Drug War

The Border Patrol's Unconstitutional Drug Dragnet

How immigration checkpoint stops lead to illegal detention and searches

|

If you want to know how Jessica Cooke ended up on her back, screaming in pain as the barbs from a stun gun delivered incapacitating electricity into her body, there are several possible answers. You could say this indignity was caused by her own stubbornness, her refusal to comply with the seemingly arbitrary dictates of a Border Patrol agent who was detaining her for no apparent reason at an internal immigration checkpoint in upstate New York. Or you could blame the agent's insistence on obeisance to his authority, which led him to assault an unarmed 21-year-old woman who posed no threat to anyone. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the Supreme Court, which has invited this sort of confrontation by carving out a disturbing and dangerous exception to the Fourth Amendment.

On May 7, two days before she graduated from SUNY Canton with a degree in law enforcement leadership, Cooke was driving from Norfolk to her boyfriend's house in Ogdensburg when she was stopped by the Border Patrol on Route 37 in Waddington. That town sits just across the St. Lawrence River from Canada. Although Cooke had not crossed the border and did not plan to do so, she became subject to the Border Patrol's authority merely by driving on Route 37, thanks to a 1976 decision in which the Supreme Court said the government may randomly stop cars on "important roads leading away from the border" in an effort to catch illegal immigrants. In U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, the Court deemed this imposition "minimal," saying "all that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.'"

Cooke's experience, which she recorded with her cellphone, was rather different. After she was directed to a "secondary inspection area," a male agent who identified himself as a supervisor told her she would have to wait "a couple of minutes," because "we've got a K-9 coming." When she asked why she was being detained, he had no answer. Later the female Border Patrol agent who first interacted with her said Cooke seemed nervous—an all-purpose excuse for detaining someone, since people tend to be nervous when confronted by armed government agents. At this point Cooke had already identified herself as a U.S. citizen and presented her driver's license (which is the only form of ID that motorists are legally required to carry), so there was no rationale for holding her that had anything to do with immigration control.

That did not sit right with Cooke, who had studied law enforcement in college and had already applied for a job with the very agency that was now detaining her on mysterious grounds. "You guys have no reason to be holding me," she said. "Why am I being held?…You guys are holding me here against my will." Recognizing that the only point of summoning a K-9 was to justify searching her car, she asked, "Why do you want to get in my trunk when you have no right to?"

For a cop who wants to look in someone's trunk but is stymied by the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures," a dog can be very handy. A decade ago, the Supreme Court said police may walk drug-sniffing dogs around cars during routine traffic stops without any evidence of criminal activity. Last year the Court ruled that an alert by a drug-sniffing dog is enough by itself to provide probable cause for a vehicle search, even though there are lots of reasons (including a handler's deliberate or subconscious cues) why a dog might alert to a car that contains no contraband.

Last month the Court made this dog trick a little harder by ruling that police may not extend a traffic stop to facilitate a canine inspection in the absence of "reasonable suspicion" that the driver is involved in criminal activity. Perhaps cognizant of that decision, the male Border Patrol agent, who initially told Cooke "you're being detained," later said she was free to go, but she could not take her car. "You can leave," he said. "You can walk down the road right now….Your car's not going anywhere….I'll spike the tires."

Cooke understandably did not want to abandon her car and set off on foot, so she stuck around. The interaction escalated when she refused to comply with the agent's command to "stand over there":

Agent: I'm going to tell you one more time, and then I'm going to move you.

Cooke: If you touch me, I will sue your ass. Do you understand me?

Agent: Go for it.

Cooke: Touch me then.

Agent: Move over there.

Cooke: Go ahead. Touch me.

Agent: I'm telling you to move over there.

At this point the agent apparently grabbed Cooke, and soon she was lying on the ground, screaming. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Department of Homeland Security division that includes the Border Patrol, says the agent "deployed an electronic control device during the altercation."

While Cooke was rolling around on the ground, the agent repeatedly ordered her to "get on your stomach." Her response: "What the fuck is wrong with you?" Also this: "Are you fucking retarded?" And this: "You fucking Tased me, you asshole!" These rejoinders do not have quite the same emotional impact as "I can't breathe," especially since Cooke survived the incident. Still, she asks good questions.

