13 ms·

A U.S. Citizen Was Detained While Trying to Pay for a Gift for His Daughter

95 points by jbegley 7y ago

isostatic 7y ago
So much for the 4th amendment. It seems that most of america only cares about the second.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gnode 7y ago
  You don't get the 2nd amendment at the border either.
  - coldcode 7y ago
    I don't believe many of the things the border patrol does is actually intended in law. They like to claim it is, even bring out all sorts of papers, but in reality its stretching the whole idea so far it wraps around space-time. Border inspections were written in the constitution to support finding people who are avoiding duties and tariffs.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    If the 2nd ammendment didn't apply at "The Border" (aka the 100 mile wide 'constitution free zone'), then perhaps there wouldn't be such a zone https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/public/wysiwyg/constitutionfreezonemap.jpg https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/...
    - gnode 7y ago
      It's actually worse than this; this map neglects the zones around international airports.
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        IIRC they asked for those but they didn't get them because the other federal law enforcement gangs didn't want their turf encroached on. Did that change?
- elmerfud 7y ago
  I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment but there is one very vocal organization and subgroup that does. It attempts to defend it against any abridgment no matter how minor or what others cite as "reasonable". The problem isn't the NRA's and gun owners staunch defense of the second amendment it's wondering why people aren't more inclined to defend the fourth amendment. Too many people accept the incremental abridgment of our constitutional protections because they seem "reasonable". Never looking forward to what the long term outcome will be. Instead of being critical of the tenacity of how the second is defended, tenaciously defending the others would be a good use of energy. Every protection should be fought like the NRA fights gun control, but it's easier point and blame than build up. NRA expenses $423 million ACLU budget $235 million Considering only 43% of US households own guns, and 100% use the 4th amendment we can that there's a huge number of apathetic people for you to motivate instead of tearing down something else. Go ahead and down vote because it's easier than reading the numbers and doing something. This is why we are in this problem.
  - briandear 7y ago
    > I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment Citation needed.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    It's not as if NRA are supported by taxes. If they're spending enough defending 2A, that just leaves the rest of us to defend the rest of the Constitution. ACLU, EFF, etc. take donations...
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    As a rule, I downvote people who as for it because I don't like the attempt at manipulation, like you're somehow disarming or pre-empting people who would've downvoted you for their own reasons instead of the condescending one you offer.
    - elmerfud 7y ago
      I edited my post and added the last part because it was being down voted. You're not always the first to read something. There's nothing condescending in my post, if you read it that way then it is a reflection of you and your perceptions. It's a very simple point. You can point at others and whine that why do they have such staunch supporters, because all you can to is teardown, or you view as an incentive to motivate getting everyone more involved and passionate about defending all of the other freedoms with the same tenacity. It's clear you fall in to the teardown ideology.
- jascii 7y ago
  There are specific legal exemptions to the 4th amendment for the CBP, allowing them to do searches when crossing the border. The question here is if these exemptions apply, as the person in question was not crossing the border.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Those exemptions (which existed as you describe them for quite a while) were widened after 9/11 to give them those same powers when interacting with anyone within 100 miles of the board.
    - jascii 7y ago
      Interesting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). Does anyone know if/how this applies to international airports(as is the case in this story) , and/or our coasts?
- madengr 7y ago
  I’d say it is the other way around. The ACLU is an example: https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of-gun-owner/ https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of...
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Didn't the ACLU recently have a memo leak that suggested they wouldn't defend the free speech rights of people carrying guns?
    - tbyehl 7y ago
      ACLU will stop defending the right of assembly to people who intend to be armed, and their reasoning is... reasonable. They've been very active in supporting the other 1st, 4th, 14th amendment rights of gun owners and have given no indication that is changing. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
superkuh 7y ago
Sounds like the constitution free zone really is a constitution free zone. And most people in the USA live in it.
- hprotagonist 7y ago
  and by "most" we mean "at least 65%" https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p...
