Saturday, April 13, 2019

International border searches Essay Example for Free

International demonstrate waites EssayIt is recognized that it is paramount to the U. S. to protect and go forward the integrity of its trammels. 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 trading operations involve border facees and seizures which necessarily have implications on the Fourth Amendment (Vina, 2005).The Fourth Amendment ensures and protects the people from un conceivable searches and seizures and provides, The decent 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, scarcely upon verisimilar 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 i s to ensure that the powers of the federal government are not arbitrarily used against its citizens.Legally, attainment 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 irreverence 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). in that location are however, exceptions open up when reasonableness and warrant requirement are relaxed and therefore probable cause is not ever 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 joined States v.Ramsey as that searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding flop 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 uncertainty (Onecle web site, 2005). The exception of border search is provided for below the coupled States Code specifically in Chapter 19, subsections 482 and 1582.This exception is premised on the duty of the invoke 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 bor der 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, baggage and car (Vina, 2005).The non-routine search includes more intrusive methods and is organizeed when the authorities have suspicion that there is alimentary furnish smuggling. The search may consist of destructive searches of inanimate objects, prolonged detentions, strip searches, body cavity searches, and few x-ray examinations (Vina, 2005). Body cavity searches include searches in cavities such as 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 sideline cases, namely (1) the government officials have reasonable certainty or a high degree of prospect 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 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 significant nexus with a border crossing by the leery (Vina, 2005). Most often the routine searches give rise to non-routine searches such as for instance where und eclared unprecedented 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 predominate further training in detection of false or falsified documents, pilot programs are launched for surveillance technologies, biometric accounting 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 azimuth in 2005. This is a citizens neighborhood watch program called the Minut eman 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 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment