The 4th Amend. requires that a search or seizure conducted by a governmental agent be reasonable and supported by probable cause. Few exceptions to the presumptive warrant and probable cause requirements are more firmly rooted than the ¿border search¿ exception. This allows officials to inspect incoming individuals and their belongings and to interdict incoming contraband without having to inform a magistrate before the search. This report first outlines the statutes authorizing certain fed. officers to conduct warrantless searches. It then addresses the scope of the gov¿t. constitutional authority to search and seize persons and property at the border. It also describes the levels of suspicion generally required for each type of border search.

Many border security initiatives were developed after the events of September 11, 2001. Because security initiatives often maintain a search and seizure component, Fourth Amendment implications may arise. The Fourth Amendment establishes that a search or seizure conducted by a governmental agent must be reasonable, and that probable cause support any judicially granted warrant. An invalid "search" is an infringement of an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable. A "seizure" of a person occurs when a government official makes an individual reasonably believe that he or she is not at liberty to ignore the government's presence in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to include a presumptive warrant requirement on all searches and seizures conducted by the government, and has ruled that any violations of this standard will result in the suppression of any information derived therefrom. The Court, however, has also recognized situations that render the obtainment of a warrant impractical or against the public's interest, and has accordingly crafted various exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

A revolutionary, soups-to-nuts approach to network security from two of Microsoft's leading security experts.

The September 11 attacks forcefully brought home the need to better protect the U.S. homeland. But how can this be accomplished most effectively? Here, a team of Brookings scholars offers a four-tier plan to guide and bolster the efforts under way by the Bush administration and Congress. There has been some progress in making our homeland more secure. But the authors are concerned that the Bush administration may focus too narrowly on preventing attacks like those of the recent past and believe a broader and more structured approach to ensuring homeland security is needed. Given the vulnerability of our open society, the authors recommend four clear lines of direction. The first and last have received a good deal of attention from the Bush administration, though not yet enough; for the other two, a great deal remains to be done: Perimeter defense at the border to prevent entry by potential perpetrators and the weapons and hazardous materials they may use Prevention by detecting possible terrorists within the United States and securing dangerous materials they might obtain here Identification and defense of key sites within the county: population centers, critical economic assets and infrastructure, and locations of key political or symbolic importance Consequence management to give those directly involved in responding to an attack that may nevertheless occur the tools necessary to quickly identify and attack and limit its damage Included are specific recommendations on how much more to spend on homeland security, how much of the cost should be borne by the private sector, and how to structure the federal government to make the responsible agencies more efficient in addressing security concerns. Specifically, the authors believe that annual federal spending on homeland security may need to grow to about $45 billion, relative to a 2001 level of less than $20 billion and a Bush administration proposed budget for 2003 of $38 billion. They also