- refurb 7y ago
  Constitution free is hyperbole. You still have constitutional rights.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    No, it isn't hyperbole, officers of the law in these zones are given leeway to violate the fourth amendment without any of the normal exceptions (like exigent circumstances) applying. That said, it isn't usually exercised... but that sort of makes it worse since any usages of their elevated powers can be applied arbitrarily and without consistency which, IMO, is intensely worrying in a country where incarceration rates by race are so wildly out of balance with population proportions.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      It is hyperbole, because the situation missing is the nexus with the border. Driving in Queens doesn't give CBP the ability to pull you over and rip apart your car. Picking up someone at JFK may give them the ability for them to do so on the way home.
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Except it actually does, they probably won't exercise that ability frequently, but they have the power to do that without any inherent legal restrictions or conditions. A CBP officer could yank you out of your car on the cross bronx expressway and then search the vehicle top to bottom and your legal recourse would be to hope that CBP feels bad and reimburses you somehow, you would be owed no legal damages because it isn't illegal. This isn't hyperbole, it's actually that ridiculous.
ahbyb 7y ago
It does not even include the name of the citizen. How do we know this is not just fiction?
- magashna 7y ago
  Why would they name and quote several lawyers then?
- LocalH 7y ago
  CBP has been infamous for asserting that the Constitution doesn't apply at all in these border areas. I wouldn't put it past the government to harass this person further, so I don't blame the person for not wanting their name in the public sphere (even still, they might harass him, I'm sure there are enough details in the story for them to identify him).
  - coldcode 7y ago
    Which is funny since they only exist because of the Constitution. So where does it says it doesn't apply to them?
    - LocalH 7y ago
      The US government has basically turned the Constitution into toilet paper, only useful when they want to pay lip service to the inherent rights of the people. Any other time, they prefer to wipe their ass with it.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-a-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-in-america/ https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-a-constitution-free...
- jascii 7y ago
  You don't know whether it's "not just fiction" nor would you if they published this citizens name. What you do know is that the author, the publication, and its editor are all willing to put their professional reputation on the line to guarantee the correctness of their reporting. That's kind of how journalism works.
fortran77 7y ago
Why do they mention Cellebrite when there's no reason to believe that they had anything to do with this story? Odd.
- thejenk 7y ago
  They mention Cellebrite because they share specific stats on how much data they can copy off a device in a given time. It's essentially used as a source for the end of the paragraph where they explain why it matters that CBP had their phones for that period.
- refurb 7y ago
  The whole article is somewhat odd. It seems to raise more questions than answers.
merlincorey 7y ago
I am not making a judgement on if this was good or bad, either way, as we do not have all the facts (especially as the border patrol declined to comment, so we only have one side). On the other hand, I think the headline and the tone of the article definitely want me to judge this as "bad" on the part of the border patrol. Indeed, I strongly believe in personal privacy and due process. However, there is a fact buried in the article that makes this a non-routine pickup indeed: """He was asked for his identification in order to pay the small duty fee for his daughter’s gifts, and only then realized that he’d left his wallet at home. When he explained this, that he’d made an honest mistake and wanted only to pay the routine duty owed and depart, he was told that in fact he wasn’t permitted to leave.""" So again, I agree in general that the privacy protections afforded to U.S. citizens are very important; but, I am not so surprised after reading this that things went sideways. It seems to me, many government agencies and employees are used to things going a certain way, and as soon as something unexpected happens, they clamp down and things can get a lot more serious. A few years ago I was flying domestically between two states, and the fancy bomb detection thing flagged me. Of course, I wasn't carrying anything remotely explosive. Nonetheless, I was taken to a back room with a supervisor and two regular homeland security agents. I was told this time they would search my bag and scan me again. If it came back negative, I would be free to go. If it came back positive, they would conduct a strip search. Thankfully, it came back negative. I nearly missed my flight, it was incredibly terrifying in the moment, but I didn't feel like my rights were violated. According to the agents, the most likely cause was that I had used hand sanitizer prior to getting in the security line. Back to the article -- personally, I'm very interested in the results of the court proceedings, but unclear how to keep track of them.
- magashna 7y ago
