4 ms·

Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what abou

Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what about Alasaad v. McAleenan?" and in the small windowless holding room the agent will say "What about it? You want to leave, unlock your phone."

landryraccoon 7y ago
Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087 https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087
- vkou 7y ago
  If a border agent is giving me shit, the last thing I'm worried about is whether or not any evidence they gather is going to be used against me in court. 99.9% of the time, the most negative outcome of this kind of interaction will be losing my stuff, being arrested and held for anywhere up to 24 hours, or being denied entry. For most people, these are a compelling enough reasons to comply with a power-tripping border agent. Despite this ruling, your recourse in such a situation will remain quite limited.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    The metric the agent's boss's boss's boss cares about is convictions because that's how they justify their budget "look at all these criminals we're catching". If they can't use the illegal searches in order to convict people of crimes they're much less likely to spend the man hours doing them as routine procedure. Also, it's not exactly hard for a lawyer to argue that you were coerced into consenting to a search in your hypothetical example. Since the people crossing the border are mostly non-criminals if CPB does use those tactics routinely it will not take long at all for a suitably politically sympathetic victim to come along and precedent to be established saying that is also not ok.
    - nikanj 7y ago
      Alas, a metric they just don’t care about is passenger feelings. The power tripping is real, and most people would consider being detained for hours to be a big issue, even if it never even goes to court.
    - vkou 7y ago
      > If they can't use the illegal searches in order to convict people of crimes I highly doubt they are getting a lot of convictions from illegal searches of devices. The overwhelming majority of convictions they get are from people physically smuggling drugs and weapons and apples across borders. They don't need to unlock your phone to catch you with any of these things. They already have the right to tear apart your car if they think you have drugs hidden in it. It's a power play, not an actually useful LE tool. The overwhelming majority of the things that you may have on your phone that are going to get you in trouble with border control are not going to put you in jail. What they will do, is deny you entry, and possibly ban you for 5-10 years. Since entry for non-citzens is a courtesy, you have zero redress in that case. You're never going to get your day in court, since you're not charged with a crime, and you will not be able to contest that the search was illegal. The only way this ruling would result in any change, is if CBP voluntarily follows it.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Doesn't matter. They can still do parallel construction, and can still cause you harm just by detaining you, and they can use your behavior in response to abuse as probable cause to justify further abuse.
  - landryraccoon 7y ago
    This argument works against you. If you were illegally searched, then law enforcement subsequently does parallel construction, defense counsel can easily and persuasively argue that the subsequent evidence is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and would not have occurred without the illegal search. The judge can then throw out all evidence from the parallel construction. The only way parallel construction works is if defense counsel and the judge don't know that the illegal search ever happened at all - which is very unlikely in the case of an illegal border search.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- namdnay 7y ago
  But they don’t need to take you to court to refuse you entry and put you on the first flight back home...
  - wila 7y ago
    To add to that, as a foreigner you don't even have a right to an attorney as long as they do not arrest you. So yes they can just send you back, it is in their capabilities and there's nothing the foreigner can do to counter that decision.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Of course not. Every country has the right to determine who is admissible. There is no right to enter a country where you're not a citizen.
      - greycol 7y ago
        Yes, but the whole point of the attorney is to make sure that the correct laws are applied to you. This ensures that it's the country that's determining who is admissible rather than just a petty tyrant who got out on the wrong side of the bed.
        refurb 7y ago
        But you're not under arrest or being detailed in this case. Not sure what a lawyer could do in this instance.
- lwf 7y ago
  Unless they claim to be acting in "Good faith", that is, didn't think at the time that the search was improper and it wasn't clearly settled law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States#Subsequent_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States#Sub... You can win a Supreme Court case about a search being illegal, and still have that evidence be used to nail you on the original charge.
zackmorris 7y ago
I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins. The US was founded on habeas corpus, and it doesn't matter what laws have been written since, or what national threats have been used as an excuse to undermine our inalienable rights. Your duty is to the future people of the US so that their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't infringed. My feeling is that this house of cards of government officials skirting the law and pleading ignorance is going to come crashing down in the near future. They know that they are breaking the law. They're just assuming that you will be afraid and let them. I had hoped that we were past all this and the 21st century would to be free of injustice, but unfortunately we're all going to have to fight just like our ancestors did. But I think that better times really are just around the corner, as long as we stay informed and unified. Related: congresswoman Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen on asylum seekers being turned away at US border crossings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ-cURrFLVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ-cURrFLVk
- TurkishPoptart 7y ago
  Thank you for sharing this, as well as the link of Nielsen getting grilled by a Congressional hero. I'm inspired. More people need to see this.
- willmadden 7y ago
  There is no constitutional right for people outside of the US to seek asylum in the US. Asylum seekers are granted refugee status by the United Nations if they meet two broad requirements. The US accepts a limited number each year (notably more than any other country since WW2, however).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zackmorris 7y ago
    Personally, I think that the American Dream was always an ideal to live up to, not something established that only exists in the US. If we deny someone's dignity and rights simply because they aren't a US citizen, then we've embraced injustice and broken our pledge of liberty and justice for all. I'm not a lawyer, but reading through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States Something stood out: An applicant initially presents his claim to an asylum officer, who may either grant asylum or refer the application to an Immigration Judge. So I think that the "Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen" video I linked shows that the border crossing agent committed a crime when she turned away people seeking asylum. She should have either: a) granted their asylum or b) admitted them to go before an immigration judge. From there, the border crossing agent should be tried in court for her actions. In which case, she can either say that she is guilty and take the penalty, or that she was following orders and then the next person up in rank should go through the process until it reaches Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In which case, she can accept responsibility, or claim that she was following orders from the president. It looks like Kirstjen Nielsen resigned on April 10, 2019, a month after the March 2 video: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-secretary-expected-to-offer-resignation-today-live-updates-2019-04-07/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-... We're seeing this a lot lately, where high-ranking officials are skirting the law, then resigning to shield the president. That's not how it should work in America. I say all of this because I imagine if I was a border crossing agent, and I denied asylum to someone outright, then found out later they died because of my actions, I'd likely get PTSD and never recover. At the very least, I don't know how I'd be able to sleep at night. Which is why I think I'm right as far as the spirit of the law, even if the letter of the law doesn't match up with what I'm saying.

