81–90 of 617 posts
Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what about Alasaad v. McAleenan?" and in the small windowless holding room the agent will say "What about it? You want to leave, unlock your phone."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
That's not true. the Consitution makes a distinction between 'person' and 'citizen', but is painfully ambiguous about 'People'. In context, 'people' most likely means 'citizens'. Even if you mean 'persons', not 'people', it's still largely ambiguous. https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution... 'People' have rights: > the right of the people peaceably to assemble > the right of the people to keep a…
IMO the BOR should apply to all humans, anywhere in the universe, when subject to US Government jurisdiction. Let's hope courts agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I’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…
Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what about Alasaad v. McAleenan?" and in the small windowless holding room the agent will say "What about it? You want to leave, unlock your phone."
Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087
99.9% of the time, the most negative outcome of this kind of interaction will be losing my stuff, being arrested and held for anywhere up to 24 hours, or being denied entry. For most people, these are a compelling enough reasons to comply with a power-tripping border agent. Despite this ruling, your recourse in such a situation will remain quite limited.
Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what about Alasaad v. McAleenan?" and in the small windowless holding room the agent will say "What about it? You want to leave, unlock your phone."
Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087
They can still do parallel construction, and can still cause you harm just by detaining you, and they can use your behavior in response to abuse as probable cause to justify further abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll (possibly inaccurately) assume this is in good faith. The most obvious reason that profiling is bad, even in your inaccurate and simplistic hypothetical scenario, is that just because all airplane terrorist attacks came from people of X country, does not imply that everyone from X country commits terrorist airplane attacks. Therefore you are unfairly and immorally forcing invasive searches on many innocent peopl…
> Therefore you are unfairly and immorally forcing invasive searches on many innocent people of X country. If you have any empathy for the innocent people of X country, you will realize how horrible this is. Okay, we are talking about an extra 5 minutes of scrutiny, not cruel and unusual punishment. I don't think it's really that "horrible" to make people from countries with bad track records jump through some extra…
Furthermore, CBP and ICE both claimed their authority to search electronic devices at the border extended to US citizens, so much of the profiling was not just of people from certain countries, but from people whose ancestry was from certain countries.
Lastly, I can't and won't try to convince you that it's wrong to subject people of various backgrounds to different, worse treatment, whether it's "cruel and unusual" or unfair, or invasive, or even simply inconvenient. It sounds like you aren't usually subject to such treatment or else you would probably have a different outlook on it. I recommend talking or listening to some people who do, and what their experiences are like.
It was always CLEARLY unconstitutional. It's worrying it took so long to have it declared as such.
So I work for a company that deals with medical data, if I violate HIPAA, I don't get to just keep doing it until a federal court says stop and then walk away as if nothing happened. I'm personally held responsible for those violations. Not just my company, me.
Why aren't each of these agents that obviously and egregiously violated the constitution subject to imprisonment or fines for each violation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. I’m saying that liberal judges tend to ignore the law when it comes to highly political issues. For example, how many opinions have you read from Ginsburg where she says “I personally disagree with this outcome, but the law is clear.”? Quite rarely.
I would argue that this is not really a "liberal" thing. Up until the 1970's the courts (including the Supreme Court) regularly found that the right to bear arms was in the context of establishing a militia, and not really a personal right. They consistently citied the "A well regulated Militia" part. The law was clear. Nowadays Supreme Court president effectively ignores the militia part, and has created a personal…
Collective rights are held by the States. "The people" are individuals and the prefatory militia clause is not a limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087
If a border agent is giving me shit, the last thing I'm worried about is whether or not any evidence they gather is going to be used against me in court. 99.9% of the time, the most negative outcome of this kind of interaction will be losing my stuff, being arrested and held for anywhere up to 24 hours, or being denied entry. For most people, these are a compelling enough reasons to comply with a power-tripping borde…
Also, it's not exactly hard for a lawyer to argue that you were coerced into consenting to a search in your hypothetical example. Since the people crossing the border are mostly non-criminals if CPB does use those tactics routinely it will not take long at all for a suitably politically sympathetic victim to come along and precedent to be established saying that is also not ok.