  What I found more interesting from other comments on this thread is that you don't have to be crossing a border, just within 100 miles of one, to be harassed in a way that would seem unconstitutional. The "65% of the population" living in this border zone area really struck me as a serious overreach. If you live in nearly every major US city you're susceptible to what OP went through it seems.
  - 7y ago
bloody-crow 7y ago
The fact that CBP can do whatever they want without a need to produce any justification is a red-flag already. I wonder if there are precedents of successfully suing them for something like this.
- riffic 7y ago
  Good luck suing the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
  - refurb 7y ago
    The Wikipedia article states the US govt waives their sovereign immunity for most issues.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      They may voluntarily do so, but they are not compelled to do so. That's a seriously big issue and a common way for tyranny to get a foothold - going against convention and tradition because they aren't legally binding while hiding in a technicality of the law. If the US government doesn't generally need sovereign immunity then it should be forced to surrender the right to exercise it or it'll be used in the worst way the first way.
      - refurb 7y ago
        Every democracy has given up nearly all their sovereign immunity with a few exceptions. I guess they could reverse that decision.
dawnerd 7y ago
So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. They're not just going to take your work for it that you 'left your id at home'. It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. How is that person supposed to know the guy didn't get off a bus (which stop there and people go inside the building) and is just saying something to get past them?
- EliRivers 7y ago
  So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. I disagree. I go to the airport (a border crossing) regularly to pick people up or drop people off and I definitely do not expect to be detained while they figure out who I am. It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive from the other country are herded, it's not at all tricky. The fact that the person he was talking to sometimes does the passport checking seems irrelevant.
  - merlincorey 7y ago
    > I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive by aircraft are herded, it's not at all tricky. This did not take place at an Airport, but rather, a Canadian/US border patrol station where according to someone else in this thread, a bus stop for border crossing exists. It seems entirely reasonable to me that those agents are more vigilant against "I totally forgot my ID at home".
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      So it did. I maintain that simply being at a border crossing should not be grounds for detaining, but I do recognise that while a competent border crossing would make it impossible for someone to simply walk into the sterile "crossing zone" (and in airports such zones are usually pretty solid), this is not exactly a department known for competency. Edit: Now that I consider it, it would seem really incompetent to just not notice which direction someone came from. This would allow people to cross the border all day with impunity. Pure speculation, but I bet they knew exactly which way he came from; they just felt like hassling some muslim looking guy without ID because they could (although I recognise that in the US, carrying a driving license everywhere seems to be a weird cultural phenomenon).
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
> The CBP officer present pressed Doe on why he had two cellphones before ordering him to hand them both over Wait why are two cellphones suspicious? Work and personal phones are super common
- wongarsu 7y ago
  Their thought was probably "personal phone for normal stuff and burner phone for illegal activities". I would argue carrying two phones (especially if one is very cheap) makes you slightly more suspicious, but it's probably not a very strong signal. Something that warrants a closer look, nothing more.
  - grawprog 7y ago
    I've seen quite a few people carrying a newer fancier phone for actual use and an older less good phone they use basically like an mp3 player.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Honestly, when warrants get involved then pretty much every objection I would have to the situation in this article gets thrown out. I would assume the warrant is issued in good faith by a judge that considered all the circumstances around the warrant and, thankfully, there are processes to correct warrants issued in bad faith and that will generally result in a fruit of the poisonous tree situation
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
campfireveteran 7y ago
15 years ago, I brought back a suitcase full of pirated DVDs and knockoff purses. Most people are better off declaring uncontroversial minimums on declarations forms rather than naively being "too honest" because they're going to cause themselves and others no end of problems trying too hard to be "honest" while simultaneously incriminating themselves by filling out forms incorrectly by not using street smarts. Carrying ID and making the bureaucrat's job easier, where possible, will lead to smoother sailing for the traveler.
- outworlder 7y ago
  What is the point you are trying to make?
- cardiffspaceman 7y ago
