International border searches Essay Example for Free

International border searches Essay It is recognized that it is paramount to the U. S. to protect and preserve the integrity of its borders. This involves a constant balancing by the authorities between trade and commerce on one hand and terrorist activities, contraband and illegal immigrants on the other hand. By reason of this, security operations involve border searches and seizures which necessarily have implications on the Fourth Amendment (Vina, 2005). The Fourth Amendment ensures and protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures and provides, â€Å"â€Å"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized† (U. S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment). The Fourth Amendment is to ensure that the powers of the federal government are not arbitrarily used against its citizens. Legally, â€Å"reasonableness† is required as one to be determined by a judge for the issuance of a search warrant. The judge is said to be independent and impartial as to determine the existence of probable cause so that the police can make the search or arrest [Katz v. U. S. , 347, 357 (1967)]. A violation of the Fourth Amendment will result in the exclusion or suppression of whatever evidence may be gathered pursuant to the exclusionary rule enunciated by the Court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). There are however, exceptions established when reasonableness and warrant requirement are relaxed and therefore â€Å"probable cause is not invariably required either† (Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 653 (1995). This occurs when the interests of the public require more protection than those of private interests. One of these established exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirement is border search [Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967)]. Discussion Border search is defined in the case of United States v. Ramsey as â€Å"that searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration (431 U. S. 606 (1977)). This does not require a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion (Onecle web site, 2005). The exception of border search is provided for under the United States Code specifically in Chapter 19, subsections 482 and 1582. This exception is premised on the duty of the state to protect its citizens, regulate trade and commerce and enforces immigration laws, thus, authorizing routine stops for searches at the border [U. S. v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606 (1977)]. There are two types of border search, namely routine and non-routine (Vina, 2005). In the case of U. S. v. Johnson, the Court explained that routine search include a search without any suspicion and entails very limited invasion of privacy (991 F 2d. 1287, 1291 7th Cir. 1993). This may include a dog sniff of the person, a search and inspection of belongings, luggage and car (Vina, 2005). The non-routine search includes more intrusive methods and is conducted when the authorities have suspicion that there is alimentary canal smuggling. The search may consist of â€Å"destructive searches of inanimate objects, prolonged detentions, strip searches, body cavity searches, and some x-ray examinations† (Vina, 2005). Body cavity searches include searches in cavities such as â€Å"vagina, rectum, or the use of emetics† [Vina, 2005 citing United States v. Ogberaha, 771 F. 2d 655, 657 (2d Cir. 1985) (vagina); United State v. Pino, 729 F. 2d 1357, 1358 (11 th Cir. 1984) (rectum); United States v. Briones, 423 F. 2d 742, 743 (5 th Cir. 1970) (emetics)]. The law requires that ‘reasonable suspicion’ consists in particular and specific facts which a logical person can infer from a wrong doing (U. S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985), 473 U. S. 531). There are also instances when border searches are allowed to extend beyond the border, in the following cases, namely: â€Å"(1) the government officials have reasonable certainty or a â€Å"high degree of probability† that a border was crossed; (2) they also have reasonable certainty that no change in the object of the search has occurred between the time of the border crossing and the search; and (3) they have â€Å"reasonable suspicion† that criminal activity was occurring† (U. S. v. Teng Yang (2002), 286 F. 3d. 940). These three requisites must exist and concur to render legal and constitutional, the extended border search by ensuring a â€Å"significant nexus with a border crossing† by the suspect (Vina, 2005). Most often the routine searches give rise to non-routine searches such as for instance where undeclared precious stones are found inside the pocket of the suspect, this resulted into reasonable suspicion thus giving rise to the conduct of non-routine search of strip searches. This yielded an envelope of narcotics (U. S. v. Flores, (1973) 477 F. 2d 608). Conclusion The U. S. government embarked on enhancing border security technologies and operations by reason of the September 11 terrorist attack. Intercepting and aborting terrorist attacks and smuggling of contraband were overstressed. Pieces of legislation are being drafted to harness further training in detection of false or falsified documents, pilot programs are launched for â€Å"surveillance technologies, biometric entry and exit data system and enhanced training of border officials (Vina, 2005). Volunteer programs were also set up to assist in observing and reporting of the movement of illegal aliens such as those launched in Arizona in 2005. This is a â€Å"citizens’ neighborhood watch’ program called the Minuteman Project. References Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967) Katz v. U. S. , 347, 357 (1967) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Onecle Web site 2005 â€Å" Border searches† Retrieved on October 25, 2007, from http://law. onecle. com/constitution/amendment-04/18-border-searches. html United States Code, Chapter 19, subsections 482 and 1582 U. S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 653 (1995). Vina, S. 2005, Protecting our perimeter:† border searches† under the Fourth amendment CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved on October 25, 2007, from http://www. fas. org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826. pdf. United States v. Briones, 423 F. 2d 742, 743 (5 th Cir. 1970) U. S. v. Flores, (1973) 477 F. 2d 608). U. S. v. Johnson, 991 F 2d. 1287, 1291 7th Cir. 1993). U. S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985), 473 U. S. 531 United States v. Ogberaha, 771 F. 2d 655, 657 (2d Cir. 1985) (vagina) United States v. Pino, 729 F. 2d 1357, 1358 (11 th Cir. 1984) (rectum); U. S. v. Ramsey, 431 U. S. 606 (1977)]. U. S. v. Teng Yang (2002), 286 F. 3d. 940.