241–250 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. If the magistrate fails to notice the illegal-ness of the evidence and gives the warrant, it is valid nonetheless.
If the illegal-ness later comes to light would a court consider evidence from the 'valid' warrant tainted? Always, sometimes?
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.
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.
As a bonus (malus?), the very same malicious process can be used against kids of homeless parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
It depends on the entry point. If I go through US customs in the Toronto airport, it's on Canadian soil. If someone there is having an issue with the process, they can withdraw their entry request and leave. That's perfectly fine and they shouldn't be punished for it. You don't have that option if you use a land crossing as you're physically inside the US.
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)
Your reasoning may be correct, but not quite so obvious to courts. For instance, foreigners' right to keep and bare arms is routinely violated, even though they are people.
Their rights are violated by courts?
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)
at the border you are not yet on US soil. They can deny you for any reason at all
> 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The metric the agent's boss's boss's boss cares about is convictions because that's how they justify their budget "look at all these criminals we're catching". If they can't use the illegal searches in order to convict people of crimes they're much less likely to spend the man hours doing them as routine procedure. Also, it's not exactly hard for a lawyer to argue that you were coerced into consenting to a search in…
I highly doubt they are getting a lot of convictions from illegal searches of devices. The overwhelming majority of convictions they get are from people physically smuggling drugs and weapons and apples across borders. They don't need to unlock your phone to catch you with any of these things. They already have the right to tear apart your car if they think you have drugs hidden in it.
It's a power play, not an actually useful LE tool. The overwhelming majority of the things that you may have on your phone that are going to get you in trouble with border control are not going to put you in jail. What they will do, is deny you entry, and possibly ban you for 5-10 years.
Since entry for non-citzens is a courtesy, you have zero redress in that case. You're never going to get your day in court, since you're not charged with a crime, and you will not be able to contest that the search was illegal.
The only way this ruling would result in any change, is if CBP voluntarily follows it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the entry point. If I go through US customs in the Toronto airport, it's on Canadian soil. If someone there is having an issue with the process, they can withdraw their entry request and leave. That's perfectly fine and they shouldn't be punished for it. You don't have that option if you use a land crossing as you're physically inside the US.
Why would you be in US customs in a Canadian airport? I didn't know that exits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ruling has nothing to do with TSA. TSA does not control US borders.
Fair. Insert relevant authorities instead; the principle is of more concern than the implementing authority in this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your reasoning may be correct, but not quite so obvious to courts. For instance, foreigners' right to keep and bare arms is routinely violated, even though they are people.
> foreigners' right to keep and bare arms is routinely violated Their rights are violated by courts?
It's pretty easy to make the case that nobody knows what the U.S. Constitution actually means.
"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.
In the United States, such an act would clearly be against the 4th Amendment. It was less clear here.