Without speculating about what might be wrong with this particular agent, it seems safe to say there is something wrong with the situation in which he works. He has been empowered to stop cars at will, supposedly to enforce the immigration laws in the general vicinity of the border. But while he's at it, he is also enforcing the drug laws. "It's an immigration checkpoint," SUNY Buffalo law professor Rick Su noted in an interview with the local NPR station. "It really should be relatively nonintrusive. Ask questions about identification, about residency, and, as long as they are satisfied that there is no reasonable suspicion that there is an immigration violation, most people should be waved through. It should be a relatively quick check."

Except when, for whatever reason, an agent suspects a driver may have drugs in the car. As Su observed, Cooke's experience shows how CBP is "starting to use these checkpoints beyond their intended goal." This additional function of so-called immigration checkpoints is especially troubling in light of a 2000 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected drug interdiction as a rationale for randomly stopping cars. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court said that city's police violated the Fourth Amendment when they set up checkpoints aimed at catching drug traffickers. "We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," the Court said. "Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint program is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, the program contravenes the Fourth Amendment."

But as long CBP says its main goal is intercepting illegal aliens rather than drugs, it can do essentially the same thing that the Court deemed unconstitutional in Indianapolis. CBP says "checkpoints deny major travel routes from the borders to smugglers intent on delivering people, drugs and other contraband to the interior of the United States and allow the Border Patrol to establish an important second layer of defense." Judging from the checkpoints' track record, finding drugs is, if anything, their main function, while immigration control is a secondary concern. In fiscal year 2013, The New York Times reports, the checkpoints accounted for 14 percent of marijuana seized near the borders with Mexico and Canada but only 2 percent of unauthorized immigrants apprehended.

The reach of this drug dragnet is vast. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Border Patrol "operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country." Under current regulations, those checkpoints can be located anywhere within 100 miles of an "external boundary"—a zone that includes about two-thirds of the U.S. population.

Last fall, in a story about a "temporary" Border Patrol checkpoint near Arivaca, Arizona, that has been operating for more than seven years and is notorious for hassling local residents, The Arizona Republic noted complaints that agents "routinely expand the scope of their questions and searches far beyond what [the Supreme Court] envisioned." The ACLU argues that Border Patrol agents "routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people."

Although the rules governing searches and seizures are relaxed at Border Patrol checkpoints, certain restrictions still apply. In the absence of reasonable suspicion, drivers should be free to go once the reason for stopping them has been addressed. That is the rule for other kinds of traffic stops, and there is no obvious reason why a stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint should be any different in that respect. In fact, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte suggested a higher standard, saying "any further detention" beyond the time necessary to resolve immigration questions "must be based on consent or probable cause."

But courts are not necessarily prepared to enforce limits on the length of checkpoint stops. In February the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit passed up an opportunity to do so, declining to say whether detaining a driver for half an hour after he presented evidence of his citizenship violated the Fourth Amendment. That driver, like Cooke, antagonized Border Patrol agents by knowing and asserting his constitutional rights.

In any event, it is clear that "checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search," as the Court reiterated in Martinez-Fuerte. Although the video of Cooke's encounter with the Border Patrol ends after her Tasing, she told the Watertown Daily Times that when the drug-sniffing dog finally arrived, it did not alert to her car. She said the agents looked in her trunk anyway. They found no contraband.

If Cooke's account is accurate, it is hard to see how the search could have been legal. But it is easy enough to claim a dog alerted even if it didn't, especially if there is no video record. And thanks to the Supreme Court, that claim is enough for a search to pass muster.

What about the use of force against Cooke, which certainly seems excessive given the circumstances? According to the Times, the government is considering assault charges—against her.

The is article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

NEXT: 70 Arrested in Cleveland Protests After Cop Acquitted in Fatal Shooting

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They need to carry personal Chihuahuas as portable “drug dogs”. Since it doesn’t matter what the dog actually does, this would save much theater.