  Did you declare all the DVDs and purses in your "15 years ago" case? Other than that, it is not clear what you are saying is naively too honest and what goes wrong by being honest.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
annoyingnoob 7y ago
This border zone thing is pure Fascism. I live and work in a border zone and I still have rights.
- benc666 7y ago
  Gestapo in the making.
rayiner 7y ago
Textbook illustration of subtle bias: > This time, however, when he arrived at the bridge office as instructed, carrying a handwritten note from the original customs office, the man, a U.S. citizen, was detained and searched by Customs and Border Protection, he said. His phones were seized and his car rifled through. His father and cousin, who had been waiting in the vehicle, were themselves detained, ordered into the office to answer questions about their national backgrounds. The fact that the man is a US citizen is interposed into an otherwise chronological narrative to make the reader evaluate the reasonableness of the border agents’ actions against information the border agents do not have.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I agree, that part of the article is particularly poorly written - but it doesn't change the fact that there shouldn't have been such unreasonable suspicion to begin with.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  It's relevant, and pretty critical to the entire story. He wasn't traveling. He was picking up a package. The purpose of the 4th amendment to applying at border crossings is to secure the border. Everything customs did in this case should be totally and completely illegal.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The issue isn’t the relevance, but the way the fact is interjected within the otherwise chronological narrative. Imagine if the fact of his US citizenship had come at the end, when CBP was able to learn about it. The story would read very differently. How would borders work if CBP was simply required to accept people’s unsubstantiated assertion that they were citizens who just forgot their ID?
    - mindslight 7y ago
      Presumably the guy was a US citizen at the time the story began, so stating it in the title and when it's relevant is the chronological narrative. The perspective of when CBP could prove this to themselves is irrelevant if they didn't have a cause to detain in the first place.
equalunique 7y ago
The somber reality is US CBP exercises athority to do this anywhere within 100 miles of the border: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- dev_dull 7y ago
  That 100-mile border thing really bothers me, since it includes basically every major city in the US. Does anyone know if there's been any legal challenges to this ruling in court? And now an annoying aside. I really wish the ACLU was sincere in fighting this but they won't get any more of my money. I used to support the ACLU because these were the types of P1 issues they would battle. It seems in the last years it's faded to more social justice platform. Fine for them if that's what they believe are the most pressing issues of our time, but not my P1 constitutional concerns. What's the point of anything if the government can railroad your 1st and 4th amendment rights? Are there good alternatives to the ACLU of yore?
  - joeblow9999 7y ago
    the institute for justice. and they actually care about the first amendment too!
Havoc 7y ago
So who’s up for some tourism to the USA? Yeah no. Last time I had to go for work was quite unpleasant too. The border agent was a complete moron and on a power trip. Kept going on about how American citizenship law doesn’t allow dual nationality. So no sir you can’t have two passports. Which I’m pretty sure is bullshit but I’m not gonna argue with a border agent. Was really hoping that he’d be bright enough to grasp that neither of the two passports he’s holding is bloody American though.
- whiddershins 7y ago
  Why did you present two passports?
  - refurb 7y ago
    Great question!
    - Havoc 7y ago
      Answered in detail 2x in other comments in this thread. I'd directly link you but can't see a way to do so on hn
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Actually yea, when I got my second citizenship I was explicitly informed about the legal difficulties of two passports. It is somewhat advised to only ever carry one passport when abroad, but it's critical in a lot of areas, that you use the same passport whenever crossing the boards of a particular country within the same visit.
    - Havoc 7y ago
      >only ever carry one passport when abroad No that's 100% wrong and provably so (see below). You absolutely have to carry all because there are situations where you'll legally need a mix. Using my example: South African and EU passport. Suppose I'm flying from SA to Spain. Airline desk: They want the EU passport. Because they get screwed if they fly someone into the EU that has no right being there. Outbound immigration desk: Has to be SA passport. It's 100% ILLEGAL for me to present the EU one here - under fine or imprisonment Inbound in Spain: They'll want to see the EU one because the SA one doesn't have a suitable visa stamp. My "I presented both" comment is based on an observation that generally playing open cards with officials will result in them selecting the most favourable one. e.g. Iceland won't tell a German "oh we see you also have an afghan passport so you can't enter". Plus I like to play open cards. I have nothing to hide. You want to check both passports...go for it.

