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

161–170 of 617 posts

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

#161

Post by Taniwha »

yogenpro wrote: post #155
Finnucane wrote: post #28

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)

Except travelers are not "on us soil" until granted entry by customs. Customs could just deny entry if foreign travelers won't voluntarily consent to search.

If you make that argument then the customs officers are also NOT on US soil and have no authority to search phones (or do anything) at all

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

#162

Post by jessaustin »

elil17 wrote: post #142
reaperducer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is true in practice It is true in practice. One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.

This gets a couple things wrong: 1) People who aren’t citizens are still entitled to public education. Many green card holders go to US public schools, for instance 2) Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents immigration status

Clearly parent is not talking about children born in USA, so your second point is not relevant. Your first point is just a restatement of parent.

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

#163

Post by ISL »

roywiggins wrote: post #138
ISL wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fourth amendment just says searches have to be reasonable, not that they have to be done pursuant to a warrant. What counts as "reasonable" is very much not clear unless you look beyond the text. There's no evidence, for instance, that the fourth amendment was meant to prevent customs checks at the border. Inside the US, customs checks would be unreasonable searches, but at the border they have always been legal.…

Is a customs check reasonable without probable cause?

I understand the pragmatic argument, but not the implicit presumption that an upstanding citizen would come home with contraband.

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

#165

Post by arcticbull »

xyzzyz wrote: post #147
reaperducer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is true in practice It is true in practice. One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.

Only because the Supreme Court decided in 5-to-4 decision that the states don't have a "substantial state interest" that would allow them to deny it. See Plyler v. Doe. Which is to say, the constitutional rights of non-citizens are hardly as obvious as they are for citizens.

This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law. You don't want to create a patchwork of different rules in different states based on presence granted and retracted at the sole discretion of the federal government. Once you're on US soil, you're largely treated the same as anyone else on US soil (or at least through the same framework), and that makes sense. If you should be removed, that's up to the Feds. To the extent you're not, you should be treated consistently.

You are of course correct that the rules do not apply evenly for immigrants and nonimmigrants, especially since nonimmigrants convicted of a crime are largely seen out as soon as their sentence is served. The same isn't true of immigrants.

Mostly.

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

#166

Post by vilhelm_s »

iandanforth wrote: post #152
vilhelm_s wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even a circuit yet, this is a district court judgement. It is not a final say.

Hypothetically if it weren't appealed would it be the final say?

I'm not sure what effect this judgement even has. The court declared that the search policy was unconstitutional but denied the request for an injunction, so I think right now there's nothing preventing the ICE from continuing to search devices even in that district?

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

#167

Post by Rebelgecko »

jakeogh wrote: post #112
Rebelgecko wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the legal justification, but I don't think that is true in practice. For example a tourist or someone on an expired visa (edit: or an unexpired but non-immigrant visa) doesn't have the same 2A rights as a US citizen or permanent resident.

Have the higher courts have addressed that? The tourist example I'm expecting they _should_ since they are not breaking any law. Hm. Page 27: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf I'm ignoring FFL's because it's not directly relevant.

There was a recent court case about this (Rehaif v. U.S) where the Supreme Court made a decision about the law making it a felony to knowingly possess a gun in the US while here illegally. The prosecutor said "knowingly" just refers to the gun possession, but Rehaif's lawyer said it should refer to knowingly possessing the gun and knowing that you weren't in the country legally (Rehaif claimed that he hadn't read an email saying his student visa was revoked before he rented a gun at a shooting range). The Supreme Court said that "knowingly" referred to both the possession and the legality of one's presence. Presumably that means they're OK with a law that discriminates against some non-citizens on US soil.

Another thing that I just learned it is actually still illegal to borrow a gun at a shooting range if you have a non-immigrant visa (unless you have a hunting license). Even if he hadn't lost his visa he'd still be breaking a different law. It's illegal for people visiting with tourist visas to go to shooting ranges, but for tourists visiting from countries that don't require visas it's OK.

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

#168

Post by arcticbull »

jakeogh wrote: post #150
Spooky23 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The well regulated militia is subject to regulation.

Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

I'd appreciate a summary of this 23 minute long audio recording ;)

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

#169

Post by wila »

Taniwha wrote: post #161
yogenpro wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except travelers are not "on us soil" until granted entry by customs. Customs could just deny entry if foreign travelers won't voluntarily consent to search.

If you make that argument then the customs officers are also NOT on US soil and have no authority to search phones (or do anything) at all

But good luck explaining that to them.

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

#170

Post by adiM »

jessaustin wrote: post #162
elil17 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets a couple things wrong: 1) People who aren’t citizens are still entitled to public education. Many green card holders go to US public schools, for instance 2) Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen regardless of their parents immigration status

Clearly parent is not talking about children born in USA, so your second point is not relevant. Your first point is just a restatement of parent.

The grant-parent said "children of _illegal_ immigrants" and the parent is talking about "children of _Green card holders_". Green card holders are those who have immigrated legally.
Post reply on HN