5 ms·

Certain rights not being fully applicable != No rights

by testvox 8y ago

iamthirsty 8y ago
Well the thread is about search & seizure, so you pretty much have no rights in that respect anywhere near the border.
- rootw0rm 8y ago
  "anywhere near" ~ 60 miles the border patrol checkpoint where San Diego county ends and Riverside county begins is around 60 miles from the border
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Last I heard, and, according to the article linked up thread from the ACLU, it was 100 miles. Two thirds of Americans, and many entire state populations live within this zone.
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      Theoretically, though, within that area they need probable cause to believe you either recently crossed the border or committed a crime to search you. We all know how easy PC is to manufacture though.
      - jellicle 8y ago
        > need probable cause Not according to the Supreme Court, no.
        MertsA 8y ago
        No he's right, he's not talking about just asking if you're a citizen. Before CBP can search and seize your property they require probable cause. They have plenty of drug dogs available to come up with any "probable cause" necessary.
        jellicle 8y ago
        Sigh. No, he's wrong, and you are too. If you come up to a Border Patrol checkpoint at the border or within 100 miles of the border, the Border Patrol can search your car and all your personal belongings. They can seize anything that appears to be contraband or evidence of a crime. Full stop, end of sentence, no probable cause required. Completely legal for the border guards to tear down EVERY SINGLE CAR that crosses the border (or a checkpoint within 100 miles of the border). If you don't like it blame the Supreme Court: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Border searches in the US have never required probable cause.
        InitialLastName 8y ago
        According to [0]: Border Patrol cannot search the interior of a vehicle without the owner’s consent or “probable cause” (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred). Who's wrong, you or the ACLU? [0]https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/a...
  - jellicle 8y ago
    It's a couple hundred meters from the western border of the USA. Which as a thought experiment shows that the 100 miles is not the real problem; a great deal of hassle can occur even if checks were limited to a single mile from the border.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  The original motion makes a more nuanced argument than this thread gives credit for. In particular, the motion does not claim that border searches in general are unconstitutional. It makes a much finer scoped claim that: without individualized criminal suspicion, the off-site search of an electronic device taken at a border is unconstitutional. No such suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity existed in the case of Ms. Lazoja giving rise to reasonable suspicion to search and seize her property. Consequently, neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms. Lazoja’s property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment. To make this argument, the motion mentions some precedent. Most notably was United States v. Kim (page 12): In Kim, where DHS agents seized a laptop computer at Los Angeles International Airport and later sent it to a laboratory to be copied and searched, the district court found that the lengthy post-seizure retention of a laptop at a second site, outside the airport, “did not possess the characteristics of a border search or other regular inspection procedures,” and that it “more resembled the common nonborder search based on individualized suspicion, which must be prefaced by the usual warrant and probable cause standards.” Id. at 58 (citing United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1976)). The court in Kim questioned whether the seizure and imaging of a laptop at the border “can accurately be characterized as a border search at all.” And furthermore that doing so for a cell-phone is particularly egregious; recent supreme court cases strengthen the argument that if we're going to protect laptops then we certainly need to protect cellphones (page 13): The Supreme Court recently expanded the categorically heightened privacy interests in data located on cell phones, specifically addressing cell phones’ location data. The motion also makes auxiliary arguments about retention and duration: even if the border search was constitutional, shipping the device off to a lab was not constitutional without a warrant. And even if shipping the device to a lab was constitutional, retaining it for so long was not constitutional. And even if retaining the device for so long was constitutional, retaining the data indefinitely is not constitutional. At least, not without warrants.

Certain rights not being fully applicable != No rights

iamthirsty 8y ago

Well the thread is about search & seizure, so you pretty much have no rights in that respect anywhere near the border.

rootw0rm 8y ago
"anywhere near" ~ 60 miles the border patrol checkpoint where San Diego county ends and Riverside county begins is around 60 miles from the border
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Last I heard, and, according to the article linked up thread from the ACLU, it was 100 miles. Two thirds of Americans, and many entire state populations live within this zone.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    Theoretically, though, within that area they need probable cause to believe you either recently crossed the border or committed a crime to search you. We all know how easy PC is to manufacture though.
    - jellicle 8y ago
      > need probable cause Not according to the Supreme Court, no.
      - MertsA 8y ago
        No he's right, he's not talking about just asking if you're a citizen. Before CBP can search and seize your property they require probable cause. They have plenty of drug dogs available to come up with any "probable cause" necessary.
        jellicle 8y ago
        Sigh. No, he's wrong, and you are too. If you come up to a Border Patrol checkpoint at the border or within 100 miles of the border, the Border Patrol can search your car and all your personal belongings. They can seize anything that appears to be contraband or evidence of a crime. Full stop, end of sentence, no probable cause required. Completely legal for the border guards to tear down EVERY SINGLE CAR that crosses the border (or a checkpoint within 100 miles of the border). If you don't like it blame the Supreme Court: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Border searches in the US have never required probable cause.
        InitialLastName 8y ago
        According to [0]: Border Patrol cannot search the interior of a vehicle without the owner’s consent or “probable cause” (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred). Who's wrong, you or the ACLU? [0]https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/a...
- jellicle 8y ago
  It's a couple hundred meters from the western border of the USA. Which as a thought experiment shows that the 100 miles is not the real problem; a great deal of hassle can occur even if checks were limited to a single mile from the border.
throwawayjava 8y ago
The original motion makes a more nuanced argument than this thread gives credit for. In particular, the motion does not claim that border searches in general are unconstitutional. It makes a much finer scoped claim that: without individualized criminal suspicion, the off-site search of an electronic device taken at a border is unconstitutional. No such suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity existed in the case of Ms. Lazoja giving rise to reasonable suspicion to search and seize her property. Consequently, neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms. Lazoja’s property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment. To make this argument, the motion mentions some precedent. Most notably was United States v. Kim (page 12): In Kim, where DHS agents seized a laptop computer at Los Angeles International Airport and later sent it to a laboratory to be copied and searched, the district court found that the lengthy post-seizure retention of a laptop at a second site, outside the airport, “did not possess the characteristics of a border search or other regular inspection procedures,” and that it “more resembled the common nonborder search based on individualized suspicion, which must be prefaced by the usual warrant and probable cause standards.” Id. at 58 (citing United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 1976)). The court in Kim questioned whether the seizure and imaging of a laptop at the border “can accurately be characterized as a border search at all.” And furthermore that doing so for a cell-phone is particularly egregious; recent supreme court cases strengthen the argument that if we're going to protect laptops then we certainly need to protect cellphones (page 13): The Supreme Court recently expanded the categorically heightened privacy interests in data located on cell phones, specifically addressing cell phones’ location data. The motion also makes auxiliary arguments about retention and duration: even if the border search was constitutional, shipping the device off to a lab was not constitutional without a warrant. And even if shipping the device to a lab was constitutional, retaining it for so long was not constitutional. And even if retaining the device for so long was constitutional, retaining the data indefinitely is not constitutional. At least, not without warrants.