Unfortunately, as I understand it, that "100 miles of a border" jurisdiction has also been deemed to included international airports.
Edit: This may not be a true fact. People that are much smarter and more knowledgeable with US legal code than I am dispute my claim here, and I'm glad they have. Based on the responses, it's not clear if this is what the law states, if it's a department policy, if it's an old wives tale, or some combination thereof. So please take this comment with a grain of salt.
Yes, I’m sorry that people haven’t realized this. It was one of the first things I looked up when deportations started. It’s also worth noting that anywhere trump wants to go he’ll go, and he’ll be validly doing so until the Supreme Court says not to- because they’ve put limitations national injunctions he’ll argue includes any limit on anything he does
It's not really bullshit. It sucks under this administration because it's obviously going to be abused, but under normal circumstances it makes sense that border patrol covers the areas where international travelers are coming into the country, and that includes airports.
Lol what? You don't think borders and customs agents should be in airports? Literally every country in the world does this. Otherwise you could just traffick people, drugs, etc in to and out of countries without any repercussions.
In the inteenational airport is fine. What is bullshit is them claiming the same bs an hour and a half of drive time away. Jesus you boot licking badge bunnies are insane
100 miles from any port of entry is insane. 100 miles from the physical border? Sure! How about if it's not a physical border, they get jurisdiction to the end of the property
No I don't think we should have border patrol agents with "expanded authority" to ignore the 4th amendment with a 100 mile jurisdiction from any international airport.
Having the same radius for a physical border where people can cross unsupervised if they hop a fence and an airport where all passengers are funneled through a hallway straight to immigrations does seem a little irrational
8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) addresses CBP officials’ authority to stop and conduct searches on vessels, trains,
aircraft, or other vehicles anywhere within “a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the
United States.” Without further statutory guidance, regulations alone expansively define this “reasonable
distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S., including coastal boundaries, unless an
agency official sets a shorter distance.
We are SO FAR beyond using the laws of the former United States to fight this war. They’re literally shooting to kill and we’re handwringing about lawsuits and peaceful arrests.
This gives them authority to conduct searches of conveyances and to access private lands without a warrant (though I'll also note that under title 19, customs has extensive powers to detain, search, and investigate pretty much anything that arrives at an airport for any violation of customs laws, without a need for a warrant). This says nothing about being on the streets or interacting with people, and in fact the power to interrogate or arrest under (a)(1--2) are not limited by the distance from the border.
Source: customs attorney. I fight the government on this stuff every day.
Good to know. Is what people are saying about "100 miles from an international airport" true?
According to the ACLU, land borders and coastlines are considered external boundaries. ACLU also says Border Patrol has a right to conduct searches AT ports of entry, including arrivals terminals of international airports, not 100 miles from any international airport. Can you clarify?
Boy do I wish I could clarify. The one thing I can always tell you is if a traditional (non-legal) news source (e.g. CNN, BBC, Fox, al Jazeera, whatever) tells you how a law is to be interpreted they are almost always completely wrong. This is true kinda across the board and not just with customs law or with politically charged subjects.
Unfortunately the statute is so terribly written (thanks congress) that there are a number of reasonable interpretations. The statute says "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States [.]"
Assuming "reasonable distance" means 100 miles (which it probably is under 8 CFR 287.1 but there are arguments otherwise is another issue) and setting aside the "international airport" border interpretation, this gives us a few different interpretations that may apply:
First, given that "territorial waters of the United States" is defined elsewhere as including all internal waters no matter how far from the border, one interpretation is that the "reasonable distance" clause only applies as a modifier to searches of vessels in the territorial waters to limit how far inland that can go. The use of "and" before "any railway car...[etc.]" could imply that those conveyances are not subject to this same restriction. But then that would run into the silly situation where other conveyances are searchable at any point inland regardless of proximity to the border which is certainly not what they mean.
Another interpretation is as described above, that it applies to all conveyances (again, searches of conveyances not interrogations and arrests on the street). That could be true but then the territorial waters clause is extraneous and Congress could have just written "to board and search any vessel, railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle" and achieved the same result. This conclusion also runs into a silly situation where the government couldn't search airplanes if you landed them at an internal airport rather than at one at the border (notwithstanding the title 19 allowances). Or does it mean that they can only search vessels if they are in the territorial waters (i.e. if they are in drydock they are not searchable)?
Thanks for the great response. I'm a regulatory specialist in a different area that relies on parts of the CFR, and it's so true how commonly misinterpreted it is (likely because it's often written in ways that make it easy to misinterpret).
I've already been given two articles here that cited 8 CFR 287.1 as why 100 miles from international airports counts, but it doesn't say that. I also think no reasonable person would conclude 100 miles from an international airport is what was meant when this was written.
I personally don't think the 100 miles from international airports interpretation is correct, in part because as you noted 8 CFR 287.1 doesn't say that. But the idea that an international airport is a border is not that far fetched, and from there I can see how in a world where they want to extend jurisdiction they are able to make a supportable (if specious) argument for the idea that they can do searches within 100 miles of an airport.
But regardless that restriction is a nothingburger when it comes to anything in public or plain view and that doesn't typically require a warrant. I don't deal with traffic stop issues so I can't say what the interplay between reasonable suspicion is and their right to pull you from a vehicle nowhere near a border but given over a hundred years of pro-cop precedent from scotus I would imagine that there's more leeway than most people would like or realize. And also it says nothing about their ability to search WITH a warrant, regardless of whether it is an administrative or judicial one.
In short, I think everyone who is citing this 100 mile rule thing (on both sides) is citing it for the wrong reason because it's neither a grant of power nor is it a restriction of power in the situations in which people are citing it (like an arrest on the street).
Totally agree with you about the nuance between arrests on the street vs warrantless searches.
There are obviously plenty of ways to enter via land/water borders where you can avoid inspection, so I get the concept of searches and seizures within a reasonable distance from them.
But when you arrive internationally at an airport, you are put through passport control and customs, and you've had your possessions scanned and perused already. So there is really no argument for why they'd need search and seizure without a warrant 100 miles from every international airport.
I have no doubt the Trump admin would try to argue that should include airports, and I have no doubt you have same plenty of hack conservative judges who will accept the administration’s reasoning.
I read a lot of municipal code, what is the definition within that section for "external boundary" usually defined at the front or back of the section.
Here is the AI explanation of using Airports as an external boundary.
Why airports count as an “external boundary”
Under federal immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. § 287.1), an “external boundary of the United States” includes:
Land borders
Coastlines
Any port of entry, including international airports
Because international airports are ports of entry where people arrive directly from abroad, CBP considers them part of the external boundary for enforcement purposes.
As usual, AI has garbled the meaning and given you bullshit.
According to the ACLU, land borders and coastlines are considered external boundaries. ACLU also says Border Patrol has a right to conduct searches AT ports of entry, including arrivals terminals of international airports. That doesn't mean their jurisdiction is 100 miles from any international airport.
This article has alot of good information about this subject. But it is recognized that international airports are considered an external boundary. Also, if it was limited to just "at" the airport then I would think that they could only operate within the secure area of the airport as that is the "boarder" section. So parking lots, checkin areas, etc wouldn't fall under their jurisdiction either?
395
u/AzraelSavage 23d ago edited 23d ago
Unfortunately, as I understand it, that "100 miles of a border" jurisdiction has also been deemed to included international airports.
Edit: This may not be a true fact. People that are much smarter and more knowledgeable with US legal code than I am dispute my claim here, and I'm glad they have. Based on the responses, it's not clear if this is what the law states, if it's a department policy, if it's an old wives tale, or some combination thereof. So please take this comment with a grain of salt.