19 ms·

9th Circuit Appeals Court: 4th Amendment Applies At The Border

260 points by computator 14y ago

snowwrestler 14y ago
One interesting aspect to this case is that the majority actually ruled for the government, in that the incriminating evidence was not be suppressed. It's just that in doing so, they clarified some points of law along the way in a way we like. That matters because it means that the government will not appeal the ruling, even though it might limit border agents in the future. It also means that if the defendent does get it appealed to the Supreme Court, the government would probably be ok if the Supreme Court ruled the same way.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Well that is a nice surprise. I hope it holds up at the SCOTUS level.
btilly 14y ago
I love the ruling. Unfortunately we have a 5-4 split in the Supreme Court. The liberal minority only needs a single judge to come to their side to win this. However on civil liberties the trend has been negative. I'm therefore not particularly optimistic.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  For the sake of this and Prop8 soon, I really, really hope you're wrong.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    DOMA is also up for a SCOTUS ruling, which is potentially far more substantive (because full-faith-and-credit will actually have force for marriages). It'll be interesting how that shakes out.
    - jorgeortiz85 14y ago
      Windsor v US (the DOMA case up for a SCOTUS ruling) only challenges Section 3 of DOMA, not Section 2. Section 3 forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Section 2 says states are not required to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states. The full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof", so it's very unlikely that Section 2 will be ruled unconstitutional.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        Is "not doing" a legitimate "manner" of doing something. That seems rather tenuous.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It depends which civil liberties you're talking about. The Roberts court has been good for free speech and gun rights, and it wasn't just the liberals. Brown v. EMA was 7-2 for example. The pro-habeas Hamdan, Hamdi, Boumediene cases also came out under Roberts. Several positive decisions on drugs (can't ban hullucigenic teas) and search an seizure too (GPS case).
  - btilly 14y ago
    Free speech is protected - so long as it is speech by corporations. I'm sure that corporations everywhere rejoiced at Citizens United. But compare with Morse v. Frederick.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      The gist of Citizens United was that the government couldn't ban political speech near an election. The speaker in question just happened to be a company. Morse just said that kids have limited free speech rights. Both seem like good decisions to me and consistent with our historical practice.
      - btilly 14y ago
        The gist of Citizens United is that rights never intended by the Founders to apply to corporations now do. And spending money qualifies as speech. You probably also think that Clapper v. Amnesty International was a good decision. And think that they should not have heard Hepting v. AT&T. Those two cases seem highly relevant to their likely attitude on this one.
        rayiner 14y ago
        The founding fathers likely never contemplated that groups of people would have different free speech rights than individual people. And Citizens United was about a political movie critical of Hilary Clinton during an election season when she was running for office. It's not "is money speech." I can't think of anything more deserving of free speech protections than political speech, especially critical political speech. Clapper was a very sensible decision. The plaintiffs in the case couldn't even prove that they had been harmed!
- DannyBee 14y ago
  The ruling is good but not great. It's better than what happened in 2006, but still only requires reasonable suspicion before they can take your laptop away from you for as long as they like to search it. Reasonable suspicion is a very low standard. It's basically more than a hunch, less than any real evidence. Even a combination of completely insignificant things can be reasonable suspicion.
- drags 14y ago
  The split is not so clear-cut on search and seizure issues. Remember that it was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in Kyllo, which decided that using thermal imaging devices to search for grow houses ran afoul of the 4th Amendment.
- will_brown 14y ago
  >civil liberties the trend has been negative. Other disturbing degradation of civil liberties: - SCOTUS declining to hear the AT&T case of warrantless wiretapping emails, texts and other communication. -SCOTUS holding the Political Question Doctrine prohibits the Court from reviewing the Constitutionality of the President's extrajudicial targeted "Kill List" of US citizens nor can they review the Constitutionality on the criteria to get on the list. Recently a US District Court held Indefinite Detention of US citizens without due process to be Unconstitutional. However, I think SCOTUS will uphold this ruling 5-4 prompting Congress to re-write the law with the same effect, prompting the legal process all over again.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The examples you mentioned aren't "degradation of civil liberties." They're the court punting on deciding issues they don't have to. The Court didn't hear the AT&T case because there wasn't any plaintiff that could prove they had been harmed. The Court didn't hear the "kill list" case because what the President does against enemy combatants off U.S. soil is indeed a political question, since the Constitution invests the President with primacy in international affairs. The Court has not shied away from hearing similar issues when there was a closer nexus to U.S. soil and there were individuals with standing. The Court overturned a lot of the government's practices in Guantanamo, for example, because it was: 1) U.S. controlled soil; and 2) the people suing were actually hurt by the practices, not just people who objected to the practices.
