Fuck. Off. Already.

Ba dum tss

I believe you're right. My mistake. I misremembered that factoid.

You mean probable cause, not "probably cause". And what you described, evading a sobriety checkpoint, gives them reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion amounts to articulable facts of observation that reasonably lead them to suspect you may be committing/have committed/were about to commit a crime (like apparently fleeing from a police breathalyzer check). It grants them the power to detain you for a reasonable time for the purposes of investigating to confirm or assuage their suspicion.

Probable cause requires actual evidence that a specific crime has been committed, that you committed it, and that evidence is secured. It is the standard needed to A) arrest you or issue a warrant for your arrest, and B) issue a search warrant for your property if evidence connects it to the crime in question in order to gather more evidence. (Note: They may do an inventory search of your person if arrested, and an inventory search of your vehicle if towed due to your arrest. This is limited in scope. A full search requires a warrant.)

Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause.

They’d only be doing it when they have a big suspicion of something, at least you’d hope.

Nope. They often do it entirely randomly. I've seen videos of them pulling over multiple vehicles to be searched simultaneously at a crossing before.

Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity. However, stops and searches conducted in areas farther from the border may require at least heightened suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity to withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/ALDE_00000239/

They can do warrantless searches. Just not within the entire 100 mile border. A fair distinction, but they definitely can at the border and ports of entry, and do so routinely.

The 100 miles extends inward from the exterior border, not around every airport. But every international airport is a port of entry over which they have jurisdiction and can perform warrantless searches. And, in my opinion, warrantless searches for everyone by virtue of simply entering into the country is a violation of the 4th amendment. Which is why it's bullshit and shouldn't be allowed. It can and often is abused, especially when tied to another equally (should be) unconstitutional "law", civil forfeiture, even before the bullshit policies Trump and the SCOTUS have deemed reasonable suspicion for illegal status (i.e. appearing Hispanic, speaking Spanish, displaying a flag from another nation, etc.) I'm aware of the laws, but that doesn't make them just or even constitutional.

"At a crossing" means with 100 miles of any border or port of entry. Which is about 67% of the country. It is complete bullshit of a policy.

Agreed. Also consider the duration of the time that the portal is passing over the cube. It is moving at speed, the entire way through the portal and out the other side and then it just stops dead immediately once through? That would hardly be a conservation of momentum anyway from any frame of reference and does not make any intuitive sense.

Also, not even a part of that act, but just buy virtue of an executive order, all states must register all gun owners and share that registry to a central federal body who will use knowingly outdated and massively incorrect data (and probably politically motivated bullshit as well) to automatically remove people from the registration without notification and make exercising gun ownership a felony if you're not on that registry. And any state that doesn't submit to this will have all of their citizen's ability to use federal services curtailed, and likely more punishments later like restricting federal dollars they are owed.

Heat and steam can also be a factor in a water breach. A phone that can be fully submerged into a pool of water may or may not stand up well to steam at its seams, particularly where those seams have different materials with different expansion rates due to heat, like glass and aluminum. Small gaps may open, even if invisible to the eye, and steam can seap in. It may not even be a problem immediately but get worse later when the steam cools and condensates.

The stage is finally late enough that the cracks are apparent to even Republicans huh? Took long enough.