8 ms·
Court: Feds Can't Just Grab Someone's Laptop at the Border
- pluma 11y agoIf I'm reading this correctly, this is only about grabbing someone's laptop when they are leaving the country. Does this in any way affect people who are entering the country?
- logfromblammo 11y agoGiven the words "unique circumstances of this case," it is unlikely that this decision was intended to set precedent for anything. It would appear that the court reiterates that searches and seizures at the border needed to be supported by reasonable suspicion, and the examination needed to be limited in scope and duration. It seems like nothing in the statement would stop them from seizing your laptop for two months just because it has a BSD Beastie or a Linux Tux sticker on it. Remember, the suspicion only has to be reasonable to them.
- discardorama 11y agoWill this stop the next Border Patrol person from grabbing a laptop? Most definitely not. They can grab it, and then let the defendant wind his way through the courts. This isn't new, by the way; I remember going back all the way to Steve Jackson Games[1] that the government will seize the stuff willy-nilly, and then let you fight it out in the courts. Violations of our basic rights will continue until there is tangible punishment for an LEO for doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._U...
- chillingeffect 11y agoThis is some of the best news, with the longest-ranging results that I've heard in a long time. > Most definitely not. It depends how information about this case gets disseminated. The sooner and wider it spreads, the more unacceptable it will be for rogue agents to overstep the law. After all, citizens can now sue for damages accrued while traveling without the laptop.
- LordKano 11y agoI still agree with the GP's point. Unless there is some penalty to be paid by the officers for breaking the rules, the abuses will continue. If they start having to pay damages out of their personal assets or getting sent home without pay, they'll get the message. Until that happens, the status quo will continue.
- infinite8s 11y agoThey get sent home with pay when they shoot an unarmed person - I doubt anything will happen if they seize a laptop without justification.
- pluma 11y agoYou may think that, but unless the effect actually travels down the chain of command, nothing will change. Right now, it's probably beneficial or at least harmless for an LEO to seize a laptop without a justification that holds up in court. The same goes for their superior allowing or outright instructing them to do so. And so forth all the way up the chain. There is no direct impact on the LEO who does it from the court decision that it was unjustified. Unless they or their superiors (or someone higher up the chain) are personally held accountable, why should anything change? It's not a problem with individuals. It's a systemic problem and it needs a systemic solution. There have to be disincentives for someone at some level. Damages paid by the state don't cut it (unless those damages add up to a number high enough for someone to get annoyed by them).
- aluhut 11y ago- "Sir could you please let us look in your laptop?" - "No." - "Alright. Please follow Officer Bob over here.", he said pointing to the huge guy who just started putting on a fresh pair of rubber gloves. - "NEXT!" - "Sir could you please let us look in your laptop?"
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- baseballmerpeak 11y agoI agree. The government is terrible about doing first and then asking the courts for forgiveness, er, permission,
- atom-morgan 11y agoI'm dealing with this right now. A cop wrote me a ticket for not having proof of insurance when it isn't a law in my state to carry it. DMV.org even says LEOs have access to a database where they can look up insurance. But now I have to deal with going to court and I imagine I'll still pay a fine.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- athenot 11y agoSome states require that you give them "insurance information" which is different than proof of imagination. Basically, they what the key to do the lookup in the DB by policy ID because their tables are not quite joined the right way... :)
- knd775 11y agoReally? In my state (Virginia), officers have to write the number or whatever of the statute that you are breaking when writing a ticket. Is there anything like that in your state?
- atom-morgan 11y agoNope.
- DannyBee 11y agoSince folks seem confused here: The feds can still grab your laptop at the border, temporarily, and search it, despite the techdirt headline. There are a lot of court decisions that say they can, and none of those have been changed. What happened here is A. he was leaving the country, not entering it. B. they confiscated his laptop for an extended period of time, moved it, searched it, etc. "It is true that Kim’s laptop was seized at the border – in this case, LAX – but it was not even opened, much less searched, there. It was transported approximately 150 miles to San Diego, it was retained for a limited period of time, and eventually, the laptop was returned." They can't do that :)
- mikeash 11y agoYour point A confuses me a great deal. In my experience with international flights, there's no border crossing as you leave, you just go through security as usual, sit around in an airport terminal that's usually shared with people taking domestic flights, then get on your plane. With the exception of a few airports with special arrangements, you hit customs after you land. Does LAX have something weird here, or was he literally just sitting in an airport lounge along with people flying to Chicago or Houston or Kansas City and they seized his stuff "at the border" just because he was going to board an international flight? That seems completely mad.