    - cyrus_ 14y ago
      So to clarify, you are stating that U.S. citizens should lose all right to due process the minute they step off U.S. soil? Or do you believe that any citizen deemed an enemy combatant can be killed by the executive on U.S. soil as well?
      - rayiner 14y ago
        I'm not saying either of these things. I'm pointing out that separation of powers requires the Supreme Court to respect situations where the Constitution has given other branches primacy. It has never been true that the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum for redress of every possible Constitutional violation. That is to say, it can be simultaneously true that the Executive does something unconstitutional and that it is appropriate for the Supreme Court not to review the action. The conduct of war is an area in which the Constitution invests the President with primacy. But it's not a black/white issue--it's a spectrum. The more closely a matter touches U.S. soil, the more justification the Supreme Court has for intervening. At one end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to foreigners on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has no business telling the President how to kill Taliban in Afghanistan. At the other end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to Americans on American soil. The Supreme Court must insert itself in such situations, as it did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), when it declared that the government must give due process to an American citizen captured in Afghanistan being held in Guantanamo. Between there is where it gets iffy. Hamdi, for reference, hadn't been in the U.S. since he was a child. Yet he was held to have due process rights because he was on U.S. controlled soil (Guantanamo Bay). The kill list cases have so far all been missing that crucial nexus to U.S. soil. Do you lose all your rights when you step off U.S. soil? No, and the Supreme Court has said so (Reid v. Covert). Do you lose all your rights when you leave the U.S., actively take up arms against it, and evade all attempts to bring you to justice? The Supreme Court is quite prudent not to take up that hairy situation, especially since civil libertarians may very well not like the answer.[1] [1] It wouldn't be unreasonable or unjustifiable for the Supreme Court to say that U.S. Citizens do retain the right to due process while off U.S. soil, even if they take up arms against the U.S., but that an administrative process is sufficient "process due" in situations where the Citizen refuses to submit himself to judicial process.
dfc 14y ago
I'm all for changing titles when they make the topic clear to the reader or combat hyperbolic escalation. With that in mind what was wrong with the original title? 9th Circuit Appeals Court: 4th Amendment Applies At The Border; Also: Password Protected Files Shouldn't Arouse Suspicion Other than grammatical errors what did the change of title provide?
- softbuilder 14y ago
  I like the modified title. It serves as a tidy tl;dr.
  - dfc 14y ago
    What is in the modified title that is not in the original? (Other than grammar errors)
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Conciseness.
    - softbuilder 14y ago
      In addition to what rhizome said, the modified title puts the most significant piece of information first. Re: grammar, I think the article (expected "the") is optional in that case, if you read "expectation of privacy" as a singular concept.
- LeeHunter 14y ago
  The new heading seems reasonably accurate and much more clear. "9th Circuit Appeals Court" does not add useful information (at least not enough to warrant inclusion in the heading) and "4th amendment" doesn't mean anything at all to those of us who are not Americans.
  - dfc 14y ago
    Unless you were following the case the inclusion of the 9th circuit is a nice way to scope the impact of the ruling.
dfc 14y ago
I was impressed with the discussion of the implication of device access when all your data is in the cloud. For more detailed discussion of the cotterman case see professor kerr's most recent post: http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/en-banc-ninth-circuit-holds-that-computer-forensic-searches-are-like-virtual-strip-searches-and-require-reasonable-suspicion-at-the-border/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/en-banc-ninth-circuit-holds... And his earlier posts: http://www.volokh.com/2011/03/30/ninth-circuit-decides-cotterman-case-reversing-district-court-on-laptop-seizure-at-the-border/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/03/30/ninth-circuit-decides-cotte... http://www.volokh.com/2011/01/17/update-on-united-states-v-cotterman-ninth-circuit-case-applying-the-border-search-exception-to-computers/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/01/17/update-on-united-states-v-c... http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/02/ninth-circuit-en-banc-argument-in-united-states-v-cotterman/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/02/ninth-circuit-en-banc-argum...
- jmomo 14y ago
  We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets is, nevermind have any conceptual grasp of the changes that drones, nanotech, human modification and augmentation, and similar will cause in our society. I am shocked, like I think you are, that these judges would have even the slightest clue. This is just uncharacteristic for the kinds of rulings we usually see when anything technology is related. I expect that near the end of my lifetime, when people my age are in power, if not sooner, a large number of laws and rulings will be overturned and changed in radically legal-altering ways. But it has always been that way. Even within my lifetime, we no longer think that ulcers are caused by stress, mobile phones/computers became reality, and a non-white person was elected present of my country. These are all pretty radical things.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    >>>> We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets No we do not. A person who is now 60 (reasonable estimate age for "old people in power" - Obama is 52, John Roberts is 58, Boehner is 64) has lived in the internet age for almost 20 years, since he was 40. If you assume people can't learn something that is happening before their eyes for 20 years while they are at the peak of their career - you must have ver low and counterfactual opinion about these "old people". It may have been true 15 years ago, but repeating it now, in 2013, makes one sound a bit out of date. Virtually all "old people" now know what the internet is, and have been for years. Proverbial "your mother" now knows how to use the computer and follows you on Facebook. The times where internet was for hip youngsters has long passed, deal with it.