    1. The main purpose behind many police dogs is to be intimidating. Chihuahuas don’t fit the bill. I’m sure most departments also keep a couple of labs or retrievers around for community outreach and school visits, but there’s a good reason most people think of German Shepherds when they think of police dogs…

      1. You know who else preferred German Shepherds as police dogs….

        1. That woman with the peanut butter?

        2. George Wallace?

      2. But chihuahuas are disposable. Get one or two good stops out of them, then they’re easy to discard.

        1. You can barbecue them whole.

  2. The CBP in a sane world would be akin to a welcome wagon where entrants to the country are given a pamphlet showing points of interest to maybe visit. As it stands, they are little more than a gestapo.

    1. Maybe they could hand out pocket constitutions for a nominal fee too.

  3. Look, do you want to be protected from immigrants and/or drugs or not?

    1. Nobody ever thinks of the children.

    2. I’d rather be protected from authoritarian police.

  4. Upstate NY? Are we profiling Canadians now?

    1. Worse: Quebecois.

    2. You say that as if they weren’t all trying to kill us, eh.

      1. They are already trying to undermine our morale with their blasted cold fronts!

        1. They do hold a threatening lead in zamboni technology.

  5. Clarence Thomas – enemy of the 4th Amendment:

    http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..ry-ranked/

    1. Is it because he is the only one on that list that isn’t a democrat? I can see where that might stick in your craw..

    2. Any bad SCOTUS Justice list that doesn’t feature Marshall is a fraud. Solidifying eugenics and upholding clearly bad speech laws should be enough.

    3. I kinda like the first guy. What’s wrong with this ?

      “Field responded with an angry dissenting opinion labeling this law “a “bold assertion of absolute power by the State to control at its discretion the property and business of the citizen.” Years later, after Congress enacted a modest income tax on upper-income earners, Field complained that it was an “assault upon capital” which “will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness.”

      Did you write that list Buttplug ?

    4. Thinkprogress, eh?

  6. When she asked why she was being detained, he had no answer.

    The answer goes without saying: “National Security”. Isn’t that even a law?

    1. She hadn’t proven herself innocent enough to receive a dignified response.. She’ll know better next time..

    2. When they refuse to say anything that means they are invoking the FYTW clause.

  7. But the ultimate responsibility, says Jacob Sullum, lies with the Supreme Court, which has invited this sort of confrontation by carving out a disturbing and dangerous exception to the Fourth Amendment.

    But, but that can’t be true.

    Everyone knows the Supremes are defenders of liberty, not a rubber stamp for tyranny.

    1. Judicial restraint: The delicate art of legitimatizing the political machinations of feckless politicians riding the tide of ginned up populist horseshit and mob rule, for all eternity… Sometimes, “the will of the people?” is just not enough authority for bureaucrats and politicians to ride roughshod over individual liberties, so they need to call in the experts to shill for them. They’re doing gods work, why can’t you see this?

    2. But the Fourth only covers non-consent searches. As long as we refrain from actively resisting government tyranny of this sort, we are consenting to it.

    3. Everyone knows the Supremes are defenders of liberty, not a rubber stamp for tyranny.

      If this was meant as some sort of criticism, then it is a criticism of the other two branches as well.

  8. PAYPAHZ PLEEZ!

    Dah F?hrer needz us to check your paypahz!

    1. Oh…but it can’t happen here.

    2. Ihre papiere bitte!

      English just doesn’t do it justice..

      1. Jawohl.

        1. Gesundheit!

          1. Entschuldigung!

    3. You know who else had his government check people’s “papers”….oh, wait….

      1. Pharaoh?

        1. +1 existential ankh

  9. Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

  10. how Jessica Cooke ended up on her back, screaming in pain

    Because Rape Culture. And One In Five.

    1. Close but no cigar. The real reason? White Male Privilege!

  11. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  12. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.netjob80.com

  13. I wonder if this will deter said criminal justice grad / jackboot in training from joining the ranks of the 800,000 US JBTs? My opinion has always been why become a cop when so many crack whore jobs go unfilled every year? At least crack whores provide cheap blowjob services, which is exactly one more thing than our sainted “law enforcers” do.

