5 ms·

Sounds like their position is law enforcement officer commanded the nurse to perform a medical procedure which as result of it being related to a border crossin

Sounds like their position is law enforcement officer commanded the nurse to perform a medical procedure which as result of it being related to a border crossing was legal if there was “reasonable suspicion” which you have said the claimed to have based on your responses and lack of cell phone. To be clear, not stating I agree with situation, fully understand law, your perspective, law enforcement perspective, etc — but claim that body cavity search requires a warrant once reasonable suspicion is established at a border crossing to my knowledge is inaccurate if you’re claiming it is. Example of Google search that appears to return search results supporting this: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+it+legal+for+us+customs+to+do+anal+cavity+search+without+warrant https://www.google.com/search?q=is+it+legal+for+us+customs+t... Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed.

newjersey 4y ago
> Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed. I don’t know what I stumbled upon but it definitely does not meet my threshold of reasonable suspicion to do an involuntary body cavity search for anyone solely because they do not own a cell phone. Also I would hope the public pays for all costs of whatever involuntary search or medical procedure regardless of whether the search results in evidence of guilt but definitely if the search does not yield anything.
- O__________O 4y ago
  To do X is irrelevant, what matters is if it meets legal definition of reasonable suspicion, which I assure you is both extremely low at border crossings and that law enforcement is very aware of how to establish it; hence why the warrant was granted. Way to address issues like this is not online or at a border crossing — but by changing laws themselves. I assure that vast majority of people support laws like these, otherwise they would not have been in place so long. Again, I am not saying I agree with situation, but attempting to accurately describe the reality of it.

newjersey 4y ago

> Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed. I don’t know what I stumbled upon but it definitely does not meet my threshold of reasonable suspicion to do an involuntary body cavity search for anyone solely because they do not own a cell phone. Also I would hope the public pays for all costs of whatever involuntary search or medical procedure regardless of whether the search results in evidence of guilt but definitely if the search does not yield anything.

O__________O 4y ago
To do X is irrelevant, what matters is if it meets legal definition of reasonable suspicion, which I assure you is both extremely low at border crossings and that law enforcement is very aware of how to establish it; hence why the warrant was granted. Way to address issues like this is not online or at a border crossing — but by changing laws themselves. I assure that vast majority of people support laws like these, otherwise they would not have been in place so long. Again, I am not saying I agree with situation, but attempting to accurately describe the reality of it.