Probable cause stopped being a good-faith best effort and started being pro-forma beauracracy a long time ago, and courts regularly and reliably uphold this behavior. The only people who don't seem to understand this are law-text literalists. There's nothing illegal about what the CBP is doing; it's just shitty and unamerican. We're well into "the purpose of a system is what it does" territory here.
This is a message board trope in legal discussions. Either the law matters or the whole discussion is pointless; it's not a 100 mile zone, then, but a 1650 mile zone, because, after all, nobody is following the law anyways. That might even be the case! But if it is, we're not discussing anything meaningful here.
What is plainly the case is that many people believe that the law dictates that CBP can warrantlessly search citizens anywhere within 100 miles of the border (that border including the shores of all the Great Lakes). The law does not say that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that CBP can't do that, and people should stop repeating the claim that they can, because that claim empowers the CBP, which is already prone to abusing its authority.
But the bogus claim is head-turning, and presumably generates a lot of money for ACLU, because it's alarming and wrong-seeming (well, wrong, period, but...).
As I said before, the CBP believes they have legal authority for these searches, and they're performing them. All this bluster about the ACLU is irrelevant. These are the facts out here in the world, no matter what you say. Claiming they don't have the right is pointless noise, because everyone in a position to effect change agrees with them that they do. They even cite Supreme Court cases, just like you!
This confirms you didn't read the very first link I gave you. That confirmation discourages further participation in this discussion, since it's clear you're not actually interested in learning anything here.
