Judge Rules Against 4th Amendment Rights in 100 Mile Wide “Border” Around Entire US

truther January 3, 2014 17

Sometimes things that are true just sound too outrageous to be believed. We all have been misled before, so a healthy amount of uncertainty is one of the resources of life we obtain through experience.

When we listen things such as there being a 100 mile “Constitution Free Zone” we normally anticipate that there is more to the tale than meets the eye. We suspiciously think that someone must have overstated or probably got some bad details. If only that were the case.

Judge Rules Against 4th Amendment Rights in 100 Mile Wide “Border” Around Entire US

A US federal judge has reaffirmed the invalidation of our fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure by upholding the notion that the American border is a one hundred mile wide zone which extends completely around the country. In doing so, the US Constitution has been usurped by a mere judicial opinion.

A lawsuit brought by the ACLU challenged the practice of DHS to search at will and capture data from anyone within this fabricated border zone. District Judge Edward Korman made his ruling in New York on Tuesday, over three years after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed its suit.

The ACLU argued that since Americans put so much of their lives on their computers, cell phones, and other devices, fourth amendment protections of reasonable suspicions should apply before the government engages in a fishing expedition with people’s personal property and information.

According to Judge Korman, the area 100 miles inland falls under a “border exemption.” The so-called border exemption does not exist in the Constitution, but that didn’t have an impact on the ruling.

He provided insight into his reasoning by explaining, “Laptops have only come into widespread use in the twenty-first century. Prior to that time, lawyers, photographers, and scholars managed to travel overseas and consult with clients, take photographs, and conduct scholarly research.”

“No one ever suggested the possibility of a border search had a chilling effect on his or her First Amendment rights. While it is true that laptops make overseas work more convenient, the precaution plaintiffs may choose to take to ‘mitigate’ the alleged harm associated with the remote possibility of a border search are simply among the many inconveniences associated with international travel.”

The federal government has long conducted searches on travelers entering and leaving the US, but Congress expanded that policy by creating the Department of Homeland Security and setting up at least 33 checkpoints inside the country where people are stopped and asked to prove their citizenship.”

This explanation would seem to lay the foundation of the judge’s ruling as being the simplistic assertion that “because no one ever suggested” something. It is unclear how what someone never said would have relevance. It is also interesting that he was able to ascertain all of what anyone has ever suggested. That must have been exhaustive research and might have been what took him the three years in making a decision. He could also have been desperately searching for a legal basis for an illegal and illogical ruling, too. By the way, Judge, just for the record, I’ll suggest here and now that the possibility of a border search has a chilling effect on my First Amendment rights.

Regarding the Judge’s ruling that choosing to take precautions to ‘mitigate’ the alleged harm is an inconvenience which is part of international travel is fallacious. Compulsory cavity searches could be mandated as well and that would not make them a necessary part of international travel.

There is also no requirement that international travel has been conducted required at the inland checkpoints. Everybody passing through is stopped and questioned, regardless of their itinerary.

The contention by the judge that the establishment of 33 checkpoints inside the country, where people are stopped and asked to prove their citizenship is constitutional simply because DHS or Congress permits it, has failed to examine, or conducts those activities is also erroneous.

The lawsuit also noted that nearly two-thirds of the United States population lives within 100 miles of a US border. This ruling removes these fourth amendment protections for residents of New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami and other major metropolitan areas.

The citizens of the states of Florida and Hawaii have no related fourth amendment rights statewide.

The ACLU attorney who argued the case, Catherine Crump, said that the organization is considering whether to file an appeal. She said, “We’re disappointed in today’s decision, which allows the government to conduct intrusive searches of Americans’ laptops and other electronics at the border without any suspicion that those devices contain evidence of wrongdoing,” she said.

“Suspicionless searches of devices containing vast amounts of personal information cannot meet the standard set by the Fourth Amendment… Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight.”

The Fourth Amendment reads, “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 or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The violation is glaring.

The controlling authority is working tirelessly to take away our rights and relegate us to little more than slaves subject to their whim. An invalid decision, regardless of who makes it, is still invalid. You would have thought, if it was going to take him three years, he’d of least have gotten it right.

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments


  1. Douglas January 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm - Reply

    Any so called ‘law’ that does not agree with the Constitution is the same as no law at all. If there is a conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution overrules any legislative, judicial, or executive attempt to circumvent its meaning. Any attempt by government officials to enforce such unconstitutional law is pure tyranny and should be resisted by The People. Otherwise, The People are nothing but slaves on a plantation.

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am.Jur.2d § 256.

    • Sally G January 4, 2014 at 10:55 pm - Reply

      And when a court upholds it. . . .? Then what is the remedy?

