How to piss off customs agents with impunity

[The Iceman of the North]

Lyanna,

If they had what do you want to bet there would still be people defending the customs agents sitting him down for a few hours for "causing trouble"?

What with these hypoteticals Scot? Have you any examples of people being detained for hours for no reason?

[Lyanna Stark]

Lyanna,

If they had what do you want to bet there would still be people defending the customs agents sitting him down for a few hours for "causing trouble"?

As it was not the topic at hand at all, I feel this question falls under "Scope creep". :)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lyanna,

One other quibble the custom's agents have the power/authority to detaine him, not the "right". Individuals have rights governments and its agents have power and authority.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lyanna,

"Scope creep" is a good phrase.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

Unless you count the link provided in the OP then, no I don't. Additionally, given the limitations under which I now post it will be difficult for me to provide the additional examples you seek.

[TrackerNeil]

You cheapen your argument by defending this guy's actions. Defend people who actually stand up for a principle, rather than some self-aggrandizing prick with delusions of throwing off the non-existent shackles. He was being difficult for the sake of being difficult and that is if we read ONLY his side of it. Even if we assume that he has no bias at all (which is unlikely), he still comes off as the kind of person that has de-humanized anyone working while he isn't.

Maybe you should read my posts again, because I never defended this guy (whom I have referred to as "annoying" and "a jerk"); I am criticizing the customs agents who decided to retaliate against rudeness with abuse of power. They knew this man had no duty to answer the questions they were asking, and when he (rudely) stood on his rights, they elected to use their authority to exact petty revenge. No, they didn't beat him, but they did take him into custody, which they really weren't supposed to do. None of this makes the passenger a nice guy, but it does indicate that the agents were definitely wrong. Using authority in a petty fashion is to me far worse than some attitude from a difficult passenger, but obviously there are some here who disagree.

Ser Scot:

When is the last time you and I were on the same side of a debate? :blink:

[Mentat]

I live in Europe, and thus have never had to do anything when returning to my country (or indeed travelling anywhere else in Europe) other than show the customs officer my passport.

This is probably why I think that asking someone what he's been up to abroad is an abuse of authority unless there's a good reason for it.

Public authorities should excercise their power in a way that isn't arbitrary. If I'm suspected of committing a crime in the last 24 hours then it makes sense for me to be interrogated about my whereabouts during that time. Otherwise it doesn't. It is, indeed, no one's business but my own.

I also think it likely that the amount of people who find authority intimidating and who would rather just cave in and answer impertinent questions to avoid trouble is much higher than that of internet smartasses who are willing to spend four hours detained to make a point.

I've been to the States once, and though I was asked to fill out a pretty comprehensive questionnaire regarding relevant points (like when I was leaving, my flight number, where I was staying...) I found nothing that I considered impertinent (like what had I been doing in Canada prior to my entry in the States). I thus want to believe that customs officers have a certain amount of leeway when deciding when to ask people questions (or not). This, I think. is the key. Ask people questions if they're relevant and don't do so otherwise, because even if you are a public authority you're just being impertinent and nosy.

In this case their computer told them that this person had refused to answer questions in the past, so they might have decided to give him a hard time for having been uncooperative before (though I can't really know if this is the case or not).

[mormont]

Lyanna, Mormont,

Had this man said, "I've filled out all the required customs forms and you are welcome to search my bags and eveb my person if necessary but under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution I am not required to answer any of your questions." Would you still think this man's detention was the proper course of action?

I've never said I did think it the 'right' course of action. But I think if he'd been polite, he'd probably not have been detained at all and if he was detained, he'd have been treated with much more courtesy than he claims he was.

Maybe you should read my posts again, because I never defended this guy (whom I have referred to as "annoying" and "a jerk"); I am criticizing the customs agents who decided to retaliate against rudeness with abuse of power. They knew this man had no duty to answer the questions they were asking, and when he (rudely) stood on his rights, they elected to use their authority to exact petty revenge. No, they didn't beat him, but they did take him into custody, which they really weren't supposed to do. None of this makes the passenger a nice guy, but it does indicate that the agents were definitely wrong. Using authority in a petty fashion is to me far worse than some attitude from a difficult passenger, but obviously there are some here who disagree.

Not to pick on TN, but there have been a number of definitive statements made in this thread about what US Customs Officers are or are not 'supposed' to do, do or do not have the power to do, are or are not trained or instructed to do, etc.: some of which appear contradictory. It would be helpful if someone could actually clear this up, provide a link or something? Or at least if people could explain what they're basing these claims on?