gnosis 14y ago
As welcome as this ruling is, if you wanted to keep something private, hoping that the government obeys the law may not be the wisest approach.
knite 14y ago
According to the article, password-protected files aren't reasonable grounds for suspicion. What about refusing to log into your machine or give up your login password?
ctdonath 14y ago
A good sensible ruling. Now, given that my data is private and only subject to search under warrant, are my privates likewise private?
OGinparadise 14y ago
My guess is that this will be overturned by SCOTUS http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal/ http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th... There's a practical problem as well: if the 4th applies, getting warrants just to check a bag is gonna be a paine. Unless they create different rules for airports, you can do this but not that.
- furyg3 14y ago
  This is different than a security check. TSA is looking for dangerous, or banned items - "is this safe to fly?". If they happen to find signs of criminal activity, they will turn you over to the police. TSA can examine your laptop, but they can't force you to open files or give them the password. They also claim that this is voluntary (you're flying instead of driving). Border agents are making sure you are not a criminal from the get-go. They have asserted that they can take your laptop bag from you nearly-indefinitely to do a full forensic analysis, without your consent. This is certainly not voluntary as all means of transport can result in a border check, and I have a right to enter my own country.
rdl 14y ago
Again, the 9th circuit proves to be the best circuit. I would not be willing to live in the US outside the 9th circuit until a number of split circuit issues are resolved. Fortunately the 9th is the biggest and covers all the places I'd otherwise care about. Think about how much less fucked weev would be next week if he were before Alex Kozinski rather than some NJ guy.
- dfc 14y ago
  I realize they didn't have much of a choice but I was hoping the 9th circuit would have found a way to decide in favor of the sea shepherds.
  - rdl 14y ago
    I care much more about legal precedent than individual cases. The legal theory to allow piracy on the high seas would have been super convoluted. (although, personally, I'm against whaling, I'd also have supported the Japanese vessel if it lit the pirates up, too. )
hakaaaaak 14y ago
I wish that we didn't even have to have rulings. It should just be common sense to leave people alone if they aren't hurting anyone else.
smsm42 14y ago
Great quote from a dissent opinion: Now border agents, instead of knowing that they may search anyand all property that crosses the border for illegal articles, must ponder whether their searches are sufficiently “comprehensive and intrusive,” to require reasonable suspicion, and whether they have such suspicion. He says it as if not being able to search everything and everybody and requiring the agents to consider the privacy implication and intrusiveness of the search and if is is warranted or not - is a bad thing!
- jrs235 14y ago
  "Can we search your belongings?" "Why? Do you have reasonable suspicion to?" "We do now." When obeying the law and defending your rights becomes suspicious and cause for interrogation, 1984 has arrived. When driving at or under the speed limit at 2 am gets you pulled over you realize how close we are to a police state. Edit: I know the first bit is illegal but it happens. The police just make up some bs to cover their butts.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Unfortunately, you are right on the bs part - just recently SC declared that police drug dogs are always 100% accurate despite clear evidence to the contrary, and as such can be used as a probable cause. So we have a situation where we made a step forward with requiring probable cause, and step back with allowing the police to invent it by signaling a trained dog to bark. Maintaining liberty is never easy.
tempestn 14y ago
Question: Do 4th Amendment rights apply only to US citizens? Or would this ruling apply equally to, say, Canadians crossing the border into the US?
- tempestn 14y ago
  Answer: Looks like it applies equally to non-citizens. Will feel better about bringing my laptop across the border now. https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/fourth-amendment https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/fourth-amendment
TravisDirks 14y ago
Does ruling impact the DHS discussion from a couple days ago? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321036 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321036 http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...
ajays 14y ago
Here's the problem: even with this ruling, there is nothing preventing the border patrol people from continuing to seize and search laptops and phones. In other words: there is no adequate punishment for violating a citizen's constitutional rights. At most, the evidence (if any) can't be used in a court of law. But there is never any punishment. For example: the dude who was imprisoned in solitary in NM for 2 years, without a trial or being presented before a judge (6th Amendment?). Sure, he got a boatload of money; but _no one was punished_.

