3 ms·

I assumed all these amendment don't apply at border.

Retric 2mo ago
There’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 2mo ago
  It'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 2mo ago
    Who is proposing interpreting routine border searches as categorically "unreasonable"?
  - Retric 2mo 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 2mo ago
  The 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 2mo ago
The amendment applies at the border. The agents are acting unlawfully.
- otterley 2mo ago
  IAAL, this is not legal advice though. Routine border searches are largely permitted under the 4th Amendment. This is settled law.
  - sroussey 2mo ago
    And 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 2mo ago
      I 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 2mo ago
    Well, 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 2mo ago
      Like 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 2mo ago

There’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 2mo ago
It'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 2mo ago
  Who is proposing interpreting routine border searches as categorically "unreasonable"?
- Retric 2mo 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 2mo ago
The 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 2mo ago

The amendment applies at the border. The agents are acting unlawfully.

otterley 2mo ago
IAAL, this is not legal advice though. Routine border searches are largely permitted under the 4th Amendment. This is settled law.
- sroussey 2mo ago
  And 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 2mo ago
    I 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 2mo ago
  Well, 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 2mo ago
    Like 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 2mo ago