ACLU DEMANDS TRANSPARENCY OF BORDER PATROL'S EXTENSIVE "ROVING PATROL" OPERATIONS

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

East County News Service

February 11, 2015 (San Diego)- Charging that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have failed to respond to requests for information regarding U.S. Border Patrol’s interior “roving patrol” operations—during which agents stop and detain Southern Californians as far as 100 miles north of the Mexico border—the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and the University of California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic (IRC) filed a lawsuit this week in federal court today.

“Many Americans are unaware that the U.S. Border Patrol operates so-called ‘roving patrols’ far away from the border itself, deep into the interior of the United States,” said Mitra Ebadolahi, Border Litigation Project Staff Attorney with the ACLU Foundation of San Diego. “In the course of these operations, federal agents routinely disregard the legal limitations on their authority and violate the civil rights of California residents and visitors.  Yet DHS refuses to hold agents accountable and ignores basic requests for information about these abusive practices.”

Reports of Border Patrol agents stopping farm workers and local residents in Fallbrook (seventy miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border) and Laguna Beach (almost ninety miles north of the U.S.-Mexico Border) indicate the extent to which Californians are targeted by this far-reaching  federal law enforcement activity.

On July 3, 2014, the ACLU of San Diego and the ACLU of Southern California, along with faculty members in the UC Irvine School of Law IRC, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to both DHS and CBP seeking records related to the Border Patrol’s extensive but largely opaque “roving patrol” operations throughout Southern California.  To date, neither agency has responded to the FOIA.

“It was important for us to join this effort to get basic information about U.S. Border Patrol practices in our backyard,” said Annie Lai, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at UC Irvine School of Law. Last year, the UC Irvine School of Law International Justice Clinic submitted a report to the United Nations about excessive use of force and lack of transparency by the agency. IRC students Kevin Crockett and Daniel Shahidzadeh assisted with drafting of today’s FOIA complaint.

According to the ACLU’s press release, roving patrols have long been associated with civil rights violations, and abuses are not limited to the Southwest, as prior FOIA lawsuits have shown.  In 2011, the ACLU obtained records of Border Patrol operations in upstate New York, showing the vast majority of stops did not target recent border crossers and occurred far from the border, with only 1% resulting in initiation of removal proceedings; many stops involved clear violations of agency arrest guidelines, as well as the Constitution, including improper reliance on race as a basis for questioning passengers and arrests of lawfully present individuals.  Another ACLU lawsuit related to roving patrol stop data is currently pending in Arizona.

“The Border Patrol operates as a rogue agency, claiming extra-constitutional powers that extend far from any border, and operating with no effective oversight.  But Border Patrol agents are not above the law and must be held accountable just like any other public officials,” said Adrienna Wong, Staff Attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

DHS and CBP fail to adequately collect basic stop data that would allow the agencies to detect, deter, and respond to rights abuses—even though such data collection is an accepted law enforcement best practice used by other federal agencies.  The agencies also regularly ignore FOIA requests and refuse to make public even the basic information that is collected to allow the public to evaluate Border Patrol activities.

The ACLU’s Border Litigation Project, with offices in San Diego and Tucson, is engaged in a coordinated FOIA strategy to lift the veil of secrecy behind which DHS, CBP, and the Border Patrol seek to hide.

KPBS  reports that it contacted the Border Patrol and Border Patrol would not comment on the case.


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

Dear Border Patrol

Submitted by on

Tell the ACLU to stuff it up their nose! PS - Adrienna Wong is full of you know what. The Border Patrol is so hamstrung between a union that really runs things and a Department of Homeland IN-Security that is run by idiots there is no way in Hades they are doing anything good at all let alone any secret "black" Operations. They cannot even buy toilet paper without union approval and a note from DC. GET REAL! PPS - ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE NO CIVIL RIGHTS! That protection is reserved for Citizens of the United States of America.

Protection for

Submitted by on

citizens of the United States of America is what the ACLU is all about. That's why I am a contributing member. I advise it for everyone who is an innocent target of the so-called Border Patrol.

It's up to you--

Submitted by on

deal with these criminals as you think best, recognizing that you might be stopped in a rural place and these BP thugs are armed. What they are doing with these "roving patrols" is illegal. They have nothing better to do than harass citizens, to put something on their clipboards and justify their paltry existence. They couldn't survive in a real job. It's called "shotgunning," stopping vehicles without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. 'Shotgunning' occurs when agents on roving patrol stop vehicles absent reasonable suspicion and make up an excuse for the stop after the fact. This practice is illegal because agents are required to have reasonable suspicion BEFORE initiating a stop, not after. from United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, Supreme Court: In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, however, we recognized that other traffic-checking practices involve a different balance of public and private interests, and appropriately are subject to less stringent constitutional safeguards. The question was under what circumstances a roving patrol could stop motorists in the general area of the border for brief inquiry into their residence status. We found that the interference with Fourth Amendment interests involved in such a stop was "modest," 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 880, while the inquiry served significant law enforcement needs. We therefore held that a roving patrol stop need not be justified by probable cause and may be undertaken if the stopping officer is "aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion" that a vehicle contains illegal aliens. Id. at 422 U. S. 884. // So without reasonable specific articulable facts they are wrong. Just remember, there is a fine line between standing up for your rights and ensuring that you'll spend the night in a federal holding cell. You could simply refuse to answer ANY of the criminal BP questions, but it may be easier on everyone if you answer a couple questions just to expedite the matter. It's the world we live in. They hate us for our freedoms.

On those roving patrols....

Submitted by on

I once personally had a border patrol agent wave a loaded gun in my face after stopping my car on a road in the Anza Borrego Desert for absolutely no valid reason. Thankfully I had a press pass and after I showed him that, he backed off. Obviously I'm an American citizen, and should not have been harassed that way.

Weddings in East County

Hot Coupons