260 points by computator 14y ago

One interesting aspect to this case is that the majority actually ruled for the government, in that the incriminating evidence was not be suppressed. It's just that in doing so, they clarified some points of law along the way in a way we like. That matters because it means that the government will not appeal the ruling, even though it might limit border agents in the future. It also means that if the defendent does get it appealed to the Supreme Court, the government would probably be ok if the Supreme Court ruled the same way.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Well that is a nice surprise. I hope it holds up at the SCOTUS level.

btilly 14y ago

I love the ruling. Unfortunately we have a 5-4 split in the Supreme Court. The liberal minority only needs a single judge to come to their side to win this. However on civil liberties the trend has been negative. I'm therefore not particularly optimistic.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
For the sake of this and Prop8 soon, I really, really hope you're wrong.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  DOMA is also up for a SCOTUS ruling, which is potentially far more substantive (because full-faith-and-credit will actually have force for marriages). It'll be interesting how that shakes out.
  - jorgeortiz85 14y ago
    Windsor v US (the DOMA case up for a SCOTUS ruling) only challenges Section 3 of DOMA, not Section 2. Section 3 forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Section 2 says states are not required to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states. The full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof", so it's very unlikely that Section 2 will be ruled unconstitutional.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Is "not doing" a legitimate "manner" of doing something. That seems rather tenuous.
rayiner 14y ago
It depends which civil liberties you're talking about. The Roberts court has been good for free speech and gun rights, and it wasn't just the liberals. Brown v. EMA was 7-2 for example. The pro-habeas Hamdan, Hamdi, Boumediene cases also came out under Roberts. Several positive decisions on drugs (can't ban hullucigenic teas) and search an seizure too (GPS case).
- btilly 14y ago
  Free speech is protected - so long as it is speech by corporations. I'm sure that corporations everywhere rejoiced at Citizens United. But compare with Morse v. Frederick.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The gist of Citizens United was that the government couldn't ban political speech near an election. The speaker in question just happened to be a company. Morse just said that kids have limited free speech rights. Both seem like good decisions to me and consistent with our historical practice.
    - btilly 14y ago
      The gist of Citizens United is that rights never intended by the Founders to apply to corporations now do. And spending money qualifies as speech. You probably also think that Clapper v. Amnesty International was a good decision. And think that they should not have heard Hepting v. AT&T. Those two cases seem highly relevant to their likely attitude on this one.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        The founding fathers likely never contemplated that groups of people would have different free speech rights than individual people. And Citizens United was about a political movie critical of Hilary Clinton during an election season when she was running for office. It's not "is money speech." I can't think of anything more deserving of free speech protections than political speech, especially critical political speech. Clapper was a very sensible decision. The plaintiffs in the case couldn't even prove that they had been harmed!
DannyBee 14y ago
The ruling is good but not great. It's better than what happened in 2006, but still only requires reasonable suspicion before they can take your laptop away from you for as long as they like to search it. Reasonable suspicion is a very low standard. It's basically more than a hunch, less than any real evidence. Even a combination of completely insignificant things can be reasonable suspicion.
drags 14y ago
The split is not so clear-cut on search and seizure issues. Remember that it was Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in Kyllo, which decided that using thermal imaging devices to search for grow houses ran afoul of the 4th Amendment.
