Judges Rule on Police Practices Along the Canada-New York Border: No Unreasonable Searches, No Unreasonable Stops

A U.S. district judge ruled on Friday that cops in Niagara County, New York were wrong to detain a couple for hours for having windows tinted beyond what's allowed in the state (it was a permissible tint in Tennessee, where the car was registered) and that, further, from the Newspaper:
"Given that material issues of fact exist as to whether the continued detention of plaintiffs was constitutionally permissible, a reasonable fact-finder could find that it was objectively unreasonable for the officers to conclude that removal of plaintiffs to a border facility, a further search and x-ray of their car without their consent, and their continued detention for an unspecified amount of time, did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights," Judge [Richard] Arcara ruled.
The couple says in the lawsuit they were stopped because they were black.
Meanwhile, a county judge in St. Lawrence, New York earlier ruled the Border Patrol could not stop somebody just for driving carefully, even if a subsequent search turned up drugs. From the Newspaper:
Agent [Brandon] Carrier became suspicious and about an hour into the stop a drug dog was called to the scene, and a tire filled with marijuana was found in the trunk. This evidence, however, was thrown out because the traffic stop itself was deemed invalid and the Border Patrol had no business stopping them.
"The court believes that Officer Carrier decided to follow the white SUV and do a radio run because the driver appeared nervous," Judge [Kathleen] Rogers ruled. "Her actions were completely consistent with a person who was not engaged in any criminal activity. There was no basis to believe that a vehicle with a NYS license plate and registration had crossed the border or was engaged in any way with smuggling persons or contraband across the border."
Agent Carrier testified that he also became suspicious when he learned the car was registered to someone with the common Indian name of Deer.
"A vehicle stop must be valid at its inception: it cannot be bootstrapped into reasonable suspicion by mounting concerns over diverging explanations from the vehicle occupants as to their intended destination," Judge Rogers ruled. "His candid testimony that the occupants looked like Mohawks and that one had what Carrier believed is a Mohawk name, and that the car was listed for an address near the Mohawk Indian reservation bordered on improper racial profiling."
It may have turned out differently in the agent had said his dog alerted him from the beginning, based on the recent unanimous Supreme Court ruling that a dog's ok was enough to warrant a search by police.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
His candid testimony that the occupants looked like Mohawks
So you get pulled over now for looking like Daniel Day-Lewis?
Right. That's it. Now you get Twain's destruction of JFC.
Some of my friends have been ticketed for driving through a state where their window tint is too dark for that state, even though the state their cars were registered too allowed for that tint.
Only dangerous criminals have darker than allowed window tint. Waterboarding should not be out of the question!
If you have nothing to hide, then remove the tinting from your windows to prove it.
People riding around with tinted windshields are usually up to no good.
http://www.myg37.com/forums/at.....-miami.jpg
http://www.suntinting.com/up_f.....CN4388.JPG
You don't want to risk officer safety like that. Someone could be packing an assault weapon with an 11-round magazine behind that tinted window.
Better to drone them and the surrounding block from 3 miles up, just to be safe.
Y'all forgot yer /tulpa tag.
I hope there is a white supremacist knocking on his door some time soon.
The post title was confusing. Before I read the article, I thought it meant that judges ruled all stops and searches near the border as automatically reasonable.
But the borders are dangerous and we need vigilance against the smugglers and terrorists and Canadian women with sexy panties!
This article would be a good way to explain to someone the concept of 'inverse relationships'.
"The darker your skin, the lighter your window tint must be"
such great way to show information
http://www.ryanchute.com