Greyhound Finally Bans CBP, Border Patrol From Suspicionless Searches Of Its Buses And Passengers
from the bus-operator-boards-the-ban-bus dept
Greyhound has finally, definitively decided to stop serving up its customers to US border agencies.
A week ago, a CBP memo obtained by the Associated Press made something clear to CBP agents that should have been clear all along: they could not perform sweeps of buses without the permission of the bus driver or the bus company itself. Unfortunately, this means a bus driver can consent to a search on behalf of passengers, but it still was better than Greyhound’s stance. The company had stated that it believed it could not legally refuse to allow CBP officers to board buses.
This was a problem. CBP officers were wandering far inland to perform searches, often targeting buses that never crossed a border. Anything within 100 miles of a border was considered fair game and reports of bus sweeps by CBP agents were trickling down from depots near the nation’s northern borders — far away from the supposedly deeply-troubled southern border where the current president believes more walls are needed to stop drugs, terrorism, and the possibility of being unable to secure an existence for whites and their progeny.
Greyhound was wrong and the CBP memo confirmed it. But Greyhound still refused to issue a blanket refusal on behalf of its drivers, many of who would probably feel (individually) it was perhaps unwise — if not illegal — to tell CBP agents to perform their fishing expeditions elsewhere.
The company has finally taken a stand, making it much easier for drivers to refuse access to their buses.
In an emailed statement, the company said it would notify the Department of Homeland Security that it does not consent to unwarranted searches on its buses or in areas of terminals that are not open to the public — such as company offices or any areas a person needs a ticket to access.
Greyhound said it would provide its drivers and bus station employees updated training regarding the new policy, and that it would place stickers on all its buses clearly stating that it does not consent to the searches.
This is the right step to take, although it would have been better to do it as soon as it became obvious the company had the right to refuse warrantless, suspicionless searches of its buses and passengers. With this in place, the company’s statements that it cares about the safety and security of its drivers and customers are a whole lot less empty.
The sad fact is this never should have come to this point. It’s highly presumptuous of these agencies (CBP, Border Patrol) to believe they can just board buses and search passengers when the targeted buses aren’t at checkpoints or crossing borders. This is the sort of thing we should be above — something only heard about from other countries without enshrined rights and protections. Emulating Cold War Russia and its eastern bloc subsidiaries is a piss poor look for US government agencies operating dozens of miles away from any border in need of securing.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, buses, cbp, ice, searches
Companies: greyhound
Comments on “Greyhound Finally Bans CBP, Border Patrol From Suspicionless Searches Of Its Buses And Passengers”
That 100 mile rule.
I find that especially unconstitional regarding Michigan, cause utterly NO part of it is not covered by this.
At the very least it is a violation of State rights, in the same way declaring someones neighborhood a "drug crime area" so they you can shake down the residents over and over is.
It’s even worse when you remember that, as far as the CBP is concerned, "100 miles from a border" included not just physical borders but also international airports. They’ve effectively claimed jurisdiction over the vast majority of populated areas in the country. Greyhound doesn’t just need this policy for what goes on at the southern border, but nationally.
I applaud Grayhound, but have seen a lot of stupid pushback.
We have the 4th Amendment for a reason. Police can’t just go fishing, they have to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause (see Terry Stops).
Now if only Airports would throw out the TSA P—- grabbers.
The error both the right and left make is that somehow the laws will only act against "those other bad people".
How does anyone KNOW any particular bus has someone here illegally (even a visa overstay)? I don’t want ICE, CBP, DHS, etc. stopping 10 busses and searching 100 people on each to find one that maybe doesn’t have their ID with them and might be deportable. We aren’t looking for murderers or rapists on the busses.
You also see it with gun laws on the left. How does anyone KNOW someone has a gun, and might use it to commit a crime? Well, why not stop and frisk everyone looking for guns?
But you also see this on the left with the tech companies trying to ban "hate" or "error" and just have created something worse than the Papal Index and millions of Galileos trying to block a few actual heretics.
One key to determining if something is liberty or tyranny is whether it is proactive or reactive. Proactive goes in search of witches, monsters, or criminals and presumes guilt even if it pretends otherwise since it has to check everyone. Reactive waits until some act has been committed and only then determines what, if anything, should be done.
Someone merely here without going through customs isn’t creating an immediate nuisance, much less harm, and trying to enforce the law at that level is tyrannical. If they commit fraud, or identity theft, etc. it is a different story, but such acts should easily provide a warrant.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Illegals dont have 4th amendment rights.
Re: Re: Re:
Are you happy for the CBP to trample your fourth amendment rights because somebody in the same vehicle might be an illegal immigrant?
Re: Re: Re:
I thought one was innocent until proven guilty.
At least that is what we were all told, for many years – they were lying.
Re: Re: Re:
They do in our country. What country are you from?
Re: Re: Re:
The Bill of Rights applies to the people, not just citizens, regardless of status. So "illegals" do have 4th amendment protections.
Re: Re: Re:
This falsehood really needs to die…
Yes, they do, the constitution restricts what the government may or may not do, regardless of the citizenship status of the person they are interacting with.
Re: Re: Re:
"Illegals dont have 4th amendment rights"
Re: Re: Re:
The Bill of Rights apply equally to all citizens and residents, so illegal immigrants do have 4th Amendment rights. Same goes for “due process”.
