It was always CLEARLY unconstitutional. It's worrying it took so long to have it declared as such.
Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
21–30 of 617 posts
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#22Haven't read the opinion, but I'd anticipate that this will be reversed on appeal. My guess is that this was either an Obama or Clinton judge. Both my Crim Pro and Con Law professors skipped border search cases and summed them up with "you have no rights at the border." That's been the common law since King Tut.
> That's been the common law since King Tut.
Much immigration law is pure statute and dates from the 20th century. Border enforcement has varied hugely, and often included internal border and migration enforcement.
(The British Empire had almost what we would call EU-style "free movement" exactly up to the point where nonwhite people started taking advantage of it in significant numbers, with the Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin in the 60s.)
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#23Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone.
[deleted]
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#24OK, so what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? Their actions have effectively said that for almost 20 years.
> what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? The same thing that stops all tyranny. A vigilant and engaged citizen body. Practically, this means donating to the ACLU and related groups. It also means, if you’re party to injustice, suing or reaching out to organisation who can help you sue to assert our rights.
Do these suspicions require some sort of preliminary-evidence of those suspicions before acted upon?
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#25"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Sounds like the Court got it right.
I suspect you may know this, but there exist many locations and circumstances wherein various rights are suspended. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
And yet the fourth amendment says what it says. I'm prepared to agree to disagree with the Supreme Court on the subject, but the bill of rights is, to me, clear.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what stops the TSA/DHS from saying "We suspect you are a terrorist; please unlock your phone"? The same thing that stops all tyranny. A vigilant and engaged citizen body. Practically, this means donating to the ACLU and related groups. It also means, if you’re party to injustice, suing or reaching out to organisation who can help you sue to assert our rights.
Do these suspicions require some sort of preliminary-evidence of those suspicions before acted upon?
Reasonable suspicion must be based on rational inferences from specific and articulable facts, as opposed to just a hunch.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#27"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Sounds like the Court got it right.
I suspect you may know this, but there exist many locations and circumstances wherein various rights are suspended. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
> I suspect you may know this, but there exist many locations and circumstances wherein various rights are suspended.
It sounds like this recent ruling may have rendered that page out of date.
From your link:
> According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
From the OP:
> In a major victory for privacy rights, a federal court in Boston today ruled that the government’s suspicionless searches of international travelers’ smartphones and laptops at airports and other U.S. ports of entry violate the Fourth Amendment. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and ACLU of Massachusetts, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#28But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?
If you're on US soil you're subject to US law, including all provisions of the Constitution. And the Constitution makes a distinction between 'citizens' and 'people' (i.e., everybody, including noncitizens)
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#29Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone.
> Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border?
This is specifically about border searches, so, insofar as such a zone exists (the description is hyperbolic and more useful for motivating activism that any kind of analytical application), yes.
> Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone.
There is no such thing. There is an executive-asserted 100 mile zone (statute only says a reasonable distance, and AFAIK courts have not ruled on actual boundaries) from the border in which federal officials can conduct warrantless searches of vehicles to identify people without legal permission to be in the country.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#30I’m not sure to whom the reasonable suspicion has to be announced? It makes it hard for me, a lay person, to understand the practical ramifications of this decision.
Would the suspicion have to be announced to me, when I’m asked to unlock my phone, or would it have to be presented to a court, when they are asked to prosecute me based on the contents of my phone? If they find illegal content on my phone, wouldn’t the prosecutor just tell the court “she matched a profile for the sort of person that carries illegal documents”?
The latter is only meaningful if the case goes to court, which feels like a stretch. There are many forms of punishment that can be meted out without having to go to court. Vexatious detention, confiscation of property, etc.
The former seems silly — surely I can’t impede law enforcement because they haven’t justified their authority to me?