[kairparavel]

It pains me to do this but:

But an officer cannot construe a person's refusal to be interviewed as sufficient cause to suspect wrongdoing.

Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment which was linked to from here: CBP Search Authority

An immigration officer's questioning of an individual illustrates how an encounter which may

appear to be a seizure is in fact not. Merely questioning an individual about his identity,

regardless of whether he is aware he can leave the officer or refuse to cooperate by not answering,

is not a seizure.37 Therefore, such questioning need not be predicated on reasonable suspicion that

the individual is an alien.38 Nonetheless, if "the circumstances are so intimidating as to

demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not

responded," then the encounter may be deemed a seizure.39 When the interview becomes a

seizure, either through a formal arrest or when the circumstances are such that a reasonable

person would understand he could not leave, the officer must, at a minimum, have "a reasonable

suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be,

engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States."40

Reasonableness

Determining whether a government action is "reasonable" requires balancing the governmental

interest justifying the intrusion against a person's legitimate expectation of privacy. When the

government interest fails to justify its intrusion of a legitimate expectation of privacy, a violation

of the Fourth Amendment occurs. This violation may result in any evidence derived from the

unlawful search to be suppressed and excluded from a judicial proceeding. However, this

"exclusionary rule" does not generally apply in proceedings involving the removal of aliens from

the United States.41

Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, unless an established

exception applies. The border search is a well-recognized and long established exception to the

Fourth Amendment's probable cause and warrant requirements.Authorities at these

locations may search a person entering or leaving the country, an individual's automobile,

baggage, or goods, and materials imported to and exported from the country.42 Authorized by the

First Congress,43 the border search exception has a history older than the Fourth Amendment and

derives from Congress's inherent authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to

enforce immigration laws.44 The Fourth Amendment does not require warrants or probable cause

for most stops and searches at the border because the power to control who or what comes within

a nation's borders is an inherent attribute of national sovereignty.45

Although border searches may generally be conducted without a warrant or probable cause, they

must still be reasonable.46 Federal courts have determined that border searches usually fall into

two categories—routine and non-routine, the distinction generally turning on the intrusiveness of

the search. Routine border searches are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at

the border and consist of only a limited intrusion, while non-routine searches generally require

reasonable suspicion and vary in technique and intrusiveness. It should be noted, however, that

the Supreme Court has arguably suggested that the routine/non-routine analysis may no longer be

appropriate for searches of vehicles and personal property.47

Routine Searches

In order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of illegal aliens and

contraband into this country, Congress has granted the authority to conduct routine searches of

persons and their personal belongings at the border without reasonable suspicion, probable cause,

or a warrant.60 A routine border search is a search that does not pose a serious invasion of privacy

or offend the average traveler.61 For example, a routine border search may consist of limited

searches for contraband or weapons through a pat-down;62 the removal of outer garments such as

jackets, hats, or shoes, the emptying of pockets, wallets, or purses;63 the use of a drug-sniffing

dog;64 the examination of outbound materials;65 and the inspection of luggage.66

It has long been established that border crossers' reasonable expectation of privacy is lower at the

border because they generally expect border guards to search persons and property for

contraband. Because this is common knowledge, border crossers are put on notice when

approaching a border that a search may be imminent, and thus their privacy is "less invaded by

[border] searches" when they occur.67 Thus, routine searches do not violate the Fourth

Amendment simply because they occur at the border.68 Moreover, courts consider routine border

searches to be permissible because they are administered to a class of people (international

travelers) and are not used to target individuals.69

There is no established test that determines whether a particular search procedure is routine.

However, the degree of intrusiveness or invasiveness associated with the particular technique is

especially indicative of whether a search is routine. The First Circuit, for example, compiled a

nonexhaustive list of six factors to be considered: (1) whether the search required the suspect to

disrobe or expose any intimate body parts; (2) whether physical contact was made with the

suspect during the search; (3) whether force was used; (4) whether the type of search exposed the

suspect to pain or danger; (5) the overall manner in which the search was conducted; and (6)

whether the suspect's reasonable expectations of privacy, if any, were abrogated by the search.70

So dude totally does not need to submit to the interview portion, but he can be searched, patted down, have to take off his coat etc and have all his stuff inspected as part of a routine search. What a trade-off. Does anyone else see the moronics of invoking the right to not answer? What could be a quick process of 'I went here, did this, brought back this' ends up being something far more invasive to your person, but hey, you didn't have to explain yourself. And now you'll be flagged constantly for this, and will no doubt be subject to continual routine searches. Congrats.

