Last November, a 74-year-old rancher and attorney was walking around his ranch just south of Encinal, Texas, when he happened upon a small portable camera strapped approximately eight feet high onto a mesquite tree near his son's home. The camera was encased in green plastic and had a transmitting antenna. Not knowing what it was or how it got there, Ricardo Palacios removed it. Soon after, Palacios received phone calls from Customs and Border Protection officials and the Texas Rangers. Each agency claimed the camera as its own and demanded that it be returned. Palacios refused, and they threatened him with arrest. Palacios, who had run-ins with local CBP agents going back several years, took the camera as the last straw. He was tired of agents routinely trespassing on his land, and, even after complaining several times, he was frustrated that his grievances were not being heard. As a possible way to ward off the threat of arrest, he sued the two agencies, along with a named CPB agent, Mario Martinez. Palacios accused them of trespass and of violating his constitutional rights. This federal lawsuit has raised thorny questions about the limits of the government's power to conduct surveillance—in the name of border security—on private property, without the landowner's permission...
The border isn’t where you think it is
Palacios' ranch is situated at the 35-mile marker due north from Laredo, along Interstate 35, just three miles south of the small town of Encinal. The nearest US-Mexico border crossing is at Laredo. The precise distance between the border and Palacios' ranch matters: under federal law, agents can go onto private property that is within 25 miles of the border "for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States." In other words, if Palacios' ranch were within that range, he likely wouldn't have a case. This is related to, but distinct from, the 100-mile radius that the CBP claims it can operate in and warrantlessly stop people and search bags, cars, electronic devices, and more. This is commonly referred to as the "border exception" to the Fourth Amendment, which protects against warrantless searches and seizures. (There is currently a lawsuit over border searches of electronic devices underway in federal court in Massachusetts: Alasaad v. Duke.)
No comments:
Post a Comment