Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 617 posts

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#101

Post by akersten »

dragonwriter wrote: post #29
akersten wrote: post #9

Does 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…

> There is no such thing.

No, you admit there is such a thing, you just call it something differently. We're clearly talking about the same thing, whatever we choose to call it, it exists.

What you call "executive asserted zone in which [the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply]", I call a "no Constitution zone". It's clearer.

As far as activism goes, the way I see it: we can either use plain language to convey a pretty good approximation of the situation, and help people understand the crazy state of people's rights at the border, or dress it up in business language like a government-sanctioned PR release and lose a listener's interest immediately.

Someone probably learned about the zone from this very thread, which wouldn't exist had I not been provocative. And is it really provocative to point out that something's not right?

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#103

Post by landryraccoon »

lonelappde wrote: post #86
landryraccoon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087

Doesn't matter. 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.

This argument works against you.

If you were illegally searched, then law enforcement subsequently does parallel construction, defense counsel can easily and persuasively argue that the subsequent evidence is "fruit of the poisoned tree" and would not have occurred without the illegal search. The judge can then throw out all evidence from the parallel construction.

The only way parallel construction works is if defense counsel and the judge don't know that the illegal search ever happened at all - which is very unlikely in the case of an illegal border search.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#104

Post by HBKXNCUO »

mikece wrote: post #10
theandrewbailey wrote: post #5

OK, 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.

Ask them to explain what their reasonable suspicion basis for wanting to search your phone is. Without reasonable suspicion it's, by definition, an unreasonable search.

They don't have to articulate their reasonable suspicion to you, they need to articulate their reasonable suspicion to the court.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#105

Post by andrewla »

ISL wrote: post #2

"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.

> unreasonable

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#106

Post by iron0013 »

homonculus1 wrote: post #89
larkost wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That interpretation is farcical and was rightly overturned. How can a right be held by the collective if it is not protected for the individual? Are we to believe that individual journalists may be hauled off to jail without violating the freedom of "the press"? Collective rights are held by the States. "The people" are individuals and the prefatory militia clause is not a limit.

The founders included that clause for a reason.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#107

Post by vuln »

papito wrote: post #68
strictnein wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no more or less disturbing for journalists to be subjected to this. They're not some special class of protected people.

Their phones can expose sources that depend on discretion, and it's not farfetched for some MAGA TSA agent to ratf--k a journalist.

Try again.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2014/03/20/obam...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/10/cpi-re...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleb...

https://www.businessinsider.com/james-risen-case-obama-journ...

https://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_j...

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#108

Post by vuln »

lonelappde wrote: post #79
strictnein wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no more or less disturbing for journalists to be subjected to this. They're not some special class of protected people.

On the one hand, it's extra bad because searching a journalist leads to an additional violation: freedom on the press. On th other hand, we should not think of 1A rights as rights that only specialists or professionals need. (Much like we shouldn't think of police as relieving civilians of their duty to help maintain law and order and safety. Police augment and assist citizens, as public servants .)

Every person with a laptop / cellphone and a thought can be a journalist. See the Opinion column on big news sites...

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#109

Post by colinmhayes »

luckydata wrote: post #21

It was always CLEARLY unconstitutional. It's worrying it took so long to have it declared as such.

The level that the bill of rights applies to non-residents isn't very clear. The fourth amendment specifies the right of "the people", but it doesn't expand on who this includes. Some interpretations have it as us residents, some have it as all people.

Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

#110

Post by mark-r »

landryraccoon wrote: post #84
gorgoiler wrote: post #30

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…

The point of the law is that even if law enforcement finds evidence of guilt via illegal search, they cannot use that evidence in court. This is a crucial protection for citizens. The point of the ruling isn't that it prevents the search, it prevents the result of that search from being used against you. If law enforcement wishes to establish the guilt of a suspect in court, it has to use only evidence it obtained th…

Unfortunately there is still parallel construction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Honest question: can illegally obtained evidence be used to get a search warrant?

Post reply on HN