  2. common law private attorney general Chris Guardin on the Wall January 4, 2014 at 11:43 am - Reply

    Some may do well to OB-serve that this IS: the Precise same exact Militant WAR Tactic deployed by the “pHA-RA-sites” whom stole: Ish-RA-EL; from the Palestinians; from
    Late 1800’s to 1947ad infinitum; (Brenton Woods Agreement and Balfour Accord) to: Incrementally steal; install Wide Full Spectrum DEMON-ance Control and occupy Militantly all sovereign Lands formerly belonging to Others?
    This IS precisely HoW: AMERICA is being STOLEN Militantly occupied and Militantly TAKE OVER by Foreign Demon KULT JiHAud ENEMIES to liberty free men; private property and republic Private individual Rights from our CREATOR! Pray for DEVINE intercession

  3. Bob January 4, 2014 at 10:10 am - Reply


    Oh, scuze me, wrong website but hit send “by accident”

  4. Archie1954 January 4, 2014 at 8:55 am - Reply

    Judges are supposed to be learned in the law so I guess somehow the rest of us must have missed the part of the Fourth amendment that states it doesn’t apply within one hundred miles of any border.

  5. Stan Sikorski January 4, 2014 at 7:45 am - Reply

    Korman (Korman, the son of Jewish immigrants from Ukraine and Poland… wikiped.) needs to be ‘relieved’ of his post. Like the rest of his filthy tribe, he lives and works to lord over us cattle depriving us of our natural rights as Free White Men. I pray some n-word gives him a knockout he so richly deserves.

    • Sally G January 4, 2014 at 9:08 am - Reply

      His ethnicity is not the issue, his decision is.

  6. TruthandFreedom January 4, 2014 at 4:45 am - Reply

    When judge says that certain places within the United States the Constitution does not apply…. they have endorsed TREASON against America and the first and only solution is the execution of the judge for TREASON!!! True vigilantism will come to America when judges and the criminal government agencies show that they are subverting the CONSTITUTION!! Their deaths lye in their own dams hands and diluted actions!

  7. 5 War Veteran January 4, 2014 at 4:23 am - Reply

    When Federal Judges rule against the people, when they commit treason against America by circumventing basic rights they become as criminal as those they are supposed to protect America against.
    Let real honorable Americans deal with them appropriately.

    Just as a suggestion, encrypt a folder on your desktop, label it “secret eyes only” and put in it a photo of an ugly asshole (Mc Cain or Cheny will do) labeled “What are you looking here for?”

    Add into that folder everything you would want some criminal legal bastard to look at. Like the most disgusting picture of hemorrhoids you have ever seen. Like pictures of venereal warts and pictures of Obama. If you really want to be vile add pictures of Michelle in there too.
    Pictures of vaginal avulsion would be good. Pictures of 500 pound naked women paragliding is a concept.
    Listings of Obama lies and other political bullshit would be an added bonus. Encrypt everything and make them work for it.

    You can load files like these on most any digital device today. Have fun with it.

    Treason is Treason deal with it appropriately, under wartime rules the sentence is death.

  8. Ltpar January 4, 2014 at 2:22 am - Reply

    One Judge’s ruling doeth not a final decision make. I have to say though, it is very nice to see the ACLU get their ears slapped back for a change. I am sure they will appeal the ruling and it will be overturned. Am wondering why people who are citizens or immigrants here legaly would worry about this issue in the first place. With the horde of illegals flooding the country, the fact our government is doing anything at all is amazing.

    • Sally G January 4, 2014 at 2:48 am - Reply

      Why? Because I want to be able to carry my laptop—even on public transportation, to airports, wherever—in my community without concern that a law-enforcement person could decide to search it for no reason at all. I did not grow up in a country where that was acceptable, but where there were procedures that had to be followed—such as getting a warrant. There is no sensible reason that my rights to that security should be disrupted just because I live near the edge of the continent. My location does NOT make me a second-class citizen.

  9. Sally G January 4, 2014 at 12:35 am - Reply

    ACtually, if he were going to get it right, he could have done so immediately—it was to hide it that it took so long, in the hopes that nobody would still be watching/caring. At least, that is my suspicion, based on absolutely nothing but my instincts.

  10. Michael J. Marsalek January 3, 2014 at 10:29 pm - Reply

    Simply put, if Judge Edward Korman ruled that the government sanctioned assassination of an American citizen did not violate that citizen’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights of due process and to life; would the American people be bound by that decision? If America is a nation of laws and the Constitution Of The United States is the highest law of the land; no judge has the authority to issue any ruling that violates a citizen’s rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In theory at least, any unConstitutional law should not be enforceable. The last and perhaps only remedy is impeachment & removal of the judge from the bench who issued the unConstitutional opinion & order.

    • Sally G January 4, 2014 at 12:37 am - Reply

      Impeachment is a good start, but I wonder if the decision must be invalidated by a higher court first? We must encourage the ACLU to appeal, get the NLG to file an amicus brief, along with any group we can find.

    • TruthandFreedom January 4, 2014 at 4:49 am - Reply

      They have already subverted the system as to ensure that no individual has standing to even be heard! The criminals ie the one percenters, the judges, and the criminal officials in government. Even if you had standing, they tie a case up for 10-15 years and makes it financially impossible for you to proceed, while they use the IRS, NSA, FBI, and CIA to attack you on all fronts!

    • Stan Sikorski January 4, 2014 at 7:58 am - Reply

      Not the only way. Popping his head open with a round of 308 Win would work quite well. If assholes like him keep up their treachery against the People, it is inevitable.

Leave A Response »

jebol togel
Slot Gacor