[TrackerNeil]

Not to pick on TN, but there have been a number of definitive statements made in this thread about what US Customs Officers are or are not 'supposed' to do, do or do not have the power to do, are or are not trained or instructed to do, etc.: some of which appear contradictory. It would be helpful if someone could actually clear this up, provide a link or something? Or at least if people could explain what they're basing these claims on?

Honestly, what concerns me is not the specifics of this case (I don't know this guy and don't really care what happens to him), and I don't know the full extent of a customs agent's authority. What troubles me is the casual way some people here seem to accept the idea of abuse of authority, no matter how minor, as an appropriate response to rudeness. I'm of the opinion that those with authority should be held to a higher standard than those without it, and playing tit-for-tat at a border crossing is not what I'd call a very high standard.

I'm kind of done with this debate, but I will point out that it's pretty amazing the way the traveling public has become well used to invasive and power-tripping behavior, performed in the name of increased security, that, I suspect (and hope) it would never have accepted twenty years ago.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Again good point well said. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Lightning Lord]

I'm kind of done with this debate, but I will point out that it's pretty amazing the way the traveling public has become well used to invasive and power-tripping behavior, performed in the name of increased security, that, I suspect (and hope) it would never have accepted twenty years ago.

"Why were you in China?" is neither invasive, nor power-tripping. I assume, then, that you are referring to the detaining of the individual, which I've already referred to as a power trip and a poor choice of actions.

And I'll concede that you didn't defend the guy's character, but you did defend his actions. You said his actions and rudeness matter very little, except to some of us on the board. You've placed the blame upon CBP, insisting that he had little/nothing to do with his detention. I disagree with that.

[Jaxom 1974]

Lyanna, Mormont,

Had this man said, "I've filled out all the required customs forms and you are welcome to search my bags and eveb my person if necessary but under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution I am not required to answer any of your questions." Would you still think this man's detention was the proper course of action?

I think a response like this would have gotten a stare in return and a couple additional moments of waiting while a supervisor was called over to confirm that this was indeed the case. Consequently, it wouldn't have gone any further. The individual in question is the one who chose to escalate the situation in a calculated manner.

Honestly, what concerns me is not the specifics of this case (I don't know this guy and don't really care what happens to him), and I don't know the full extent of a customs agent's authority. What troubles me is the casual way some people here seem to accept the idea of abuse of authority, no matter how minor, as an appropriate response to rudeness. I'm of the opinion that those with authority should be held to a higher standard than those without it, and playing tit-for-tat at a border crossing is not what I'd call a very high standard.

While neither supporting or defending whether this was "abuse of power", I'm curious what people think an appropriate action/response from the agents should be when an individual chooses to be rude or obnoxious...?

[Quoth]

Am I missing something? How can one judge the rudeness of the statements without having heard the delivery?

"Why were you in China?" asked the passport control officer, a woman with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron.

"None of your business," I said.

Her eyes widened in disbelief.

"Excuse me?" she asked.

"I'm not going to be interrogated as a pre-condition of re-entering my own country," I said.

May have been said, after all, firmly yet rather meekly, with a polite smile. Ok, the subsequent post's commentary, such as "with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron" may color your perception of how things went down. But, that was written after the fact. At the time, he may well have been speaking in a totally reasonable fashion.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

As mormont pointed out regarding the first reply, in some places that's a rude response purely on the face of it. Certainly I'd personally take objection to the second too, with the "I'm not" and "interrogated" in response to a standard (if not legally-required) question. (Interrogated? Really?)

There are so many other ways he could have made his point: "I'm not obliged to answer that." "I'd prefer that you (re-)examine me and my bags rather than answer that question." "All necessary information is in my written declaration." "I decline to share that information with you."

I mean really. "How are you?" "None of your business." "Where did you go?" "None of your business." "That's interesting; why were you there?" "None of your business." All true, legal responses to those questions, but come on, it's hardly what most people would consider an appropriate first response. Even (or especially) at customs/immigration. But also -- "firmly yet rather meekly"? I'm not actually sure that's possible. I also think (this being my opinion, and all) that a smile's interpreted politeness or not is going to be influenced pretty heavily by what someone says. Saying "none of your business" with a smile is probably less abrupt than saying it with a scowl, but I know I'd start wondering if the smile was actually a smirk with a response like that.

