10 ms·

Exactly. It's your constitutional right as a US citizen to tell any Law Enforcement agent to go fuck themselves. 1. They need a warrant to search your phone if

Exactly. It's your constitutional right as a US citizen to tell any Law Enforcement agent to go fuck themselves. 1. They need a warrant to search your phone if you don't voluntary give them access. 2. Even if they have a warrant, you can plead 5th and just not give them the pin. The American way is all about not trusting the government, believing in conspiracy theories, and stocking up on ammo.

theoh 10y ago
Believing in conspiracy theories is, ironically, a way of attributing more power to the state/elite than it actually has. You're celebrating pathological thinking, especially when you claim that stocking up on ammo contributes to the functioning of a nation (in the loosest sense of "nation"). The days of militias are long gone.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > The days of militias are long gone. That's an interesting position, considering my state is still funding an organized state militia: http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/ http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/
daurnimator 10y ago
IIRC if you are within 100 miles of the (actual) border or an international airport then are you considered to be entering/leaving the US and can be searched without a warrant. https://www.wired.com/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/ https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Remember that the ACLU is a political organization and has its own spin on things. Just like any other org like the EFF, NRA, etc. In this case, the ACLU article on this topic is weasel worded and needs to be read carefully so you can seperate implication from fact.
  - gcb0 10y ago
    can you point to an example?
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      In the linked ACLU post, the 2nd-5th bullets are a great example. The second bullet specifically enumerates the government position on border searches. The 4th and 5th bullets detail what the Border Patrol can do away from the immediate vicinity of the border. But the 3rd bullet, which is key to the notion of the 100 mile "constitution free zone", is more mysterious. It states that Customs has "broad—though not limitless—powers" without detailing them. Many readers of this ACLU post and coverage of it have come away with a false idea that Customs and Border Protection has some magic wand. The facts are very different. Here are the referenced sections, forgive any formatting issues. > - According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle. > -Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary." > -In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints. > - Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
      - waqf 10y ago
        I don't understand your point. The fourth and fifth bullet points are intended precisely to make the third bullet point concrete. Technically they should probably have been formatted as subbullets of the third point, but other than that I don't see anything wrong. Also, your para "Many readers … The facts are very different." — not apparently backed up by any details — is exactly the kind of weasel wording you decry. In fact, I think I'm being trolled here.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
manarth 10y ago
Even if they have a warrant, you can plead 5th and just not give them the pin. And then languish in jail for a year plus? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728
- aioprisan 10y ago
  Not the same kind of case, since there was an issued warrant. This isn't the same type of case at all.
  - simonh 10y ago
    It's the same. The contention is that unlocking the phone yourself does not require actually providing your PIN. You're only being required to provide your phone in an unlocked state.
ams6110 10y ago
They do not need a warrant at the border.
- greensoap 10y ago
  Yup... there is even a case on this exact point. TLDR; drug smuggler crossed the board and went through customs. He didn't get searched. Then as he was leaving the customs area, on the U.S. side of customs, the police performed a warrant-less search. Prosecutor argued the search was legal because he was in the process of entering the country and citizens don't have a right against search upon entry to the U.S. The court said that the search would have been legal had they done the search before going through customs. But once he got through customs, the search was no longer legal as he had his 4th amendment protections at that point.
  - vegardx 10y ago
    Are you sure about this? Usually you can be stopped and searched quite far inland as long as they can prove that you recently crossed the border. This is often used to take smugglers.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      They need reasonable suspicion and a link to the crossing. For example, if you were an American, white college kid crossing the Canadian border into New York at a weird time, and behave in a manner that seems nervous or evasive, You're going to attract interest. If you start heading toward the Mohawk Indian reservation, you're going to get stopped as odds are good you're smuggling something.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
zdmc 10y ago
Nope. I was flagged for "secondary inspection" at the southern border. (Mind you, I am as white as you can get). Long story, short. I acted like a bit of an entitled jerk, and was surrounded by 15 CBP agents, had my head slammed on a metal table, cuffed, phone and wallet taken, and then I was taken to a windowless room (with a couple of older Hispanic guys who I remember thinking could be "disappeared" fairly easily without anyone knowing). I asked for my phone to make a call, but was denied. When I demanded rights, an agent told me that they didn't apply at the border and referred me to some Patriot Act notices on the wall. I felt powerless, and completely at their mercy. The agents told me that they would be searching my car without me authorizing it or being present (I remember thinking that they could plant something and notify CHP to pick me up a few miles up the road). After discussing things with the supervisor, I was let go but had my SENTRI pass revoked. Later, I contacted some lawyers who all advised that at the border, I didn't have the same rights, and that I had no case of any sort. Now, I am grateful it happened to me (because I stopped acting like an entitled asshole), but it left me feeling a whole lot less free, and it makes me feel more uncomfortable to travel internationally, which is a shame.
- mozumder 10y ago
  You are correct that you pretty much have no rights at the border. The moment you step outside the US, you can be killed by US a drone strike, or the CPB agent can simply shoot you if they wish. It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years.
  - cema 10y ago
    2-4 years is extremely optimistic, but I think this is an issue that (finally) has drawn more attention than usual, so there is a chance there will be some work towards its resolution.
  - portpecos 10y ago
    >It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years. Why didn't Obama do anything about it?
bigbugbag 10y ago
That not applicable at the US borders.

