Defendant worked on a ferry and brought a duffel bag to work. When the ferry landed, it was subject to customs inspection. Defendant remained on the ferry working. Customs officials decided to search his bag. Since he worked in the border area and was not seeking entry, his search required reasonable suspicion. People v. Erskine, 2010 V.I. LEXIS 7 (February 16, 2010):<\/p>\n
Employees who are working in a border area are not immune from border searches, but they may only be subjected to a border search when they are leaving the area of the border. United States v. Beck, 483 F.2d 203, 209 (3d Cir. 1974); see also United States v. Glazou, 402 F.2d 8,13 (2d Cir. 1968) (Employees who work in a border area may be subject to a border search when leaving the area). Otherwise, employees could constantly be subjected to searches throughout the day during the normal course of their work. In Beck, a defendant watchman was observed by customs officials carrying a large bag leaving the pier by vehicle. Customs officials stopped the defendant and found stolen items, and the Third Circuit held that the customs officials had reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and seizure. Id. The Third Circuit reasoned that the search was valid because the defendant was observed leaving the border area and displayed suspicious behavior. Id. On the other hand, in this matter, Officer Milan stated at the suppression hearing that Defendant was on the Ferry when he observed the bag in question and that there was no indication that Defendant was leaving the Ferry or intended to stay in St. Thomas. Consequently, the Court finds that Defendant was not subject to a valid border search in the absence of reasonable suspicion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading