Overview:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified December, 1791.)

Recent United States Supreme Court decisions that permit searches, random stops and checkpoints at the borders of the United States have seriously eroded the Fourth Amendment and its application at the border. The fear of unrestricted migration and drugs entering the United States have led the Court to uphold legislative initiatives that have seriously damaged the Fourth Amendment. With nothing to check enforcement, officials are given broad latitude to search. Often at border patrol checkpoints searches are based solely on a personâs appearance and the type of car he/she drives.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from ãunreasonable searches and seizures.ä To prevent the police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, the authority must first obtain a warrant based on probable cause. Therefore, ''the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through a warrant procedure.''(Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968). The immediate question, then, is do border searches meet or violate this Terry standard as probable cause?

Most border residents, regardless of their national origin, are accustomed to frequent stops by roving patrols and to the daily inconvenience of the freeway check points. It is clear that those of Hispanic origin face a more frequent pattern of Border Patrol stops and questions. As will be explored in this paper, the level of suspicion needed by a Border Patrol agent is far below that needed by the officer on the same street.

The current application of the Fourth Amendment, particularly from checkpoints and roving patrols in the border region, is unreasonable in light of our historical experience with governmental intrusions. The government rationalizes the diminishment of Fourth Amendment protections at the border by citing national interest. Our history as a people makes unreasonable the random, mass stops taking place at the border in the present day.

The first section of this paper describes the border in a socio-geopolitical discussion of the distinctness of the border region from other inland areas. The second section of this paper looks at ãreasonablenessä and police power an its application at the border in the light of the Fourth Amendment. At what point does police power become ãunreasonable.ä The US Supreme Courtâs interpretation of border searches, balancing interests is presented in the third section. The fourth section reviews both the application of the Fourth Amendment at the border and to what degree the Court has ruled that government officials are required to respect the Fourth Amendment when conducting operations in other sovereign nations and acting against another nationâs citizens. The fourth section asks the question is the Constitution a natural rights compact or a social contract. This section reviews the case of (United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (494 S.Ct 259 (1990)) as an example of the most fundamental question of the Constitution; who does it cover?. The fifth section provides a historical overview of the fourth amendment. The paper concludes in the sixth section with a short discussion review.

previous pageReturn to title pagenext section