theoh 10y ago

Believing in conspiracy theories is, ironically, a way of attributing more power to the state/elite than it actually has. You're celebrating pathological thinking, especially when you claim that stocking up on ammo contributes to the functioning of a nation (in the loosest sense of "nation"). The days of militias are long gone.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
> The days of militias are long gone. That's an interesting position, considering my state is still funding an organized state militia: http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/ http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/

daurnimator 10y ago

IIRC if you are within 100 miles of the (actual) border or an international airport then are you considered to be entering/leaving the US and can be searched without a warrant. https://www.wired.com/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/ https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

Spooky23 10y ago
Remember that the ACLU is a political organization and has its own spin on things. Just like any other org like the EFF, NRA, etc. In this case, the ACLU article on this topic is weasel worded and needs to be read carefully so you can seperate implication from fact.
- gcb0 10y ago
  can you point to an example?
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    In the linked ACLU post, the 2nd-5th bullets are a great example. The second bullet specifically enumerates the government position on border searches. The 4th and 5th bullets detail what the Border Patrol can do away from the immediate vicinity of the border. But the 3rd bullet, which is key to the notion of the 100 mile "constitution free zone", is more mysterious. It states that Customs has "broad—though not limitless—powers" without detailing them. Many readers of this ACLU post and coverage of it have come away with a false idea that Customs and Border Protection has some magic wand. The facts are very different. Here are the referenced sections, forgive any formatting issues. > - According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle. > -Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary." > -In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints. > - Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
    - waqf 10y ago
      I don't understand your point. The fourth and fifth bullet points are intended precisely to make the third bullet point concrete. Technically they should probably have been formatted as subbullets of the third point, but other than that I don't see anything wrong. Also, your para "Many readers … The facts are very different." — not apparently backed up by any details — is exactly the kind of weasel wording you decry. In fact, I think I'm being trolled here.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

manarth 10y ago

Even if they have a warrant, you can plead 5th and just not give them the pin. And then languish in jail for a year plus? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13629728

aioprisan 10y ago
Not the same kind of case, since there was an issued warrant. This isn't the same type of case at all.
- simonh 10y ago
  It's the same. The contention is that unlocking the phone yourself does not require actually providing your PIN. You're only being required to provide your phone in an unlocked state.

ams6110 10y ago

They do not need a warrant at the border.

greensoap 10y ago
Yup... there is even a case on this exact point. TLDR; drug smuggler crossed the board and went through customs. He didn't get searched. Then as he was leaving the customs area, on the U.S. side of customs, the police performed a warrant-less search. Prosecutor argued the search was legal because he was in the process of entering the country and citizens don't have a right against search upon entry to the U.S. The court said that the search would have been legal had they done the search before going through customs. But once he got through customs, the search was no longer legal as he had his 4th amendment protections at that point.
- vegardx 10y ago
  Are you sure about this? Usually you can be stopped and searched quite far inland as long as they can prove that you recently crossed the border. This is often used to take smugglers.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    They need reasonable suspicion and a link to the crossing. For example, if you were an American, white college kid crossing the Canadian border into New York at a weird time, and behave in a manner that seems nervous or evasive, You're going to attract interest. If you start heading toward the Mohawk Indian reservation, you're going to get stopped as odds are good you're smuggling something.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

zdmc 10y ago

Nope. I was flagged for "secondary inspection" at the southern border. (Mind you, I am as white as you can get). Long story, short. I acted like a bit of an entitled jerk, and was surrounded by 15 CBP agents, had my head slammed on a metal table, cuffed, phone and wallet taken, and then I was taken to a windowless room (with a couple of older Hispanic guys who I remember thinking could be "disappeared" fairly easily without anyone knowing). I asked for my phone to make a call, but was denied. When I demanded rights, an agent told me that they didn't apply at the border and referred me to some Patriot Act notices on the wall. I felt powerless, and completely at their mercy. The agents told me that they would be searching my car without me authorizing it or being present (I remember thinking that they could plant something and notify CHP to pick me up a few miles up the road). After discussing things with the supervisor, I was let go but had my SENTRI pass revoked. Later, I contacted some lawyers who all advised that at the border, I didn't have the same rights, and that I had no case of any sort. Now, I am grateful it happened to me (because I stopped acting like an entitled asshole), but it left me feeling a whole lot less free, and it makes me feel more uncomfortable to travel internationally, which is a shame.

mozumder 10y ago
You are correct that you pretty much have no rights at the border. The moment you step outside the US, you can be killed by US a drone strike, or the CPB agent can simply shoot you if they wish. It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years.
- cema 10y ago
  2-4 years is extremely optimistic, but I think this is an issue that (finally) has drawn more attention than usual, so there is a chance there will be some work towards its resolution.
- portpecos 10y ago
  >It's a broken hole in our system that needs to change, but don't expect any change for at least 2-4 years. Why didn't Obama do anything about it?

bigbugbag 10y ago

That not applicable at the US borders.