4 ms·

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

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.

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.