Yep, chalk on your tires violates your rights. But if you are within 100 miles of a border, we can search everything in your car and on your persons no questions ask.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
That's not actually true. You can be stopped and questioned about your immigration status, but the CBP still need a warrant or probable cause to search your vehicle. Same as if you were >100 miles away from the border.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. You raise an important point on the rather uneven application of justice when it comes to the expansion of police powers.
After what, 60 years of chalking tires, the courts decide it is unconstitutional. But the CBP are free to confiscate your phone, and you may be searched on suspicion of harboring illegals. Nearly the entire US population lives within 100 miles of a border (or the coast!) and are subject to warrantless searches by DHS policy. Doesn't seem right.
They're probably being downvoted because no sane person would believe it. Sounds like SovCit tinfoil-battery.
Only trouble is, it is basically true. [1] While arbitrary warrantless search and seizure is in principle still forbidden except at the border crossings themselves, just about anything else the CBP does in its normal course of business is fair game elsewhere in the 100-mile zone. The courts have been reluctant to reign them in for whatever reason.
1. It's an example of unintended consequence.
It changes no circumstance (same cop will just be running around snapping pictures), it makes it more costly for the inefficient government. GJ there.
2. You enter into an implicit contract when you voluntarily subject yourself to the statute of the limited parking (the code is on the signage). It's not unreasonable to be tracked for the purposes of enforcement, anymore than providing an ID for a vehicle license.
This appears to be a strawman precedent (bad lawyering) that a higher court will casually reverse (that would be the supreme court).
Next up, breathing on a citizen or observing clothing by a law enforcement officer can be construed as unreasonable via the 4th?