- ebiggs 11y agoAt large airports most, if not all, domestic flights are not serviced in the international terminal for the very reason that once you're past security in the international terminal you are going to be subject to customs and border protection if you were to leave that secure area (recall departure and arrival share the same secure space)
- mikeash 11y agoIn my experience this is extremely rare. I've flown into a lot of airports internationally over the years (offhand, Dulles, O'Hare, JFK, Paris de Gaulle, London Stansted, Heathrow, Madrid, Beijing, Cancun, Tokyo, maybe one or two more that I'm forgetting) and I don't think I've ever seen a situation like you describe. Madrid might have been like that, I can't quite recall, but the rest definitely weren't. Instead, you get offloaded into a special area that's only for international arrivals, where your only exit is through customs. Usually this is accomplished with a clever arrangement of locking doors, so that the same gate can then be used for boarding passengers without moving the plane. Is LAX different?
- Delmania 11y ago> They can grab it, and then let the defendant wind his way through the courts Which is the point, by the way; most LEOs know people would rather pay a fine than deal with court.
- joering2 11y agoExactly. I don't travel much international, like twice a year, but know dates in advance. I clone my drive and ship image encrypted ahead of my trip. I travel with laptop without hard drive in it. This is of course, inconvenience, but not illegal. Many times they will ask me to "turn it on" to make sure this is not a bomb disguised as a laptop, but you don't need a hard drive to have BIOS flash on your screen.
- paublyrne 11y agoThat does seem very inconvenient, and unnecessary.
- tajen 11y agoTonight someone invited me to give a talk at his business conference in NYC in front of 80 potential customers. I refused. I don't travel to US: - I have porn on my computer, obviously not underage but what am I supposed to say if the border agent asks me "Is this subject underage?" - I use a false name on Facebook. This is impersonation against an american interest. - I've downloaded torrents. Even if I delete the files, I'm pretty sure there are footprints everywhere. Pretty sure there's jail time for piracy, and being my third offense in this list, I'm pretty sure it could be considered as a repeat offense. There's a reason why we have a right to privacy. It's because everyone has very fluid limits on things that are forbidden, and everyone, including elected officials, breaks them. But not everyone is punished. So I'd rather not cross the US border.
- dcole2929 11y agoReminds me of how the DOJ keeps dropping cases anytime someone questions their sting ray tech. Seems like moving forward, the DOJ, is going to try their hardest to keep any of these cases from ever getting appealed anywhere near the supreme court. Even if it costs them a few cases here or there.
- abalashov 11y agoUnfortunately, this case carries no implications for arbitrary search and seizure (in many cases with no return of hardware and no recourse) of computers on arrival to the US. That has been the major point of controversy, vide Jacob Appelbaum.
- jayess 11y agoThe court's order suppressing the search has more detail on the situation and the government's arguments: https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/dcd/159072/42-0.html https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/dcd/159072/42-0.h... "The search of the laptop began well after Kim had already departed, and it was conducted approximately 150 miles away from the airport. The government engaged in an extensive examination of the entire contents of Kim’s hard drive after it had already been secured, and it accorded itself unlimited time to do so. There was little or no reason to suspect that criminal activity was afoot at the time Kim was about to cross the border, and there was little about this search – neither its location nor its scope and duration – that resembled a routine search at the border. The fundamental inquiry required under the Fourth Amendment is whether the invasion of the defendant’s right to privacy in his papers and effects was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and the Court finds that it was not."
- godgod 11y agoAnd yet the feds will CONTINUE to do it.
- GrinningFool 11y agoThe headline is misleading, and I shouldn't be surprised that techdirt didn't explore the language being used: > After considering all of the facts and authorities set > forth above, then, the Court finds, under the totality of > the unique circumstances of this case, that the imaging > and search of the entire contents of Kim’s laptop, aided > by specialized forensic software, for a period of > unlimited duration and an examination of unlimited scope, > for the purpose of gathering evidence in a pre-existing > investigation, was supported by so little suspicion of > ongoing or imminent criminal activity, and was so > invasive of Kim’s privacy and so disconnected from not > only the considerations underlying the breadth of the > government’s authority to search at the border, but also > the border itself, that it was unreasonable. Unless I'm reading it wrong, this is a very narrow ruling that can't really be used as precedent for other situations. In this one unique case, DHS was told they were not justified in their actions. There's nothing in this language that says other seizures, in other circumstances, are not acceptable.
- booruguru 11y agoThat run-on sentence would have made my high school English teacher weep.
- monochromatic 11y agoIt's actually not a run-on. It's certainly a poor sentence though.
- Spoom 11y agoPlus, DHS specifically dropped their case in response, probably so that precedent could not be established.