6 ms·
It turns out there already is a legal precedent for this. It's called the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper
by gslepak 1mo ago
It turns out there already is a legal precedent for this. It's called the 4th Amendment:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- cute_boi 1mo agoI assumed all these amendment don't apply at border.
- Retric 1mo agoThere’s nothing in the constitution that makes that separation, only people deciding the constitution isn’t actually important “The border” has similarly been extended to cover the majority of the US population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception#/map/0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception#/map/0 Yes, according the the US government warrantless border searches apply in West Virginia. (Map from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)
- computably 1mo agoIt's based on the interpretation of "unreasonable" and while the current rules may be far from perfect I don't think interpreting routine border searches as categorically "unreasonable" is better.
- wilg 1mo agoWho is proposing interpreting routine border searches as categorically "unreasonable"?
- Retric 1mo ago“Reasonable” and the current definition of what the government considers reasonable are entirely separate things. The entire state of Florida is currently defined as on the US border, that’s effectively a meaningless definition. Further, in what way is the content of someone’s cellphone relevant at a border specifically? Inspecting luggage for cocaine at an entry point makes sense, but physical borders mean little in the face of the internet. You might as well just erase the phone before crossing the border.
- lazide 1mo agoThe Supreme Court has generally upheld searches at the border being reasonable (along with a lot of other IMO unreasonable things being reasonable). If you’re expecting the Courts to bail him out, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The gov’t can make an argument here this is like trying (and succeeding) at flushing, say, a bag of cocaine in the bathroom when you see the cops coming. Something which the Courts also historically disapprove of, by the way.
- kaliqt 1mo agoThe amendment applies at the border. The agents are acting unlawfully.
- otterley 1mo agoIAAL, this is not legal advice though. Routine border searches are largely permitted under the 4th Amendment. This is settled law.
- sroussey 1mo agoAnd if at the border they found keys to your house so they went there and did a search too? Thanks what a phone is. Not even mentioning Tailscale. ;p
- phatskat 1mo agoI mean if it were me? Yep. I'm in a city that borders Canada, and pretty much anywhere i go is "the border" despite my current route to the nearest bridge being about 45 minutes. I personally feel it's a little ridiculous that CBP has jurisdiction in my neighborhood.
- khriss 1mo agoWell, of late, what was considered settled law is being reinterpreted at a remarkable rate, so maybe there is hope for this 'settled' law to be overturned....
- tick_tock_tick 1mo agoLike what? The big one people always try to bring up when they make coy statements like this is Roe v. Wade but no one thought that was a strong ruling. Even later justices who were strong proponents of women's right to chose like Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought it was a shit ruling.
- khriss 1mo ago
- gpt5 1mo agoI'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. He could have refused search without a warrant, intentionally destroying evidence is a different legal matter.
- krispyfi 1mo agoSo if you really want to nab someone but you don't care what the charge is, you can threaten them with a 4th Amendment-violating search, which induces them to destroy evidence. Pretty neat trick. IANAL, but I don't think it's controversial to say that people who treat the Bill of Rights like an obstacle to be hacked around probably shouldn't be in positions of power.
- otterley 1mo ago(IAAL, this is not legal advice, consult your own attorney) If you destroy evidence, that’s your own fault. You can’t blame law enforcement for inducing you to commit crimes they didn’t ask you to commit. That’s just silly and no court will entertain that theory. To protect your rights under the 4th Amendment, you refuse the search. If law enforcement conducts the search anyway and a court finds the search was unlawful, the court will exclude the evidence found in the search from consideration in the trial along with any evidence that flows from that. Neither the jury nor the court will be able to use it.
- dcow 1mo agoHave you heard of entrapment?
- KingMob 1mo agoIANAL, but I've heard that entrapment defenses are way harder to use, and much rarer, in reality than on TV. First, you frequently require a judge's permission to even argue it. But the real burden is showing that your client would not have committed the crime without the effect of the police. A cop posing as a drug dealer and offering you drugs as you pass them in the park every day doesn't count; a cop hounding you for months to commit wire fraud because they mistakenly believe you're in a criminal org might, though.
- epolanski 1mo ago"unreasonable" does a lot of heavy lifting here. And unreasonable is open to interpretation.
- chb 1mo agoIt seems cute_boi has it right: the 4th doesn’t apply to border crossings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold
- Gormo 1mo agoUS v. Arnold was a Ninth Circuit ruling, and was later superseded in its own circuit by US. v Cotterman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cotterman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cotterman), which ruled that a "forensic" search does not fall within the scope of routine border inspection, and does require individual suspicion. This was backed up with even more rulings like US v. Kolusz in the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this specific question, but has issued other general rulings about cell phone data, like Riley v. California, which determined that data on a cell phone is protected by the Fourth Amendment against warrantless search and seizure. If the case in the article makes its way up to SCOTUS, it's not unreasonable to expect that the court will combine multiple districts' established precedent that "forensic searches" are not covered by any border exception with its own recent precedent protecting cell phone data, and rule that demanding unrestricted access to phone data without reasonable suspicion is unconstitutional.
- p0w3n3d 1mo agoMaybe that's why they are doing it on the airport which is extraterritorial