95 points by jbegley 7y ago

isostatic 7y ago

So much for the 4th amendment. It seems that most of america only cares about the second.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gnode 7y ago
You don't get the 2nd amendment at the border either.
- coldcode 7y ago
  I don't believe many of the things the border patrol does is actually intended in law. They like to claim it is, even bring out all sorts of papers, but in reality its stretching the whole idea so far it wraps around space-time. Border inspections were written in the constitution to support finding people who are avoiding duties and tariffs.
- isostatic 7y ago
  If the 2nd ammendment didn't apply at "The Border" (aka the 100 mile wide 'constitution free zone'), then perhaps there wouldn't be such a zone https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/public/wysiwyg/constitutionfreezonemap.jpg https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/...
  - gnode 7y ago
    It's actually worse than this; this map neglects the zones around international airports.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      IIRC they asked for those but they didn't get them because the other federal law enforcement gangs didn't want their turf encroached on. Did that change?
elmerfud 7y ago
I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment but there is one very vocal organization and subgroup that does. It attempts to defend it against any abridgment no matter how minor or what others cite as "reasonable". The problem isn't the NRA's and gun owners staunch defense of the second amendment it's wondering why people aren't more inclined to defend the fourth amendment. Too many people accept the incremental abridgment of our constitutional protections because they seem "reasonable". Never looking forward to what the long term outcome will be. Instead of being critical of the tenacity of how the second is defended, tenaciously defending the others would be a good use of energy. Every protection should be fought like the NRA fights gun control, but it's easier point and blame than build up. NRA expenses $423 million ACLU budget $235 million Considering only 43% of US households own guns, and 100% use the 4th amendment we can that there's a huge number of apathetic people for you to motivate instead of tearing down something else. Go ahead and down vote because it's easier than reading the numbers and doing something. This is why we are in this problem.
- briandear 7y ago
  > I would say that most of America does not care for the vigorous defense of the second amendment Citation needed.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  It's not as if NRA are supported by taxes. If they're spending enough defending 2A, that just leaves the rest of us to defend the rest of the Constitution. ACLU, EFF, etc. take donations...
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  As a rule, I downvote people who as for it because I don't like the attempt at manipulation, like you're somehow disarming or pre-empting people who would've downvoted you for their own reasons instead of the condescending one you offer.
  - elmerfud 7y ago
    I edited my post and added the last part because it was being down voted. You're not always the first to read something. There's nothing condescending in my post, if you read it that way then it is a reflection of you and your perceptions. It's a very simple point. You can point at others and whine that why do they have such staunch supporters, because all you can to is teardown, or you view as an incentive to motivate getting everyone more involved and passionate about defending all of the other freedoms with the same tenacity. It's clear you fall in to the teardown ideology.
jascii 7y ago
There are specific legal exemptions to the 4th amendment for the CBP, allowing them to do searches when crossing the border. The question here is if these exemptions apply, as the person in question was not crossing the border.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Those exemptions (which existed as you describe them for quite a while) were widened after 9/11 to give them those same powers when interacting with anyone within 100 miles of the board.
  - jascii 7y ago
    Interesting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). Does anyone know if/how this applies to international airports(as is the case in this story) , and/or our coasts?
madengr 7y ago
I’d say it is the other way around. The ACLU is an example: https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of-gun-owner/ https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of...
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Didn't the ACLU recently have a memo leak that suggested they wouldn't defend the free speech rights of people carrying guns?
  - tbyehl 7y ago
    ACLU will stop defending the right of assembly to people who intend to be armed, and their reasoning is... reasonable. They've been very active in supporting the other 1st, 4th, 14th amendment rights of gun owners and have given no indication that is changing. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...

superkuh 7y ago

Sounds like the constitution free zone really is a constitution free zone. And most people in the USA live in it.

