When conducting enforcement operations within the United States, CBP regularly sends its officers on “roving patrols.” These patrols, conducted many miles away from the U.S. Border, often lead to the detention and interrogation of U.S. citizens without reasonable suspicion of any crime. Many of the U.S. citizens detained by CBP were targeted because of their ethnicity, and CBP officers have subjected citizens to verbal and physical abuse while checking their citizenship status. Collected here are examples of complaints that the ACLU has filed against CBP to address the continued violation of U.S. citizens’ rights at the hands of CBP.
2013 Office of the Inspector General Complaint
On October 9, 2013, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) concerning unlawful conduct of Border Patrol agents during roving patrols in Southern Arizona. The complaint was submitted on behalf of 5 U.S. citizens who detail very serious incidents of verbal or physical abuse when their vehicles were stopped without reasonable suspicion by Border Patrol agents. In at least two of the incidents, young children were traveling in the vehicles.
The complaint calls for the investigation of these incidents; a comprehensive review of complaints involving CBP roving patrols to determine whether Border Patrol agents are complying with their obligations under agency guidelines, the U.S. Constitution, and international law; and recommendations from OIG and CRCL regarding significant changes in CBP training, oversight, and accountability mechanisms necessary to address the problems and prevent further abuses.
2014 Office of the Inspector General Complaint
On January 15, 2014, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties concerning abuses committed by Border Patrol agents at interior vehicle checkpoints in southern Arizona. The complaint was submitted on behalf of 15 U.S. citizens, aged 6-69 years old, and detailed 12 incidents in which their rights were violated when they were stopped at 6 checkpoints over a period of a year and a half.
The complaint calls for the investigation of all of the incidents identified; a comprehensive review of all complaints regarding Border Patrol checkpoints over the past five years; a thorough review of Border Patrol checkpoint policies and practices to ensure that operations are in fact limited to briefly verifying citizenship and that agents are receiving guidance regarding the limits of their authority; and a review of all policies and procedures related to service canines, in light of widespread reports of “false alerts” by the dogs.
2015 Federal Tort Claims Act Administrative Complaint
On May 19, 2015, the ACLU of Arizona filed two claims with the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) on behalf of an Arizona woman seeking monetary damages for egregious and repeated rights violations by U.S. Border Patrol agents.
The first claim arises out of an incident on May 21, 2013, in which Border Patrol agents stopped Clarisa Christiansen and her two young children without cause while the family was driving home from school. After Ms. Christiansen demanded an explanation, the agents threatened to deploy a Taser and then threatened to cut her out of her seatbelt with a knife. The agents subsequently slashed a rear tire and left Ms. Christiansen and her children stranded on a hot desert road with a flat tire and no explanation.
In October 2013, the ACLU submitted a complaint to DHS oversight agencies on behalf of Ms. Christiansen and four others who were subjected to unlawful “roving patrol” stops by Border Patrol. More than a year and a half later, those agencies have yet to respond.
The second claim was filed in response to years of unauthorized and unlawful entries by Border Patrol agents onto the family’s private property west of Tucson. On a weekly basis, Border Patrol helicopters buzz the family’s home at extremely low altitudes, causing dwellings to shake, and often disrupting the family’s sleep with deafening noise and bright lights. Agents have also repeatedly entered the Christiansens’ property on foot and on motorized vehicles, despite numerous posted “No Trespassing” signs.
Federal law currently grants Border Patrol authority to enter onto private property within twenty-five miles of the border “to prevent illegal entry.” Agents are further empowered to conduct interior enforcement within 100 miles of any national boundary, an area that encompasses most of the U.S. population. As in Ms. Christiansen’s case, agents routinely ignore the legal limits of their authority in the course of these operations.
Counsel: ACLU of Arizona