will_brown 14y ago
>civil liberties the trend has been negative. Other disturbing degradation of civil liberties: - SCOTUS declining to hear the AT&T case of warrantless wiretapping emails, texts and other communication. -SCOTUS holding the Political Question Doctrine prohibits the Court from reviewing the Constitutionality of the President's extrajudicial targeted "Kill List" of US citizens nor can they review the Constitutionality on the criteria to get on the list. Recently a US District Court held Indefinite Detention of US citizens without due process to be Unconstitutional. However, I think SCOTUS will uphold this ruling 5-4 prompting Congress to re-write the law with the same effect, prompting the legal process all over again.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The examples you mentioned aren't "degradation of civil liberties." They're the court punting on deciding issues they don't have to. The Court didn't hear the AT&T case because there wasn't any plaintiff that could prove they had been harmed. The Court didn't hear the "kill list" case because what the President does against enemy combatants off U.S. soil is indeed a political question, since the Constitution invests the President with primacy in international affairs. The Court has not shied away from hearing similar issues when there was a closer nexus to U.S. soil and there were individuals with standing. The Court overturned a lot of the government's practices in Guantanamo, for example, because it was: 1) U.S. controlled soil; and 2) the people suing were actually hurt by the practices, not just people who objected to the practices.
  - cyrus_ 14y ago
    So to clarify, you are stating that U.S. citizens should lose all right to due process the minute they step off U.S. soil? Or do you believe that any citizen deemed an enemy combatant can be killed by the executive on U.S. soil as well?
    - rayiner 14y ago
      I'm not saying either of these things. I'm pointing out that separation of powers requires the Supreme Court to respect situations where the Constitution has given other branches primacy. It has never been true that the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum for redress of every possible Constitutional violation. That is to say, it can be simultaneously true that the Executive does something unconstitutional and that it is appropriate for the Supreme Court not to review the action. The conduct of war is an area in which the Constitution invests the President with primacy. But it's not a black/white issue--it's a spectrum. The more closely a matter touches U.S. soil, the more justification the Supreme Court has for intervening. At one end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to foreigners on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has no business telling the President how to kill Taliban in Afghanistan. At the other end of the spectrum is the President's conduct with respect to Americans on American soil. The Supreme Court must insert itself in such situations, as it did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), when it declared that the government must give due process to an American citizen captured in Afghanistan being held in Guantanamo. Between there is where it gets iffy. Hamdi, for reference, hadn't been in the U.S. since he was a child. Yet he was held to have due process rights because he was on U.S. controlled soil (Guantanamo Bay). The kill list cases have so far all been missing that crucial nexus to U.S. soil. Do you lose all your rights when you step off U.S. soil? No, and the Supreme Court has said so (Reid v. Covert). Do you lose all your rights when you leave the U.S., actively take up arms against it, and evade all attempts to bring you to justice? The Supreme Court is quite prudent not to take up that hairy situation, especially since civil libertarians may very well not like the answer.[1] [1] It wouldn't be unreasonable or unjustifiable for the Supreme Court to say that U.S. Citizens do retain the right to due process while off U.S. soil, even if they take up arms against the U.S., but that an administrative process is sufficient "process due" in situations where the Citizen refuses to submit himself to judicial process.