hprotagonist 7y ago
and by "most" we mean "at least 65%" https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p...
refurb 7y ago
Constitution free is hyperbole. You still have constitutional rights.
- munk-a 7y ago
  No, it isn't hyperbole, officers of the law in these zones are given leeway to violate the fourth amendment without any of the normal exceptions (like exigent circumstances) applying. That said, it isn't usually exercised... but that sort of makes it worse since any usages of their elevated powers can be applied arbitrarily and without consistency which, IMO, is intensely worrying in a country where incarceration rates by race are so wildly out of balance with population proportions.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    It is hyperbole, because the situation missing is the nexus with the border. Driving in Queens doesn't give CBP the ability to pull you over and rip apart your car. Picking up someone at JFK may give them the ability for them to do so on the way home.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Except it actually does, they probably won't exercise that ability frequently, but they have the power to do that without any inherent legal restrictions or conditions. A CBP officer could yank you out of your car on the cross bronx expressway and then search the vehicle top to bottom and your legal recourse would be to hope that CBP feels bad and reimburses you somehow, you would be owed no legal damages because it isn't illegal. This isn't hyperbole, it's actually that ridiculous.

ahbyb 7y ago

It does not even include the name of the citizen. How do we know this is not just fiction?

magashna 7y ago
Why would they name and quote several lawyers then?
LocalH 7y ago
CBP has been infamous for asserting that the Constitution doesn't apply at all in these border areas. I wouldn't put it past the government to harass this person further, so I don't blame the person for not wanting their name in the public sphere (even still, they might harass him, I'm sure there are enough details in the story for them to identify him).
- coldcode 7y ago
  Which is funny since they only exist because of the Constitution. So where does it says it doesn't apply to them?
  - LocalH 7y ago
    The US government has basically turned the Constitution into toilet paper, only useful when they want to pay lip service to the inherent rights of the people. Any other time, they prefer to wipe their ass with it.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-a-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-in-america/ https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-a-constitution-free...
jascii 7y ago
You don't know whether it's "not just fiction" nor would you if they published this citizens name. What you do know is that the author, the publication, and its editor are all willing to put their professional reputation on the line to guarantee the correctness of their reporting. That's kind of how journalism works.

fortran77 7y ago

Why do they mention Cellebrite when there's no reason to believe that they had anything to do with this story? Odd.

thejenk 7y ago
They mention Cellebrite because they share specific stats on how much data they can copy off a device in a given time. It's essentially used as a source for the end of the paragraph where they explain why it matters that CBP had their phones for that period.
refurb 7y ago
The whole article is somewhat odd. It seems to raise more questions than answers.

merlincorey 7y ago

I am not making a judgement on if this was good or bad, either way, as we do not have all the facts (especially as the border patrol declined to comment, so we only have one side). On the other hand, I think the headline and the tone of the article definitely want me to judge this as "bad" on the part of the border patrol. Indeed, I strongly believe in personal privacy and due process. However, there is a fact buried in the article that makes this a non-routine pickup indeed: """He was asked for his identification in order to pay the small duty fee for his daughter’s gifts, and only then realized that he’d left his wallet at home. When he explained this, that he’d made an honest mistake and wanted only to pay the routine duty owed and depart, he was told that in fact he wasn’t permitted to leave.""" So again, I agree in general that the privacy protections afforded to U.S. citizens are very important; but, I am not so surprised after reading this that things went sideways. It seems to me, many government agencies and employees are used to things going a certain way, and as soon as something unexpected happens, they clamp down and things can get a lot more serious. A few years ago I was flying domestically between two states, and the fancy bomb detection thing flagged me. Of course, I wasn't carrying anything remotely explosive. Nonetheless, I was taken to a back room with a supervisor and two regular homeland security agents. I was told this time they would search my bag and scan me again. If it came back negative, I would be free to go. If it came back positive, they would conduct a strip search. Thankfully, it came back negative. I nearly missed my flight, it was incredibly terrifying in the moment, but I didn't feel like my rights were violated. According to the agents, the most likely cause was that I had used hand sanitizer prior to getting in the security line. Back to the article -- personally, I'm very interested in the results of the court proceedings, but unclear how to keep track of them.

magashna 7y ago
What I found more interesting from other comments on this thread is that you don't have to be crossing a border, just within 100 miles of one, to be harassed in a way that would seem unconstitutional. The "65% of the population" living in this border zone area really struck me as a serious overreach. If you live in nearly every major US city you're susceptible to what OP went through it seems.
- 7y ago

bloody-crow 7y ago

The fact that CBP can do whatever they want without a need to produce any justification is a red-flag already. I wonder if there are precedents of successfully suing them for something like this.

