previous
page
Return
to title page
next
section
Conclusions
"The fences have holes and where there are none, fingers will tear and nails will scratch and backs will bleed from the metal thorns. On the freeway, the cars and the signs they (the illegals) can not read will treat them like a wildlife crossing. If you can imagine that sign, your will break as mine has now as I approach this checkpoint, the border patrol behind the red and white sign, his hand outstretched to my sudden stop. Behind his sunglasses, he searches me over and I would like to say to him, "I have no war with you.ä Then without a word, he waves me through. And my life goes on, crossing this ritual crossing of minds, where I almost do not stop because the road is clear and I feel American." (Reyes 1995)
This paper has argued that the price paid for "a drug free America" and unionized protective labor laws have lessened the Fourth Amendment and that such a price is too high to pay. At the border, the liberties of the Fourth Amendment are drastically reduced. The protections of the Fourth, for instance, searches based on probable cause, are not a requirement at the border. A wide-open suspicion is all that is needed. The city police officer across the street from the border could only search upon arrest, plain view or consent. The border patrol office at the same place needs none of this to conduct a search.
The reality for those persons living along the border is a virtual
police state. At checkpoints and by roving patrols in the border
region, the people who live legally in the border region must
endure a significantly lower level of protection from governmental
intrusion. For the border resident who may cross the border frequently,
and for those who leave or enter the country, the Fourth Amendment
really is a "parchment barrier.ä With no probable cause
required to justify detention and interrogation of travelers,
every person found in the region is subject to the "polarity
and litmus tests" that can justify a search of anyone. From
any determination of these factors, the official can derive a
suspicion to conduct a secondary search.
That border police have such a latitude in the determination of
when to make a stop that, in Justice Brennan's words form US v.
Leon, "eviscerated the exclusionary rule. The fact that appearances
of person or the car on is driving is enough to stop and search
is beyond the teachings of the Framers and their experiences with
unreasonable searches. That the application of fundamental rights,
basic claims which all people hold against authority, can be subjugated
by territory or citizenship demonstrates the extent to which the
Court holds public interest by public opinion over natural rights.
The reality of the border is its ubiquitous nature, a reality
that the lineage of Supreme Curt rulings on the border and legislative
politics fails to recognize. It seems as though the Court is willing
to throw out even what little remains of the Fourth Amendment
in a last futile effort to win the war against drugs and immigration.
The Court's current approach fails to recognize the reality of
the situation and the impossibility for government to win its
war. When the government itself is unreasonable, it cannot well
determine what is and is not a reasonable search.