https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
Also friendly reminder that "the Constitution does not grant aliens any protections when trying to enter the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Knauff_v...
Since the western side of the state is quite obviously more than 100 miles from Canada I had to look this up. Apparently it's because the lakes count as international borders. That seems pretty crazy to me, especially in the case of Lake Michigan.
Lake Michigan is considered a "coast" (which Chicagoans kind of like! See: "Third coast" stuff), but that bizarrely puts their jurisdiction ~70 miles into the Illinois cornfields based on them saying they treat the lake as a "coast".
100 miles from the seashore also puts you into some clearly inland areas. Most locations 100 miles from the sea aren't organized around their "proximity" to the ocean.
Lake Michigan does not touch Canada. There are shipping ports along the shores of Lake Michigan, but it's an argument that it should not be treated as an oceanic border. No matter how you measure it, Chicago is hundreds of miles from the Canadian border.
This comes up on HN several times a year; there are longer discussions about it available in the search bar.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/what-is-usa-border-en...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/0...
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
https://www.truthorfiction.com/supreme-court-100-miles-borde...
https://brownpoliticalreview.org/constitution-100-miles-ques...
https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/border-patrol-100-...
Nobody's questioning whether CBP itself acts abusively within the US. As the law review article observes, CBP's abuses have little to do with the "100 mile" thing; they detained Sen. Patrick Leahy by the side of the road more than 100 miles way from any nominal border.
The article goes into great detail about what the courts have authorized; it's nothing like ACLU's claim. This is one area in which I think ACLU's advocacy is actively harmful: they're convincing people that the USG has statutory authorization to do things, things they actually do, for which they in fact have no authorization.
> Originating in a decades-old federal statute, CBP has the authority to conduct stops and searches within a “reasonable distance” of a border, defined by regulation as 100 miles.
Does not sound like a myth to me...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1
In fact this seems to say that not only is a 100-mile zone actually defined in law, but there are cases where more than 100 miles may be acceptable as well.
Am I missing something?
Is that sufficient for you?
What's funny is: depending on which ACLU page you hit, they don't even agree with themselves. Their new main "100 mile border" page is full of caveats, but their original 2014-vintage page, which is still on the first Google SERP, claims things like CBP authorization to search luggage within the "100 mile zone" (definitely no! do they do it? i'm sure they do; just not lawfully).
And if this is indeed a settled issue as I believe you are claiming, can you cite any court cases that establish whether (whatever you claim is a myth) is actually legal or illegal?
Your own cites back up what I'm saying (as does the ACLU now) so I'm not going to find you new cites; start by rereading the ones you provided.
> The regulation also provides exceptions to the 100-mile rule whereby the Commissioner of CBP or the Assistant Secretary for ICE may declare a larger distance to be “reasonable” on a case-by-case basis
> The same regulation also authorizes CBP to enter private property, other than residences, within 25 miles of the border without a warrant.
I know that's not 100, but I think it's still "less protection" than people would reasonably assume there to be.
> In cases testing the Fourth Amendment limits of Border Patrol’s authority to conduct warrantless searches of those entering the country at ports of entry (including functional border equivalents, such as international airports), the courts have used a balancing test whereby the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of entrants are weighed against the sovereign’s security interests at the border.31 The Supreme Court has decided that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border, holding that the government’s interest in monitoring and controlling entrants outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. Thus, routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion are considered inherently reasonable and automatically justified in that particular context.
> Although nothing in the Fourth Amendment (or Constitution generally) provides for such a principle, this doctrine has become known as the “border search exception” to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The precise limits to this exception are disputed and continue to be tested
How is this not clear that it is not a settled issue, and generally gives them greater permission to search (e.g. without a warrant) than say, a vehicle that's 500 miles away from any external boundary (at the least, a port of entry or international airport)?
I don't understand how you think you're helping anyone by making these kinds of claims. Who is better off believing that the government has sweeping search powers that they don't actually have?
Not sure what your definition of forcing is, but you are well within your rights to decline to provide any passwords in the US. You may not get the device back (or want it back), but in theory nothing should happen to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat...
I don't see how that's true because this law explicitly mentions 100 miles, three times.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1
> The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States
Surely I must be missing something?
This is like saying that the Atlantic Ocean can't touch Norway because the North Sea gets in the way. That's not an argument.