Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

Post by raincom » Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

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…

Post by threatofrain » Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

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…

Post by baddox » Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #32

Fellshard wrote: post #12

Open question, here: Doesn't this backfire and make TSA more likely to operate on the basis of profiling alone? What makes a traveler suspect? This reminds me of Sowell's distinction between 'Type I' and 'Type II' discrimination: when all other information is forbidden from you, you'll end up using the only information you have as your heuristic, however noisy and biased that information might be compared to a more c…

Unpopular opinion: why is profiling bad in context of airplane security? If 100% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people of X country (Xians), and 0% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people from Y country (Yians), it seems like a pointless charade of political correctness to check Xians and Yians with equal frequency. I say profile the heck out of Xians. Stop and frisk 100% of Xians an…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #82

papln wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Constitutional jurisprudence is really the sum of the text of the Constitution and the rulings held by courts. IMO the BOR should apply to all humans, anywhere in the universe, when subject to US Government jurisdiction. Let's hope courts agree.

Post by EpicEng » Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #118

tus88 wrote: post #20

But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?

It’s a bummer there is still so much serious political discussion about which people count as people.