Radley Balko brings up an interesting example of how Homeland Security has laid the foundation for essentially wiping out the entire applicability of the fourth amendment for many types of searches for approximately 190 million Americans. In the case U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, the Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints could be set up to search for illegal immigrants and smugglers, and that so long as these checkpoints and searches were brief and for that purpose only, they could be done anywhere within 100 miles of a US border. Basically, that means that they set up these checkpoints that allow them to search you, so long as they are in a 100 mile ring around US territory.
In a lot of counties this would be very easy for them to set up because of the illegal immigration problem. Since they are searching you and your vehicle while searching for illegals and smugglers, they can still find things which are of interest to them for other reasons and arrest you for them. Given the myriad number of things that could happen, and the ability of the police to make a quick buck through asset forfeiture laws, every check point could be at the very least, a boost to their arrest numbers, and also a chance to win a small lottery.
All things considered, as long as they can make a remotely believable argument that they were looking for illegals and smugglers, you can pretty much consider the 4th amendment to be dead while you're on the road anywhere within 100 miles of a border or coastline.
In a lot of counties this would be very easy for them to set up because of the illegal immigration problem. Since they are searching you and your vehicle while searching for illegals and smugglers, they can still find things which are of interest to them for other reasons and arrest you for them. Given the myriad number of things that could happen, and the ability of the police to make a quick buck through asset forfeiture laws, every check point could be at the very least, a boost to their arrest numbers, and also a chance to win a small lottery.
All things considered, as long as they can make a remotely believable argument that they were looking for illegals and smugglers, you can pretty much consider the 4th amendment to be dead while you're on the road anywhere within 100 miles of a border or coastline.
I think the precedent got set for this way back with DUI checkpoints. This is simply an extension of the same animal.
Nor do I think this will be limited to 100 miles from the border, either.
Eventually, DHS will be able to make the persuasive case that searching a car at any location within the USA, for the ostensible purposes of looking for illegals or terrorists, is permissible. They'll realize that the 'hard outer shell, soft chewy center' of homeland security is (rightly) daft, and either the Legislature or (more likely) the Executive will authorize it.
And I think it'll happen, and there'll be little we can do about it, because we don't own our cars, the government does, and added to that we're operating on public roads. I don't think that appealing to the common-law Castle Doctrine will apply here in reference to vehicles.
Very soon we will never have to hear about that goddamned piece of paper again! And it can't be soon enough! (for some people at least)
U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte did not specify a distance. It was a "reasonable" distance. Initially reasonable was claimed by the Executive to be 25 miles. Now it is 100 miles. Next year? Whatever suits them. Bend over and take it wimps!!!!