"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:16:51 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
Any one living there? Scary stuff.
I just learned about it.

I think I read that 66% of Americans live in these zones:

https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

This is a vestige of the paranoia of 9/11 and will likely be headed to
the
Supreme Court for final adjudication. The Fourth Amendment guards
against
unreasonable search and seizure but historically that protection weakens
when leaving or entering the country. I believe the adminstration
contends
that "border" extends 100 miles inland, but I don't see the Supreme Court
supporting that contention.


You are a lot more optimistic then I am. I expect they will support
it under the claim that the searches are minimally intrusive. Is it
any different then the DUI checkpoints which they support?

That's a good point. Searching everyone is OK but just a few people not OK.
I've got to say, I think that's up there with "money = speech" and
"companies can have religious feelings, too!" Try paying the night shift at
the local beer bottling plant with a speech instead of money and you'll see
how out of bounds that decision was. (-:

I believe the drunk driver "mass searches" will eventually be invalidated
because the same intrusion occurs whether singly or in groups. It's part of
the overreaction to the drunk driving problem - a solution that's really
unconstitutional justified by saving the lives of the young'uns.

The checkpoint searches are nowhere near as good as cops just sitting
outside a bar at closing time looking for stumbling drunkards heading toward
their cars. But bar owners continually protest cops "sitting" on their
establishments and so checkpoints were born. Better to break the
Constitution. (-: sarcasm alert

--
Bobby G.