5 ms·
> They can hold your stuff indefinitely, so be prepared to lose it if you go this route CBP do need reasonable suspicion to hold you belongings or do a forensi
by maximilianroos 8y ago
> They can hold your stuff indefinitely, so be prepared to lose it if you go this route
CBP do need reasonable suspicion to hold you belongings or do a forensic search of your computer (Cotterman 2013) - they can't just randomly take things on a whim. The longer they hold it, the higher standard required.
- blunte 8y agoLaws and precedent are one thing, but "law enforcement" behavior is another. You might indeed get your stuff back, but they can make it unreasonably difficult, expensive (in legal fees), or time consuming if they want.
- maximilianroos 8y agoYes. The courts will suppress any evidence that's not gathered legally, but aside from that, officers' qualified immunity protects them from all but the most obvious infringements
- geofft 8y agoDoes refusing to unlock your devices trigger a reasonable suspicion? (In Cotterman, it sounds like the Ninth Circuit said reasonable suspicion was required, but also decided on its own - despite it not being argued by the government - that an alert from a CBP database about Cotterman's previous conviction justified a search. Which seems reasonable to me, as a layperson, I thin.)
- maximilianroos 8y agoOfficers need articulable facts for reasonable suspicion. Not consenting to a search is explicitly not grounds for reasonable suspicion here or in any other context
- renholder 8y ago>Cotterman's previous conviction justified a search ...and there you have it: He's done something wrong in the past, so - of course - he must be doing something bad now - forever and always!
- everdrive 8y agoI strongly suspect that CBP's "strong suspicion" is equivalent to a HN poster's "whim." I'm not insulting either party, however when anything similar to this debate plays out, parties talk past each other on this sort of disagreement.
- maximilianroos 8y agoReasonable suspicion is a legal standard that requires articulable facts, not a whim. Courts regularly hold that officers didn't obtain it. For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
- everdrive 8y agoI agree -- and apologies, I might not have made my point very well. A different way to phrase it might be: The officers and the suspects disagree about what a reasonable suspicion might entail. Given the incentives, I don't think this is surprising. I'll admit, my point in no way addresses yours -- how often are officers adhering the the specific legal standard?
- maximilianroos 8y agoFor sure, I agree I'm really not sure how often officers violate the standard; it wouldn't shock me if it were frequent But when they do, courts will suppress the evidence, and anything that's obtained from knowledge gained in that search ("fruit of the poisoned tree"). I trust that mechanism. And think it's likely better held in the US than literally any other country (v open to evidence to the contrary though)
- dragonwriter 8y ago> But when they do, courts will suppress the evidence Not if the violation was done in “good faith”: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_excl...
- coldtea 8y agoOr else? They get some slap of the wrist? I don't think that will discourage them to call any whim "reasonable suspicion".
- sneak 8y agoThey can still take it, illegally, and then you have to spend thousands and weeks (and have to stay in the US for those weeks) suing them to get it back.