dfc 14y ago

I'm all for changing titles when they make the topic clear to the reader or combat hyperbolic escalation. With that in mind what was wrong with the original title? 9th Circuit Appeals Court: 4th Amendment Applies At The Border; Also: Password Protected Files Shouldn't Arouse Suspicion Other than grammatical errors what did the change of title provide?

softbuilder 14y ago
I like the modified title. It serves as a tidy tl;dr.
- dfc 14y ago
  What is in the modified title that is not in the original? (Other than grammar errors)
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Conciseness.
  - softbuilder 14y ago
    In addition to what rhizome said, the modified title puts the most significant piece of information first. Re: grammar, I think the article (expected "the") is optional in that case, if you read "expectation of privacy" as a singular concept.
LeeHunter 14y ago
The new heading seems reasonably accurate and much more clear. "9th Circuit Appeals Court" does not add useful information (at least not enough to warrant inclusion in the heading) and "4th amendment" doesn't mean anything at all to those of us who are not Americans.
- dfc 14y ago
  Unless you were following the case the inclusion of the 9th circuit is a nice way to scope the impact of the ruling.

dfc 14y ago

I was impressed with the discussion of the implication of device access when all your data is in the cloud. For more detailed discussion of the cotterman case see professor kerr's most recent post: http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/en-banc-ninth-circuit-holds-that-computer-forensic-searches-are-like-virtual-strip-searches-and-require-reasonable-suspicion-at-the-border/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/en-banc-ninth-circuit-holds... And his earlier posts: http://www.volokh.com/2011/03/30/ninth-circuit-decides-cotterman-case-reversing-district-court-on-laptop-seizure-at-the-border/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/03/30/ninth-circuit-decides-cotte... http://www.volokh.com/2011/01/17/update-on-united-states-v-cotterman-ninth-circuit-case-applying-the-border-search-exception-to-computers/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/01/17/update-on-united-states-v-c... http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/02/ninth-circuit-en-banc-argument-in-united-states-v-cotterman/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/02/ninth-circuit-en-banc-argum...

jmomo 14y ago
We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets is, nevermind have any conceptual grasp of the changes that drones, nanotech, human modification and augmentation, and similar will cause in our society. I am shocked, like I think you are, that these judges would have even the slightest clue. This is just uncharacteristic for the kinds of rulings we usually see when anything technology is related. I expect that near the end of my lifetime, when people my age are in power, if not sooner, a large number of laws and rulings will be overturned and changed in radically legal-altering ways. But it has always been that way. Even within my lifetime, we no longer think that ulcers are caused by stress, mobile phones/computers became reality, and a non-white person was elected present of my country. These are all pretty radical things.
- smsm42 14y ago
  >>>> We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets No we do not. A person who is now 60 (reasonable estimate age for "old people in power" - Obama is 52, John Roberts is 58, Boehner is 64) has lived in the internet age for almost 20 years, since he was 40. If you assume people can't learn something that is happening before their eyes for 20 years while they are at the peak of their career - you must have ver low and counterfactual opinion about these "old people". It may have been true 15 years ago, but repeating it now, in 2013, makes one sound a bit out of date. Virtually all "old people" now know what the internet is, and have been for years. Proverbial "your mother" now knows how to use the computer and follows you on Facebook. The times where internet was for hip youngsters has long passed, deal with it.

gnosis 14y ago

As welcome as this ruling is, if you wanted to keep something private, hoping that the government obeys the law may not be the wisest approach.

knite 14y ago

According to the article, password-protected files aren't reasonable grounds for suspicion. What about refusing to log into your machine or give up your login password?

ctdonath 14y ago

A good sensible ruling. Now, given that my data is private and only subject to search under warrant, are my privates likewise private?