landryraccoon 7y ago

Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087 https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087

vkou 7y ago
If a border agent is giving me shit, the last thing I'm worried about is whether or not any evidence they gather is going to be used against me in court. 99.9% of the time, the most negative outcome of this kind of interaction will be losing my stuff, being arrested and held for anywhere up to 24 hours, or being denied entry. For most people, these are a compelling enough reasons to comply with a power-tripping border agent. Despite this ruling, your recourse in such a situation will remain quite limited.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The metric the agent's boss's boss's boss cares about is convictions because that's how they justify their budget "look at all these criminals we're catching". If they can't use the illegal searches in order to convict people of crimes they're much less likely to spend the man hours doing them as routine procedure. Also, it's not exactly hard for a lawyer to argue that you were coerced into consenting to a search in your hypothetical example. Since the people crossing the border are mostly non-criminals if CPB does use those tactics routinely it will not take long at all for a suitably politically sympathetic victim to come along and precedent to be established saying that is also not ok.
  - nikanj 7y ago
    Alas, a metric they just don’t care about is passenger feelings. The power tripping is real, and most people would consider being detained for hours to be a big issue, even if it never even goes to court.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > If they can't use the illegal searches in order to convict people of crimes I highly doubt they are getting a lot of convictions from illegal searches of devices. The overwhelming majority of convictions they get are from people physically smuggling drugs and weapons and apples across borders. They don't need to unlock your phone to catch you with any of these things. They already have the right to tear apart your car if they think you have drugs hidden in it. It's a power play, not an actually useful LE tool. The overwhelming majority of the things that you may have on your phone that are going to get you in trouble with border control are not going to put you in jail. What they will do, is deny you entry, and possibly ban you for 5-10 years. Since entry for non-citzens is a courtesy, you have zero redress in that case. You're never going to get your day in court, since you're not charged with a crime, and you will not be able to contest that the search was illegal. The only way this ruling would result in any change, is if CBP voluntarily follows it.
lonelappde 7y ago
Doesn't matter. They can still do parallel construction, and can still cause you harm just by detaining you, and they can use your behavior in response to abuse as probable cause to justify further abuse.
- landryraccoon 7y ago
  This argument works against you. If you were illegally searched, then law enforcement subsequently does parallel construction, defense counsel can easily and persuasively argue that the subsequent evidence is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and would not have occurred without the illegal search. The judge can then throw out all evidence from the parallel construction. The only way parallel construction works is if defense counsel and the judge don't know that the illegal search ever happened at all - which is very unlikely in the case of an illegal border search.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
namdnay 7y ago
But they don’t need to take you to court to refuse you entry and put you on the first flight back home...
- wila 7y ago
  To add to that, as a foreigner you don't even have a right to an attorney as long as they do not arrest you. So yes they can just send you back, it is in their capabilities and there's nothing the foreigner can do to counter that decision.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Of course not. Every country has the right to determine who is admissible. There is no right to enter a country where you're not a citizen.
    - greycol 7y ago
      Yes, but the whole point of the attorney is to make sure that the correct laws are applied to you. This ensures that it's the country that's determining who is admissible rather than just a petty tyrant who got out on the wrong side of the bed.
      - refurb 7y ago
        But you're not under arrest or being detailed in this case. Not sure what a lawyer could do in this instance.
lwf 7y ago
Unless they claim to be acting in "Good faith", that is, didn't think at the time that the search was improper and it wasn't clearly settled law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States#Subsequent_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States#Sub... You can win a Supreme Court case about a search being illegal, and still have that evidence be used to nail you on the original charge.

