CONCORD, N.H. — A federal lawsuit filed by ACLU affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont challenges the use of checkpoints by the U.S. Border Patrol nearly 100 miles from the Canadian border, saying they are beyond the patrol’s authority.
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in New Hampshire on behalf of Jesse Drewniak, of Hudson, New Hampshire, who was one of a group of people stopped at an August 2017 checkpoint in Woodstock, along Interstate 93.
“I found the checkpoint to be terrifying and dehumanizing,” Drewniak, a U.S. citizen, said in a statement. He was coming home from a fly-fishing trip to the White Mountains at the time.

Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said the the interior checkpoints are being used “as a ruse to unlawfully search and seize people for the purpose of general crime control.”
The lawsuit follows a 2017 case in which 16 people at the Woodstock checkpoint were charged with a violation-level offense of possessing small amounts of drugs, including Drewniak. A judge concluded the primary purpose of the checkpoint was the detection and seizure of drugs, making it “unconstitutional under both state and federal law.” Prosecutors later dismissed the charges.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said Tuesday as a matter of policy, the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less