OGinparadise 14y ago

My guess is that this will be overturned by SCOTUS http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal/ http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th... There's a practical problem as well: if the 4th applies, getting warrants just to check a bag is gonna be a paine. Unless they create different rules for airports, you can do this but not that.

furyg3 14y ago
This is different than a security check. TSA is looking for dangerous, or banned items - "is this safe to fly?". If they happen to find signs of criminal activity, they will turn you over to the police. TSA can examine your laptop, but they can't force you to open files or give them the password. They also claim that this is voluntary (you're flying instead of driving). Border agents are making sure you are not a criminal from the get-go. They have asserted that they can take your laptop bag from you nearly-indefinitely to do a full forensic analysis, without your consent. This is certainly not voluntary as all means of transport can result in a border check, and I have a right to enter my own country.

rdl 14y ago

Again, the 9th circuit proves to be the best circuit. I would not be willing to live in the US outside the 9th circuit until a number of split circuit issues are resolved. Fortunately the 9th is the biggest and covers all the places I'd otherwise care about. Think about how much less fucked weev would be next week if he were before Alex Kozinski rather than some NJ guy.

dfc 14y ago
I realize they didn't have much of a choice but I was hoping the 9th circuit would have found a way to decide in favor of the sea shepherds.
- rdl 14y ago
  I care much more about legal precedent than individual cases. The legal theory to allow piracy on the high seas would have been super convoluted. (although, personally, I'm against whaling, I'd also have supported the Japanese vessel if it lit the pirates up, too. )

hakaaaaak 14y ago

I wish that we didn't even have to have rulings. It should just be common sense to leave people alone if they aren't hurting anyone else.

smsm42 14y ago

Great quote from a dissent opinion: Now border agents, instead of knowing that they may search anyand all property that crosses the border for illegal articles, must ponder whether their searches are sufficiently “comprehensive and intrusive,” to require reasonable suspicion, and whether they have such suspicion. He says it as if not being able to search everything and everybody and requiring the agents to consider the privacy implication and intrusiveness of the search and if is is warranted or not - is a bad thing!

jrs235 14y ago
"Can we search your belongings?" "Why? Do you have reasonable suspicion to?" "We do now." When obeying the law and defending your rights becomes suspicious and cause for interrogation, 1984 has arrived. When driving at or under the speed limit at 2 am gets you pulled over you realize how close we are to a police state. Edit: I know the first bit is illegal but it happens. The police just make up some bs to cover their butts.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Unfortunately, you are right on the bs part - just recently SC declared that police drug dogs are always 100% accurate despite clear evidence to the contrary, and as such can be used as a probable cause. So we have a situation where we made a step forward with requiring probable cause, and step back with allowing the police to invent it by signaling a trained dog to bark. Maintaining liberty is never easy.

tempestn 14y ago

Question: Do 4th Amendment rights apply only to US citizens? Or would this ruling apply equally to, say, Canadians crossing the border into the US?

tempestn 14y ago
Answer: Looks like it applies equally to non-citizens. Will feel better about bringing my laptop across the border now. https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/fourth-amendment https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/fourth-amendment

TravisDirks 14y ago

Does ruling impact the DHS discussion from a couple days ago? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321036 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5321036 http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...

ajays 14y ago

Here's the problem: even with this ruling, there is nothing preventing the border patrol people from continuing to seize and search laptops and phones. In other words: there is no adequate punishment for violating a citizen's constitutional rights. At most, the evidence (if any) can't be used in a court of law. But there is never any punishment. For example: the dude who was imprisoned in solitary in NM for 2 years, without a trial or being presented before a judge (6th Amendment?). Sure, he got a boatload of money; but _no one was punished_.