모두
← Back to Squawk list
Court Upholds Government Right to Search Laptops and Phones at Border Crossings
A federal judge said Tuesday that the government has a right to search the portable electronic devices of travelers and dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the policy. The decision impacts travelers entering the U.S. by air and other means including automobile and train.... (www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com) 기타...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Your rights have slightly changed because of our sick society members. Get used to change, and please write your congressman a letter stating how you have a better way to control terriost. I know I'm always open to good ideas that won't tax society.
Ever since the ruling that LEAs can collect DNA without conviction and/or a court order, I lost faith in any effort in continued liberty. And the odd part was it was upheld largely by "conservatives" and the liberal justices dissented.
The Framers are rolling in their graves.
The Framers are rolling in their graves.
How about data sniffing dogs?
What sort of law school trained this judge? Was he educated in the Phillipines?
“there is not a substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion.”
Faulty. The constraint of the Fourth Amendment cannot be diluted through any such extrapolation. And what constitutes "substantial risk"? Who decides that? What nonsense!
Reasonable suspicion is cited. This is a far weaker standard than probable cause and in no way justifies a search. Reasonable suspicion is the first step and permits a "stop and frisk", where the stop is to test the reasonable suspicion and the frisk is to make certain that the individual is not an immediate physical threat: "The officer at the border had reasonable suspicion to believe the US citizen was smuggling contraband as the citizen appeared nervous during the routine border inquiry. Therefore the citizen was temporarily detained and refused to allow his vehicle and bags to be searched. This raised the encounter to the level of probable cause, and therefore a search warrant based on the facts was sought."
If the border patrol or any other government agency wants to search, get a warrant.
No playing Guantanamo at the border.
“there is not a substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion.”
Faulty. The constraint of the Fourth Amendment cannot be diluted through any such extrapolation. And what constitutes "substantial risk"? Who decides that? What nonsense!
Reasonable suspicion is cited. This is a far weaker standard than probable cause and in no way justifies a search. Reasonable suspicion is the first step and permits a "stop and frisk", where the stop is to test the reasonable suspicion and the frisk is to make certain that the individual is not an immediate physical threat: "The officer at the border had reasonable suspicion to believe the US citizen was smuggling contraband as the citizen appeared nervous during the routine border inquiry. Therefore the citizen was temporarily detained and refused to allow his vehicle and bags to be searched. This raised the encounter to the level of probable cause, and therefore a search warrant based on the facts was sought."
If the border patrol or any other government agency wants to search, get a warrant.
No playing Guantanamo at the border.
Oh, and before anyone faults the present administration: he was appointed by Reagan.
Thank you for pointing that out.
I agree with you that the situation is horrible, but flaming the judge in this case probably is not going to help. There is a well-known exception to the 4th Amendment which applies to border crossings. Sorry, neither warrant nor individualized suspicion are needed at all for a search:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=431&invol=606
It's a sad thing, but it's by no means new and has deep roots in the law. It'll take much more than just a public outcry to change this.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=431&invol=606
It's a sad thing, but it's by no means new and has deep roots in the law. It'll take much more than just a public outcry to change this.