riffic 7y ago
Good luck suing the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
- refurb 7y ago
  The Wikipedia article states the US govt waives their sovereign immunity for most issues.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    They may voluntarily do so, but they are not compelled to do so. That's a seriously big issue and a common way for tyranny to get a foothold - going against convention and tradition because they aren't legally binding while hiding in a technicality of the law. If the US government doesn't generally need sovereign immunity then it should be forced to surrender the right to exercise it or it'll be used in the worst way the first way.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Every democracy has given up nearly all their sovereign immunity with a few exceptions. I guess they could reverse that decision.

dawnerd 7y ago

So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. They're not just going to take your work for it that you 'left your id at home'. It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. How is that person supposed to know the guy didn't get off a bus (which stop there and people go inside the building) and is just saying something to get past them?

EliRivers 7y ago
So how exactly is this news? You go to a border crossing without ID, you're going to get detained until they figure out who you are. I disagree. I go to the airport (a border crossing) regularly to pick people up or drop people off and I definitely do not expect to be detained while they figure out who I am. It also sounds like he ended up talking to the same people that process people actually crossing which makes this even more tricky. I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive from the other country are herded, it's not at all tricky. The fact that the person he was talking to sometimes does the passport checking seems irrelevant.
- merlincorey 7y ago
  > I disagree. It's pretty clear that if you're outside the secure area through which those who arrive by aircraft are herded, it's not at all tricky. This did not take place at an Airport, but rather, a Canadian/US border patrol station where according to someone else in this thread, a bus stop for border crossing exists. It seems entirely reasonable to me that those agents are more vigilant against "I totally forgot my ID at home".
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    So it did. I maintain that simply being at a border crossing should not be grounds for detaining, but I do recognise that while a competent border crossing would make it impossible for someone to simply walk into the sterile "crossing zone" (and in airports such zones are usually pretty solid), this is not exactly a department known for competency. Edit: Now that I consider it, it would seem really incompetent to just not notice which direction someone came from. This would allow people to cross the border all day with impunity. Pure speculation, but I bet they knew exactly which way he came from; they just felt like hassling some muslim looking guy without ID because they could (although I recognise that in the US, carrying a driving license everywhere seems to be a weird cultural phenomenon).

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

> The CBP officer present pressed Doe on why he had two cellphones before ordering him to hand them both over Wait why are two cellphones suspicious? Work and personal phones are super common

wongarsu 7y ago
Their thought was probably "personal phone for normal stuff and burner phone for illegal activities". I would argue carrying two phones (especially if one is very cheap) makes you slightly more suspicious, but it's probably not a very strong signal. Something that warrants a closer look, nothing more.
- grawprog 7y ago
  I've seen quite a few people carrying a newer fancier phone for actual use and an older less good phone they use basically like an mp3 player.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Honestly, when warrants get involved then pretty much every objection I would have to the situation in this article gets thrown out. I would assume the warrant is issued in good faith by a judge that considered all the circumstances around the warrant and, thankfully, there are processes to correct warrants issued in bad faith and that will generally result in a fruit of the poisonous tree situation
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

campfireveteran 7y ago

15 years ago, I brought back a suitcase full of pirated DVDs and knockoff purses. Most people are better off declaring uncontroversial minimums on declarations forms rather than naively being "too honest" because they're going to cause themselves and others no end of problems trying too hard to be "honest" while simultaneously incriminating themselves by filling out forms incorrectly by not using street smarts. Carrying ID and making the bureaucrat's job easier, where possible, will lead to smoother sailing for the traveler.

outworlder 7y ago
What is the point you are trying to make?
cardiffspaceman 7y ago
Did you declare all the DVDs and purses in your "15 years ago" case? Other than that, it is not clear what you are saying is naively too honest and what goes wrong by being honest.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

annoyingnoob 7y ago

This border zone thing is pure Fascism. I live and work in a border zone and I still have rights.

