4 ms·

"Reasonable suspicion" is a legal term. In this context, a CBP officer would need to have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the item to be

by Zak 8y ago

"Reasonable suspicion" is a legal term. In this context, a CBP officer would need to have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the item to be searched is illegal to bring into the country, or contains something that is illegal to bring into the country. A hunch is not sufficient; it requires objective evidence. Reasonable suspicion is not required for every search at a border crossing, and the Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing. The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case, and has ruled that it is required.

mamon 8y ago
Exept borders (and anything within 100 miles from it) are basically a zone where US Constitution does not apply. You can be detained and sent to Guantanamo for made up "terrirst threat" and there's no really a legal recourse.
jandrese 8y ago
That only applies if the case goes to trial though. Border guards frequently assume that they have near unlimited power regardless of what the law says.
- Zak 8y ago
  The fundamental problem is that there are rarely consequences for border guards exceeding or misusing their power. The incentives support them trying to exceed legal limits on their authority.
maximilianroos 8y ago
> Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing Did Cotterman 2013 clear this up? How does are circuit courts split yet the 9th assumed jurisdiction?
- Zak 8y ago
  The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case because it happened in California. US v. Cotterman is the relevant case, and the 4th circuit made a similar ruling in US v. Kolsuz, but the 11th circuit held differently in US v. Touset. So in some parts of the US, reasonable suspicion is required. In some parts, it isn't. In some parts, there is no binding precedent on the issue. It's likely that the supreme court will hear a case on the issue eventually.

by Zak 8y ago

mamon 8y ago

Exept borders (and anything within 100 miles from it) are basically a zone where US Constitution does not apply. You can be detained and sent to Guantanamo for made up "terrirst threat" and there's no really a legal recourse.

jandrese 8y ago

That only applies if the case goes to trial though. Border guards frequently assume that they have near unlimited power regardless of what the law says.

Zak 8y ago
The fundamental problem is that there are rarely consequences for border guards exceeding or misusing their power. The incentives support them trying to exceed legal limits on their authority.

maximilianroos 8y ago

> Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing Did Cotterman 2013 clear this up? How does are circuit courts split yet the 9th assumed jurisdiction?

Zak 8y ago
The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case because it happened in California. US v. Cotterman is the relevant case, and the 4th circuit made a similar ruling in US v. Kolsuz, but the 11th circuit held differently in US v. Touset. So in some parts of the US, reasonable suspicion is required. In some parts, it isn't. In some parts, there is no binding precedent on the issue. It's likely that the supreme court will hear a case on the issue eventually.