If you are an "awake" citizen of the united States, you know the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented a "constitution-free zone" 100 miles inside the borders of the united States, in 2013. This action violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America, placing 197 million Americans inside an area extinguishing their individual God-given inalienable rights to be secure in their persons and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. Moreover, adding insult to injury, a judge ruled in favor of the "constitution-free zones" making residents inside the area subject to "police checks." The entire state of Maine, because of the 100-mile border removing Fourth Amendment protections, is now experiencing what can only be dubbed as "citizen checks" and "papers please" on buses "traveling from Fort Kent toward the state's interior and making periodic checks on buses originating in Bangor."
According to the Maine Public:
"Our purpose for boarding any conveyances, a bus specifically in this case, would be to question anybody – anybody – about their right to be or remain in the United States, whether they are an alien or not,” says Heibert. “That's kind of the gist of it. We would have to have a reasonable suspicion to think that somebody isn't a citizen to continue questioning." [Emphasis mine]
The daily checks, he says, might occur at any number of stops routinely made on the Cyr Bus Line's routes. He also says a boarding on a Concord Trailways bus at the Bangor bus depot last December did find an individual who was, "out of status," that is, not legally in the country. The checks that take place away from the immediate border, he says, provide a useful means of testing the patrol's efforts to police the border itself. [Emphasis mine]
"It's an effective use of the limited resources that we have and kind of validate what you're doing based on what you're catching there,” Heibert says. “You get information from the passengers on people. They might be getting on or off the bus ahead of or after the transportation checks." [Emphasis mine]
Every copy of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America ever read does not include "reasonable suspicion." It states "probable cause." However judges and politicians try and spin "probable cause" into "reasonable suspicion," it has but one use – to rob citizens of their protected right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and/or a "papers please" tyrannical government. Reasonable suspicion is warrantless; whereas, probable cause requires an oath or affirmation to issue a warrant.
Look at how Daniel Heibert talks about violating citizens' Fourth Amendment protected rights: checks away from the "immediate border" provides useful means to test effectiveness of the "patrol's efforts to police the border itself (ignores violations against the people); effective use of limited resources; and, validates what the border patrol is doing based on what they are catching (no mention of statistics, just ONE incident mentioned). Heibert casually disregards the violation of the protected rights of the people covered in the Fourth Amendment. He claims the authority of the agency allows for this intrusion upon the citizens. But, no constitutional amendment has been passed or ratified changing the Fourth Amendment or abolishing it, which is what the Constitution requires be done to change its tenets. Any law or policy in violation of the Constitution is null and void, meaning the president can stop these violations through his authority to faithfully execute the law.
This type of “fishing expedition” flies directly in the face of the 4th Amendment which guarantees that “The right 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, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Nevertheless, the Constitution-Free Zone, while not an official designation, has been upheld in principle by federal judges [principle/policy is not law] who the ACLU argue are reinforcing an outdated concept that was never given a mandate by the people. The ACLU itemizes this overlooked part of history on their website:
Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight
The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000. [Emphasis mine]
The Border Patrol often ignores this regulation and rejects anygeographic limitation on agents’ authority. At least two federal circuit courts condone Border Patrol operations outside the 100-mile zone, federal regulations and Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding. [Emphasis mine]
Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit. [Emphasis mine]
For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist onlyof a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in “roving patrol” stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred. [Emphasis mine]
The ACLU has documented numerous cases of abuse by Border Patrol and filed lawsuits to obtain more information about the agency’s practices. Given Border Patrol’s lack of transparency, and in the absence of any meaningful oversight, there is still much that we don’t know about the full extent and impact of these interior “border enforcement” operations.
Wright reported that one Maine bus line operator believed people were actually happy, embracing the "perception of security" instead of loss over the molestation of their freedom of travel.
The general manager for Cyr Bus Line, Rick Soules, says he doesn’t often hear from customers or drivers about the patrol checks, but when he does, it’s positive.
“The feelings I get generally from people regarding the border checks are that it’s a safety check, which provides security for the people riding the bus, and that they’re not put out by that,” says Soules.
Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up liberty for a perceived bit of security deserve neither liberty nor security."
Zach Heiden of The ACLU of Maine questioned these checks because it is similar to a "show-me-your-papers" society. He stated these "checks may violate the civil rights of freedom of movement or against unreasonable search and seizure. Heiden reiterated that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all citizens everywhere in this republic, despite customs and border patrol pretending there exists constitution-free zones.
The founding fathers intended for the Constitution to limit government while allowing it to perform its basic duty – protection of the individual God-given unalienable rights of citizens. Unfortunately, too many Congresses have worked to expand government, limit the freedoms and liberties of the people, and encroach evermore into the daily lives of citizens. Government instituted these encroachments gradually, usually under some threat that instilled fear in the people to support eradication of liberty for government-provided perception of security, and in contradiction to the Constitution – enacted through pseudo-law without amendments altering the Constitution.
Perceiving a sense of security, false as it may be, the people in Maine reacted favorably to these intrusions. Government then is empowered to implement additional intrusions and violations. People become the proverbial frog in a pot of water gradually being heated; the frog adjusts until it is thoroughly cooked – it never acts to save itself.
Tyranny is the pot of water being heated gradually, allowing the people to adjust to ever more violations of their individual God-given unalienable rights without resistance. Government controls the rising heat. When government becomes the arm of tyranny against freedom and liberty, it is the "duty" of the people to remove the violators from office and instill new guards for their future. By the time these violations against the people become overbearing, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to affect change without great loss.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.