benc666 7y ago
Gestapo in the making.

rayiner 7y ago

Textbook illustration of subtle bias: > This time, however, when he arrived at the bridge office as instructed, carrying a handwritten note from the original customs office, the man, a U.S. citizen, was detained and searched by Customs and Border Protection, he said. His phones were seized and his car rifled through. His father and cousin, who had been waiting in the vehicle, were themselves detained, ordered into the office to answer questions about their national backgrounds. The fact that the man is a US citizen is interposed into an otherwise chronological narrative to make the reader evaluate the reasonableness of the border agents’ actions against information the border agents do not have.

munk-a 7y ago
I agree, that part of the article is particularly poorly written - but it doesn't change the fact that there shouldn't have been such unreasonable suspicion to begin with.
djsumdog 7y ago
It's relevant, and pretty critical to the entire story. He wasn't traveling. He was picking up a package. The purpose of the 4th amendment to applying at border crossings is to secure the border. Everything customs did in this case should be totally and completely illegal.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The issue isn’t the relevance, but the way the fact is interjected within the otherwise chronological narrative. Imagine if the fact of his US citizenship had come at the end, when CBP was able to learn about it. The story would read very differently. How would borders work if CBP was simply required to accept people’s unsubstantiated assertion that they were citizens who just forgot their ID?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    Presumably the guy was a US citizen at the time the story began, so stating it in the title and when it's relevant is the chronological narrative. The perspective of when CBP could prove this to themselves is irrelevant if they didn't have a cause to detain in the first place.

equalunique 7y ago

The somber reality is US CBP exercises athority to do this anywhere within 100 miles of the border: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

dev_dull 7y ago
That 100-mile border thing really bothers me, since it includes basically every major city in the US. Does anyone know if there's been any legal challenges to this ruling in court? And now an annoying aside. I really wish the ACLU was sincere in fighting this but they won't get any more of my money. I used to support the ACLU because these were the types of P1 issues they would battle. It seems in the last years it's faded to more social justice platform. Fine for them if that's what they believe are the most pressing issues of our time, but not my P1 constitutional concerns. What's the point of anything if the government can railroad your 1st and 4th amendment rights? Are there good alternatives to the ACLU of yore?
- joeblow9999 7y ago
  the institute for justice. and they actually care about the first amendment too!

Havoc 7y ago

So who’s up for some tourism to the USA? Yeah no. Last time I had to go for work was quite unpleasant too. The border agent was a complete moron and on a power trip. Kept going on about how American citizenship law doesn’t allow dual nationality. So no sir you can’t have two passports. Which I’m pretty sure is bullshit but I’m not gonna argue with a border agent. Was really hoping that he’d be bright enough to grasp that neither of the two passports he’s holding is bloody American though.

whiddershins 7y ago
Why did you present two passports?
- refurb 7y ago
  Great question!
  - Havoc 7y ago
    Answered in detail 2x in other comments in this thread. I'd directly link you but can't see a way to do so on hn
- munk-a 7y ago
  Actually yea, when I got my second citizenship I was explicitly informed about the legal difficulties of two passports. It is somewhat advised to only ever carry one passport when abroad, but it's critical in a lot of areas, that you use the same passport whenever crossing the boards of a particular country within the same visit.
  - Havoc 7y ago
    >only ever carry one passport when abroad No that's 100% wrong and provably so (see below). You absolutely have to carry all because there are situations where you'll legally need a mix. Using my example: South African and EU passport. Suppose I'm flying from SA to Spain. Airline desk: They want the EU passport. Because they get screwed if they fly someone into the EU that has no right being there. Outbound immigration desk: Has to be SA passport. It's 100% ILLEGAL for me to present the EU one here - under fine or imprisonment Inbound in Spain: They'll want to see the EU one because the SA one doesn't have a suitable visa stamp. My "I presented both" comment is based on an observation that generally playing open cards with officials will result in them selecting the most favourable one. e.g. Iceland won't tell a German "oh we see you also have an afghan passport so you can't enter". Plus I like to play open cards. I have nothing to hide. You want to check both passports...go for it.