    1. I think that the only way she gets any job as a cop after this is if she wins an election. The JBTs aren’t going to hire a rookie with a track record of demanding that a JBT obey the law.

      -jcr

    2. Considering how many University grad end up on their first day on the job with absolutely no idea what the job actually entails (vs. what they learned about it in school), there’s a good chance this was an eye-opening experience.

  14. “deployed an electronic control device during the altercation.”

    Wrong voice. Right voice:
    “And electronic control device was somehow activated”

  15. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.Jobnet10.com

  16. There will come a time where people will be employing their own private security to defend themselves against the violent gov’t and it’s violent agents.

    1. They already do. It’s just that their uniform is a suit and tie.

  17. I personally witnessed (in 2008, not 1924) an educated gentleman condemned to fifty years in a Texas prison for bringing in something Americans wanted but the Dem and GOP politicians forbid. On a later occasion, again in open court, I saw another educated and nonviolent citizen (albeit a bloodsucking lawyer) condemned to over ten years imprisonment for hemp. In both cases prohibitionist thugs far from any national boundary accosted and kidnapped these citizens who had violated the rights of nobody at all. The public cannot, of course see recordings of these aberrations of justice any more than the police will release videos of brave christian officers ganging up and killing handcuffed prisoners. So the GOP and Dems remain in office, their laws stay on the books and their victims (certainly not the perps) go to jail or the grave.

  18. F*ck that CBP agent that tased her. they are “not” above the law. File a complaint and get him fired, sue the Mother F*cker. Contact ACLU in your region for help. The CBP did that to me and my Marine Corp buddy on the 8 Fwy East bound just 6 miles East of Yuma AZ. They held us in a cage for 45 minutes while they illegally searched my car. The San Diego Tribune did a major story on it. Maybe that’s why last summer Congress fired the Head of CBP. They need to fire this guy also. You notice how this “stupid” article didn’t post the name of the CBP agent that tased her. Even here there is no accountability. Post the AGents name so every one will know him. In my case it was Danny Boy Ruiz aka the dog handler. Also look up Robert Trudell, where CBP shattered his glass window at the same spot. And look up Pastor Steven Anderson who had both his windows smashed, tased, and his face ground into the broken glass. How is that justified for Immigration check point?
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/…..-suit.html

    also , look at Robert Trudell, they broke his car window, and others along Fwy 8 in Arizona.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN0mWw9RR20

  19. A statute making stun gun zapping the cool and fun usual penalty for zapping innocent folk with stun guns might take a bite out of criminal abuse of stun guns by border patrolmen.

    1. +1 ampere

  20. I personally do not like the fact that there are Border Patrol check points at interior locations away from the border, however, the courts have upheld this practice for decades and decades and I don’t think they are going away as they have built some permanent infrastructure at many locations.
    Now, to understand what CBP logically is doing here, you must understand that the law changed with the Patriot Act and all things changed when CBP/Border Patrol left the Immigration Service and rolled into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Where the article goes wrong and is misleading it states that CBP/Border Patrol wants to go after drugs when it makes these interior stops. Although, Border Patrol is more than happy to put people in jail for violations of immigration or drug laws, it’s new primary mission is in reality to stop terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from entering the United States and when you get stopped by someone that is wanting to stop a terrorist or to stop someone that may have a weapon of mass destruction your best course of action is to comply with their verbal directions or you will find yourself on the ground in pain.
    Never mess with a federal officer when they tell you to comply with their verbal directions because their next course of action is going to be physical and you are not going to like the outcome.

    1. Never mess with a federal officer when they tell you to comply with their verbal directions because their next course of action is going to be physical and you are not going to like the outcome.

      We never truly got rid of organized crime, we just replaced it with something far worse.

    2. Just because a court says that the constitution doesn’t mean what it says, doesn’t mean that the constitution doesn’t mean what it says. That’s irrespective of the “terrorism” all-purpose figleaf.

      When one or more of these thugs gets offed, I will shed no tears. If it’s you, I may even have a little party.

  21. The federal government with its maze of agencies, regulations, fees, fines, and taxes, is Unconstitutional

  22. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  23. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.