5 ms·

The article is not that clear in one way. Does this only apply to non-US Citizens ?

• weberer 10d ago
  Anybody crossing the border. The justification is that the government's constitutional right to control imports overrides the 4th amendment right to privacy. >“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.” Id. at 620. Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004), “searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616. https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-960_complete_opn.pdf https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-960_complete_o...
  • petcat 10d ago
    So the argument is basically that Americans already consent to allowing customs to search anything and everything that they are physically bringing across the border, whether a US citizen or not, and now that is also affirmed to include the digital contents of electronic devices.
  • howdyhowdy 10d ago
    Worse though, is that the definition of border is hella loose. CBP can be many MANY miles away from an actual border and do this.
    • mingus88 10d ago
      100 miles to be clear. So many major cities are free reign. Entire counties. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
    • jwineinger 10d ago
      from https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_US https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_... > Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border. from https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone > Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
    • AnimalMuppet 10d ago
      Even worse: The Trump administration claimed international airports as part of the border. (I saw that once, months ago. I do not know what the legal state of that claim is, or even whether it is currently part of their theory of what they are allowed to do.)
      • r3trohack3r 10d ago
        Setting the “100 mile” thingamajig aside - why wouldn’t you consider an international airport part of your border? It is a port of entry.
        • samus 10d ago
          The problem is the 100 mile rule, which effectively puts most of the population under the purview of border control measures. Apart from that, an airport is a comparatively small area of land that is magnitudes easier to monitor than a border that only exists as a thousands of miles long line on the map, therefore the 100 miles rule should not be applied. And everyone getting off an international flight in the USA has already been searched multiple times.
      • krunck 10d ago
        I can't find any definitive information on this. Disturbing if true.
        • AnimalMuppet 10d ago
          I can't supply you a reference. It was... maybe 4 to 6 months ago? Border Patrol was doing something more than 100 miles from the border, and a reporter asked them what their justification was for being active that far inland, and the Border Patrol spokesperson said "international airport". I mean, that could have been just one person's attempt to justify them operating outside their legal authority. Or it could have been what they were told to say, meaning it was somewhat more official policy (or at least official smokescreen du jour). At any rate, it has been claimed, at least once, not in court but to the press.
• tocs3 10d ago
  Near the top of the article: “Today’s decision leaves Americans’ most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all,” I think this is just an extension of a general we, as government officials protecting American freedoms, can do what we want and will justify it later if we have to policy. It should probably be noted that this specific case led to a conviction of an actual crime (Bank fraud and money laundering).
  • netsharc 10d ago
    East Germany built a wall to keep their citizens "free" of "fascist elements"...
    • tekla 10d ago
      You understand that no one actually believed that lie. It was built to stop people from running to west Germany.
  • samus 10d ago
    > It should probably be noted that this specific case led to a conviction of an actual crime (Bank fraud and money laundering). That's pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Of course a lot more crimes would get prosecuted if we lived in a total police state.
    • tocs3 10d ago
      I think it is important because the case was not about guilt or innocence. It was about the governments right to search without any cause. If the case was about whether there was enough cause for the search we would be having a much different discussion here. I should probably have said this in my original comment.