(No, it still doesn't justify the seizure, but the search was fine. I also fully believe that the lower agents might not have known that the guy's not obliged to answer. I don't know what kind of training there is, and I fully believe that the travellers' rights should be prime points during agent education, but it's probably something that comes up so infrequently that it might not come up. I'm also not sure whether refusing to answer on the basis of the 5th applies -- until you've made it past Immigration, at least, you're technically not in the US. I can't claim the 5th when I'm abroad, even though I'm a US citizen.... I'm not sure whether Customs is considered on US territory in most ports of entry. If it is, then the 5th applies, I presume. If it isn't... well, that's another reason why it might not be taught during agent training.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aoife,

Now that's a good question. The last time I went through US customs I was in Canada noy the US.

[Arbor Gold]

Being a world traveler means you have to accept a few inconveniences in exchange for the privilege of hopping around the globe. Some places are less convenient than others (the guy at Heathrow grilled me pretty hard while visiting my sister last year) but, as with most things in life, your attitude determines your outcome. I have this game I play where I try to get the immigration person to smile. It's not usually that difficult, because I'm generally either (a) excited to be in a new place or (b ) excited to be coming home from a new place.

I've been through immigration at SFO (where this incident took place) a bunch of times, and I'm always asked what I was doing in X country. I either say "having a great time" or "trying to sell people stuff". Sometimes I get a follow-up question ("Was the beer really good in Belgium?" or "how's business in India"?) and after I answer, I always get a "welcome home". I don't know, I guess I just don't see the point of starting shit with a low-level official who is just doing their job, since I make a special effort to make their day less shitty. When I came off the 13-hour flight from Shanghai to San Francisco, the last thing I wanted to do was wave my dick around in the airport to try to feel important. I just wanted to go home.

This guy was being an asshole, and "none of your business" is not an appropriate response to the question asked.

[Kalbear]

Okay, let's get a few facts straight.

1. He was detained for 30 minutes. This was not a cell; this was a waiting room with 30 chairs and 6 other people.

2. This was done while they searched his records based on the information he provided. It was not to abuse power; it was done so he wasn't standing in line for half an hour.

3. He then refused to issue an oral declaration of customs, so they simply searched his bags and let him go afterwards.

How is any of this an abuse of power?

Every border crossing has a reasonable right to do a more thorough search on someone's provided information. They can do this for random people (this has happened to me) and for non-random reasons (like being malicious towards a customs agent). Regardless, this is well within their duty. They came back after 15 minutes requesting another form of ID to use that to look up further information.

They then looked up his information and when they understood he was just a nuisance and not a threat, they let him leave.

The 'detaining' part sounds like he was thrown in a drunk tank, and while the guy who said 'let him cool off for 4 hours' was probably being a bit of a dick to try and force compliance, detaining him specifically is similar to detaining someone while you search their belongings. It's not like they put him in a room while they jacked off furiously to the thought of him slipping in the shower. They were doing actual work there.

Finally, while you might rail against authority, you needn't do it in a dickish manner. Ultimately the best way to rail against authority is to not make actual real people's lives less happy. They're people, not some faceless minion of the great monolith, and most people take rudeness and respond in kind. Doing their job in a reasonable way is not cause to be an asshole.

[Old Nan]

They're people, not some faceless minion of the great monolith, and most people take rudeness and respond in kind.

So I can assume ordinary people ordinarily go around asking others to justify what they are doing in their country and what their personal belongings are? Because I can imagine that if this were to be a Mexican-looking chap being interrogated by a white guy, rather than a Libertarian-seeming chap being interrogated by what sounds to be a black woman, you and many others in this thread would think the rudeness gradient ran in precisely the opposite direction.

After all, they're just people, not minions of the state.

[mormont]

So I can assume ordinary people ordinarily go around asking others to justify what they are doing in their country and what their personal belongings are? Because I can imagine that if this were to be a Mexican-looking chap being interrogated by a white guy, rather than a Libertarian-seeming chap being interrogated by what sounds to be a black woman, you and many others in this thread would think the rudeness gradient ran in precisely the opposite direction.

After all, they're just people, not minions of the state.

There's so much here that's random, unfounded and entirely silly that I hesitate to single one bit out, but what on earth gives you the idea that the woman 'sounds to be black'?