property.

veidr• 13 years ago

> This is neither the law nor the actual practice in the US.

Not true; this is absolutely the actual practice in the US. Look what you have to do if you want to avoid being searched in one of these rights-exclusion zones:

http://masonmark.com/mundane-american-hero/

mtgx• 13 years ago

Didn't DHS reconfirm their position on this recently?

freddealmeida2• 13 years ago

Nice to see an Almeida standing up.

mpyne• 13 years ago

Well on the one hand you have to draw the "customs/immigration enforcement" line somewhere. And "defense in depth" certainly makes as much sense in the real world as it does in computer security.

But on the other hand I don't see a way for this to actually appreciably positively affect U.S. border security without stripping away most of what it means to be an American at all.

Even random checks at a high enough interval to give a good chance at making it too risky to attempt a terrorist plot would be tremendously impacting on day-to-day life. The effect of the DHS would be much more severe than the effect of any supposed terrorists themselves!

Better instead to use any such resources on things more beneficial to the common welfare, and to get rid of the extraneous legal authority.

mutagen• 13 years ago

A friend shared this video of assorted people exercising their fourth amendment rights at some of these internal checkpoints:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

Predictably it isn't long before Godwin's Law is invoked.

While some were obviously successful through simple civil disobedience, I wonder how others turned out. The guy that apparently ignored an order to pull into secondary may have had a rougher go at it. The California agricultural inspections have stood up to challenge [1] and I sympathize with their purpose more so than a 'zone' including most of the population of the country.

[1] http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/104/505.html

RyanMcGreal• 13 years ago

> Predictably it isn't long before Godwin's Law is invoked.

The purpose of Godwin's Law is not to gainsay all comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, but rather to gainsay inappropriate comparisons. I would argue that a US federal law enforcement checkpoint that clearly, unambiguously and persistently violates the US Bill of Rights is a reasonable place to start thinking about other governments that violate human rights. The comparison to Nazi Germany may by hyperbolic but it's not beyond the pale.

hakaaaaak2• 13 years ago

I am in support of privacy and therefore I'm in support of the ACLU in theory on this one, but...

That map is fucking ridiculous. There is no way they would search in the middle of a rural area without access from waterway, etc., and yet that is what much of this map highlights. Even if it is "factually correct", it isn't realistic, even for the most nutcase DHS employee. The everglades? Give me a fucking break.

http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/fourth-a...

burntsushi2• 13 years ago

Huh? That map highlights 2/3 of the country's population because of dense population centers near the coast. Just because it happens to overlap with the everglades is kind of irrelevant.

hakaaaaak2• 13 years ago

It isn't just the everglades. Most of the area covered is rural, swampland, farmland, etc. and would not be under suspicion, ever. It is a ridiculous map. It would be one thing if waterways and major cities were highlighted, but it is just over the top, completely. Highlighting all of it makes people in those areas worry unnecessarily when they need not. Finally, Homeland Security does not have the resources to implement searches in all of these places, nor will they knock on the door of every random apartment in Washington, D.C.

This is a sideshow to real privacy problems and a waste of my time and yours. The ACLU should be focused on the fact that our communications are being monitored, because that is something that is much more worrisome.

btilly• 13 years ago

I have been aware of the 100 mile zone for about a decade, ever since a friend of mine encountered a border patrol traffic stop on a freeway in Maine. (The Bush era amendment to the policy was that they could seize your electronics. Not being currently reported is that they can jail you if they think you aren't here legally, and have been able to do so forever.)

chris_wot• 13 years ago

How can it be legal to have Fourth Amendment Exclusion Zones in the United States?

lifeisstillgood• 13 years ago

Any organisation that creates a "Civil Liberties Impact" department, really needs to think about its basic job function !

Then again, as a UK citizen, I thought the fourth amendment was not letting soldiers billet in your house.

Are You Living in a Fourth Amendment Exclusion Zone?

Related Stories