Re: Re: Re:
Also, last I checked, the people driving these buses are generally US citizens, or at least legal residents, as are the people who own the buses and most of the passengers most of the time. Even by your logic, those people still have 4th Amendment rights that would be violated in the bus stops-and-searches.
Re: Re:
How do you know that they aren’t creating a nuisance? What if they are acting loud or just being stupid in front of others.. like that’s never happened.
Re: Re: Re:
"How do you know that they aren’t creating a nuisance?"
How do you know they were?
In fact, it’s more likely they weren’t – people at risk of deportation if the CBP finds them, travelling on a mode of transport known for random CBP searches, will probably not be acting in ways that would attract attention.
Re: Re:
Why do many people see the world thru right/left glasses?
Blanket Rule
Can we get that sticker printed 1000x bigger and put it on the country’s passenger window? This goes along with the "don’t send death squads to my home" opt out. No person in our country should feel pressured to "consent" to search by goon squad of face unknown and terrifying consequence. If you have to ask, the answer is "no".
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The fourteen words? Seriously? I’ve seen some bizarre stuff in Tim’s articles, but this completely takes the cake. Do you like own stock in a tinfoil company or something?
Re: Re:
They’re the ones who deliberately echoed it on their own website and people didn’t get fired and a public rebuke of the ideas like if someone at a real estate out of the blue started talking about the importance of getting your money out of the bank and into securing living space for your future and family because blood and soil are what matter.
Re: Re: Re:
…huh? Sorry, most of us don’t speak Word Salad. Mind repeating that, this time in English?
Re:
Let’s look at some facts:
DHS dismissed the idea that the headline in that memo was meant to echo the Fourteen Words, which of course it would. But the Trump administration has signalled at least implied support for White supremacy and its believers before (e.g., “very fine people on both sides”). All things considered, DHS getting inspiration from a White supremacist terrorist who coined the Fourteen Words while serving time in prison for murdering a Jewish talk radio host…well, that doesn’t seem too far-fetched.
Re: Re:
So, how much more blindingly obvious do they have to make it in order for you to see what’s clear to so many others?
Mass Searches r routine now
…the problem is much bigger than just illegal ‘government’ searches — it’s routine now for ‘private’ businesses to search their customers at sports, music, and theatrical events.
Most people are sheep and calmly subnit to outrageous stops & searches of their person and property when entering some private entertainment venues.
Soon we will all be searched when entering restaurants and movie theaters.
Re: Mass Searches r routine now
Home cooking is killing the restaurant business
Re: Mass Searches r routine now
This actually happened to me once. It was very soon after 9/11, though, and it hasn’t happened since, so I’ll give our society a pass on that one.
Re: Re: Mass Searches r routine now
"Soon we will all be searched when entering restaurants and movie theaters."
I’d wager that if it does happen again, it’s because a few more cinemas have been shot up by psychos, and it’s been made politically impossible to address the other issues that are leading to them happening.
Re: Mass Searches r routine now
"it’s routine now for ‘private’ businesses to search their customers at sports, music, and theatrical events."
Key being "their customers". You have the option not to go to those places if you object to the practices of the company whose business you are choosing to pay for.
"Soon we will all be searched when entering restaurants and movie theaters."
As with so many things that people fear in the US, I have to ask – since this is not happening in other countries you claim to be better than – why is it that so many in the "land of the free" feel so much less free than the rest of the world?
It’s about time!
Europe Tour Packages | Best Europe Holidays Travel Packages
Hahahaha – having trouble with your spam this morning?
spam spam spam spam ….
. Vikings descend from ceiling
spam spam spam spam
Time
To whip out that STAR CARD, thats to Show you are a REAL USA BORN Cit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
When Jose slits the drivers throat and bus goes off the road Guess who’s gonna sue Greyhound.
Re: Re:
Stupid and/or racist(but I repeat myself) people?
Re: Re:
As if it matters what the person’s name is.
Beyond that, there are plenty of people named Jose in this country whose families have been here far longer than your ilk.
Also most people who do shit like that here are euro-white.
Other than that, good job.
Re:
You can’t guarantee that such a crime will happen in the wake of this move. You can’t even guarantee that if such a crime happens, it was because of this move — or that the perpetrator will be, as you imply, a Latino male. Your fearmongering will get you nowhere here, dear MAGAt.
Re: Re:
When Jose slits the drivers throat and bus goes off the road Guess who’s gonna sue Greyhound.
Show us on the doll where the Mexican touched you.
Or did one take your bean picking job and you’re bitter?
Re: Re: Re:
"Or did one take your bean picking job and you’re bitter?"
That kind of person is basically admitting that a person with no training and no English skills can just arrive and be employed to do his job, by an employer who doesn’t care about the law so long as they profit. Maybe the problem isn’t the menial worker?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe the problem isn’t the menial worker?
It isn’t the menial worker that’s the problem. It’s the shit-flinging morons who think that marginally educated people who can’t speak English are coming for their "high-paying" jobs.
They’re mistaking them for better-educated people from India. Because brown is brown.
Re: Re: Re:2
…the employer who decides making a profit is more important than adhering to the law.
Re: Re:
"When Jose slits the drivers throat"
What if it’s not "Jose" doing the slitting, but rather a Trumper who’s wrongly decided that the Hispanic driver is an illegal?