zackmorris 7y ago

I've been seeing this fallacy a lot lately in these times. If you're ever in this situation: the longer you're held without a lawyer, the higher the liability on your captor becomes. Period. This is where million dollar lawsuits by the ACLU and jail time for corruption begins. The US was founded on habeas corpus, and it doesn't matter what laws have been written since, or what national threats have been used as an excuse to undermine our inalienable rights. Your duty is to the future people of the US so that their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't infringed. My feeling is that this house of cards of government officials skirting the law and pleading ignorance is going to come crashing down in the near future. They know that they are breaking the law. They're just assuming that you will be afraid and let them. I had hoped that we were past all this and the 21st century would to be free of injustice, but unfortunately we're all going to have to fight just like our ancestors did. But I think that better times really are just around the corner, as long as we stay informed and unified. Related: congresswoman Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen on asylum seekers being turned away at US border crossings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ-cURrFLVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ-cURrFLVk

TurkishPoptart 7y ago
Thank you for sharing this, as well as the link of Nielsen getting grilled by a Congressional hero. I'm inspired. More people need to see this.
willmadden 7y ago
There is no constitutional right for people outside of the US to seek asylum in the US. Asylum seekers are granted refugee status by the United Nations if they meet two broad requirements. The US accepts a limited number each year (notably more than any other country since WW2, however).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zackmorris 7y ago
  Personally, I think that the American Dream was always an ideal to live up to, not something established that only exists in the US. If we deny someone's dignity and rights simply because they aren't a US citizen, then we've embraced injustice and broken our pledge of liberty and justice for all. I'm not a lawyer, but reading through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States Something stood out: An applicant initially presents his claim to an asylum officer, who may either grant asylum or refer the application to an Immigration Judge. So I think that the "Nanette Barragan questions Kirstjen Nielsen" video I linked shows that the border crossing agent committed a crime when she turned away people seeking asylum. She should have either: a) granted their asylum or b) admitted them to go before an immigration judge. From there, the border crossing agent should be tried in court for her actions. In which case, she can either say that she is guilty and take the penalty, or that she was following orders and then the next person up in rank should go through the process until it reaches Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In which case, she can accept responsibility, or claim that she was following orders from the president. It looks like Kirstjen Nielsen resigned on April 10, 2019, a month after the March 2 video: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-secretary-expected-to-offer-resignation-today-live-updates-2019-04-07/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-resigning-dhs-... We're seeing this a lot lately, where high-ranking officials are skirting the law, then resigning to shield the president. That's not how it should work in America. I say all of this because I imagine if I was a border crossing agent, and I denied asylum to someone outright, then found out later they died because of my actions, I'd likely get PTSD and never recover. At the very least, I don't know how I'd be able to sleep at night. Which is why I think I'm right as far as the spirit of the law, even if the letter of the law doesn't match up with what I'm saying.