51 ms·

There’s nothing in the constitution that makes that separation, only people deciding the constitution isn’t actually important “The border” has similarly been

by 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 1mo 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.

by Retric 2mo ago

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 1mo 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.