Around the fourth hour of my detention at the airport, I decided to ask for a lawyer. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent at the front desk refused. I told him that he can't indefinitely hold an American citizen. "It's not indefinite," he replied. "We'll let you know."

That little exchange captures the absolute power that CBP claims over travelers, including Americans, going far beyond any domestic law enforcement interrogation. You don't have a right to contact a lawyer. Neither do you have a right to know why you're being detained or what will happen next. It's not "indefinite" detention; they just won't tell you what the "definite" part is. Crossing the U.S. border is the closest most Americans will come to experiencing life under the foreign dictatorships I report on.

They are absolutely violating the 4th and 5th Amendments here in multiple respects. Not only does the 4th Amendment require officers to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrong doing to have probable cause for there to be a custodial detention, but the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause requires police forces to provide an attorney when someone in police custody asks for one. If they weren't under arrest, then they must have been free to leave. Admittedly, there is a reduction in Constitutional provisions while at the boarder (specifically related to searches & seizures), but they still need to have such suspicions to initiate a detention, and any reduction to the 4th Amendment flatly doesn't apply to someone's 5th Amendment's right to counsel in custodial situations. This is a 1983 claim if I ever saw one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 72 points 2 weeks ago* (4 children)

CBP also has jurisdiction “within 100 miles of the border”, which is where 2/3rds of Americans live - most of the nations cities.

This is clearly a political act to suppress dissent.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Thanks for spreading the word haha

    The 100-­mile border zone derives its authority from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3), which permits CBP agents to conduct warrantless searches and seizures “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.”

    https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2025/jul/1/understanding-your-constitutional-rights-100-mile-border-zone-primer-non-citizens-united-states-when-confronted-law-enforcement/

    That extends to intl airports as well. You also don't have a right to an attorney:

    CBP takes the position that travelers do not have the right to an attorney during questioning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    CBP takes the position that travelers do not have the right to an attorney during questioning.

    Literally untrue. They really need to look at Miranda v. Arizona, 484 U.S. 436, 467 (1965) ("there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege [to an attorney] is available . . . in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way . . .").

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Miranda v. Arizona, 484 U.S. 436

    This has nothing to do with CBP or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. And even if it did, if they believe they don't have the right, and no one tells them otherwise...then they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago

    Yep. It’s literally authoritarianism, when a leader crafts their enforcement and revenge organizations to treat their own policy as superseding law. Anyone defending this is on the side of fascism or is too stupid to know they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    All settings means all settings

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Mmk well that contradicts the legislation but whatever, I won't argue, I'm not a lawyer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Miranda came about in '66. You mention legislation that came about in '52. This means the explanation in Miranda would definitely contemplared and applied to that, especially since the Constitution outweighs legislation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago*

    The downside to this avenue is that it's up to the Supreme Court to decide if you're right or wrong, which won't happen until they give you a lawyer...which they don't want to do.

    A Man. A Plan. A Gestapo.

    Guantanamo.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    What’s fun is if they twist things to the point that airports are a border.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    International airports already are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    The airport isn't the border. You may have crossed the border while in the air. Everything else is trying to work around the fact that you can't have a border check in the air, but the airport isn't really a border. They made that up (borders are made up, I know, I know)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    CBP also has jurisdiction “within 100 miles of the border”,

    which is where 90% of Canadians live. And they have arrested a Canadian for something that Canadian did in Canada where it was not a crime, to take him back to America to be tried for it there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments