Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The Fifth Amendment states "no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". The Supreme Court, in US v. Miranda, ruled it unconstitutional for law enforcement officials to force a person to answer police questions, though ID may certainly be required.
CBP forces incoming persons to answer their questions on a daily basis. You don't answer, they get to hassle you. Under the 5th Amendment, is this illegal?
The 5th Amendment only prohibits a refusal to answer questions from being used against you in a criminal proceeding.
Civil consequences, like denying entry to a non-U.S. citizen, or subjecting a person in a place where they are subject to search to a more thorough search, or seizing assets like large amounts of cash that are not explained, as a consequence of not answering questions, are not prohibited by the 5th Amendment.
More accurately, while you have a right as a citizen to enter the country, that does not mean border patrol cannot question you and, as stated above, if they opt to search you as a result - or as a result of some entirely different reason - they may. The difference between the correct answer and the ones offered above is that those operate under the false notion that if something is a right that means you can do that thing whenever you want, without limitations.
This is a misunderstanding of U.S. Constitutional law as well as the very basic rights we enjoy as humans. Being part of a society governed by the rule of law, there are certainly many things citizens are entitled to possess, receive, or do. However, the society agrees to cede a varying fraction of each of their rights to the collective with the recognition that nearly all of those things will be subject to limitation should a member of the society behave in an objectionable manner.
This is why we have laws that say you will be locked in a cell for many years (and in some cases, killed) if you kill someone. That does not mean you don't have the right to walk down the street. It means the extent to which people are allowed to exercise their rights have limitations. Limiting rights does not render them no longer rights.
That said, traveling is fundamental right. Under the Fifth Amendment, a citizen's liberty is protected in the clause which states, in part,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The idea put forth above that the Fifth Amendment is
much more narrow than you think
is out of left field and wholly false. To the contrary,
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does as much work as any provision in the Constitution. The Clause requires fundamental procedural fairness for those facing the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The Clause also has been interpreted to place substantive limits on governmental authority
Obviously, denial of a passport does not mean that a right to travel is no longer a right. Bans on American citizens have been overturned as unconstitutional or upheld under the court's "rational basis" test. Cases include Aptheker (re: Cuba) and Zemel.
You have to prove that you're a US citizen. That might mean answering questions about your citizenship.
Otherwise, no, you don't have to answer their other questions like "What were you doing in Venezuela?" "Who paid for your trip?" "What do you do for a living?", etc.
I have refused to answer on several occasions. It usually means being referred to secondary inspection, where they will stamp their feet a bit and threaten to hold you there until you answer. Then they just let you go.
The US constitution grants its citizens the right to free travel within and without the United States of America: like all such rights they can be lost through due process of law. These include:
The applicant is in arrears on child support. The Secretary of Health and Human Services child support database is checked before the approval of any passport application.
The applicant has been deemed incompetent by a court of law and/or committed to a mental institution by a court of law.
The applicant has warrants for arrest or court orders or subpoenas on record requiring the applicant to remain in the U.S., including orders from the United States Armed Forces, or the applicant is on parole or probation and a condition of that parole or probation prohibits leaving the U.S. or the court’s jurisdiction. The Marshals Service WIN database is checked before a passport is issued.
The applicant or the applicant’s family has received federal loans for: repatriation of the applicant and/or the applicant's family members from a foreign country, emergency medical attention, dietary supplements and/or evacuation of the applicant and/or the applicant's family from a foreign country to the United States.
The applicant was denied a passport previously or had a passport revoked, unless the applicant can prove sufficient change of circumstances.
The applicant is deemed to be a threat to national security of the United States. The applicant was arrested and convicted for either a felony or misdemeanor related to the manufacture, distribution, or possession of a controlled substance involving the use of a U.S. passport.
A foreign country has requested the applicant be extradited, or if the U.S. Department of State is advised the applicant has a warrant out for arrest for a felony in another country.
For foreign nationals, of course, all bets are off and the government can deny entry for any (or no) reason subject to any treaty arrangements that are part of US law.
Further, the ambit of the fifth amendment is much more narrow than you think: it only applies to self-incrimination in criminal matters. Many of the questions CBP asks would not implicate you criminally, like "Why should we let you in?" you cannot claim the fifth. You can refuse to answer, of course, and they can refuse to admit you if you do so.
