Jump to content

Talk:Border search exception

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ty683g542 (talk | contribs) at 01:23, 14 December 2007 (assessment importance: mid, class: B). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconLaw B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

but why?

The article needs some hint of the basis for the exception. —Tamfang 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As it stands, the article sounds like it was written by a government operative. Has this doctrine been challenged before the Supreme Court? They are the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. —Nricardo 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see there are some footnotes which may be Supreme Court cases, but they are not discussed in the article, nor do they provide links to the court websites. This article has room for improvement. —Nricardo 11:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was written by a law student, not a government operative. As far as the Supreme Court's review of the doctrine, it is quite thorough when it comes to the inspection of closed containers and invasive body searches. The interesting area - the gray area - relates to searches of electronic material. In this setting, there are no clear answers. Only one court has ever addressed the issue head on. I will add a section detailing the history and source of custom's authority to conduct these searches in a couple of weeks (when finals are over). Thanks for pointing out areas that need expansion, though. Bpiereck 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And congratulations on getting this on the Main Page. This sort of "exception" makes my American spine chill. —Nricardo 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

The article is of mid importance because it is not commonly known, but would be known to those individuals of border states who are outside of the legal profession. High importance is reserved for general knowledge articles. The article is B class because it cites its sources well, needs some improvement, but is well on its way to Good Article status. After the expansion, nominate it for Good Article review. Legis Nuntius (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]