Around the fourth hour of my detention at the airport, I decided to ask for a lawyer. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent at the front desk refused. I told him that he can’t indefinitely hold an American citizen. “It’s not indefinite,” he replied. “We’ll let you know.”
That little exchange captures the absolute power that CBP claims over travelers, including Americans, going far beyond any domestic law enforcement interrogation. You don’t have a right to contact a lawyer. Neither do you have a right to know why you’re being detained or what will happen next. It’s not “indefinite” detention; they just won’t tell you what the “definite” part is. Crossing the U.S. border is the closest most Americans will come to experiencing life under the foreign dictatorships I report on.
They are absolutely violating the 4th and 5th Amendments here in multiple respects. Not only does the 4th Amendment require officers to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrong doing to have probable cause for there to be a custodial detention, but the 5th Amendment’s Due Process clause requires police forces to provide an attorney when someone in police custody asks for one. If they weren’t under arrest, then they must have been free to leave. Admittedly, there is a reduction in Constitutional provisions while at the boarder (specifically related to searches & seizures), but they still need to have such suspicions to initiate a detention, and any reduction to the 4th Amendment flatly doesn’t apply to someone’s 5th Amendment’s right to counsel in custodial situations. This is a 1983 claim if I ever saw one.
Literally untrue. They really need to look at Miranda v. Arizona, 484 U.S. 436, 467 (1965) (“there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege [to an attorney] is available . . . in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way . . .”).
Supreme Court is currently working on eroding Miranda, so good luck bringing something like this to them now
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights
This has nothing to do with CBP or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. And even if it did, if they believe they don’t have the right, and no one tells them otherwise…then they do.
All settings means all settings
Mmk well that contradicts the legislation but whatever, I won’t argue, I’m not a lawyer.
Miranda came about in '66. You mention legislation that came about in '52. This means the explanation in Miranda would definitely contemplared and applied to that, especially since the Constitution outweighs legislation.
The downside to this avenue is that it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide if you’re right or wrong, which won’t happen until they give you a lawyer…which they don’t want to do.
A Man. A Plan. A Gestapo.
Guantanamo.
no. it does not give them the right to, they just can get away with it.
Yep. It’s literally authoritarianism, when a leader crafts their enforcement and revenge organizations to treat their own policy as superseding law. Anyone defending this is on the side of fascism or is too stupid to know they are.