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

261–270 of 617 posts

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

#261

Post by dreamcompiler »

paulddraper wrote: post #250
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.

To be fair, these searches were prior to entering the United States. In the United States, such an act would clearly be against the 4th Amendment. It was less clear here.

What do you mean? The searches happened at US ports of entry on US soil and were conducted by agents of the US government. In many cases the victims were US citizens. It was already a clear 4th amendment violation; the court has merely affirmed that.

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

#262

Post by dragonwriter »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #98
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)

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.

> 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.

AFAICT, that’s the practical effect of a holding of an single intermediate appellate court this year on an issue that while important on its own was kind of a side issue in a campaign finance case, and the rationale seems a bit wobbly; and it's logic actually assumes as a starting point hat non-immigrant visa holders having the same 2A rights as everyone else.

While it is for the moment binding precedent within the 9th Circuit, I wouldn't draw any broad generalizations from it, or, even, assume it will hold up on the future.

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

#263

Post by bryanrasmussen »

arcticbull wrote: post #188
xyzzyz wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This follows logically, in my opinion, from the idea that the federal government is solely responsible for matters of immigration law. This argument makes sense, but I think it proves too much: states already have plenty of laws that restrict certain rights or privileges to citizens only. Your argument, as I understand it, is that since immigration status is a matter of federal law, states cannot deny a right (to K-1…

> What do you mean by "seen out", exactly? Committing a crime of moral turpitude as a non-immigrant (and even some green card holders) makes you eligible for deportation. [1] [1] https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/legal-re...

Some years ago (as I remember this) it was allowed to deport any non-citizen who had committed a crime that could lead to a year or more incarceration - is that no longer the case?

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

#264

Post by dragonwriter »

leereeves wrote: post #222
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

Is the first point a constitutional issue? I don't recall the constitution guaranteeing anyone a public education.

It doesn't require public education, but it restricts discrimination if it is provided by the state, as all states do. So, yes, it is a Constitutional issue.

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

#265

Post by vkou »

gamblor956 wrote: post #260
vkou wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many states ban non-citizens from gun ownership. The courts have explicitly, and implicitly supported this interpretation of the second amendment. It's pretty easy to make the case that nobody knows what the U.S. Constitution actually means.

Quite literally the opposite is true: https://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2015/09/non-citize... Court upheld the right of an illegal alien to own a firearm.

> Applying intermediate scrutiny to the federal ban on arms possession by unauthorized aliens, the court found the law to be reasonable. Since unauthorized aliens "often live largely outside the formal system" and are "harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity," the government may rationally limit their access to firearms.

> Thus, the Seventh Circuit leaves Meza-Rodriguez with the right to bear arms, but without the ability to exorcise that right under federal law.

What is the point of a theoretical right that can't be exercised in practice? Citizens of the USSR had the right to free speech, free political expression, etc.

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

#266

Post by tssva »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #27
csours wrote: post #17

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

> I suspect you may know this, but there exist many locations and circumstances wherein various rights are suspended. It sounds like this recent ruling may have rendered that page out of date. From your link: > According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a…

Although the court ruled that such searches require reasonable suspicion the court also denied any form of injunctive relieve forbidding CBP or ICE from conducting such searches in cases where there is no reasonable suspicion. Until such an injunction is given expect CBP and ICE agents to continue to perform searches based upon current agency policy.

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

#267

Post by paulddraper »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #261
paulddraper wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, these searches were prior to entering the United States. In the United States, such an act would clearly be against the 4th Amendment. It was less clear here.

What do you mean? The searches happened at US ports of entry on US soil and were conducted by agents of the US government. In many cases the victims were US citizens . It was already a clear 4th amendment violation; the court has merely affirmed that.

I understood that someone was denied entry to the U.S. based on a search; i.e. they couldn't enter the U.S.

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

#268

Post by refurb »

greycol wrote: post #216
refurb wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not. Every country has the right to determine who is admissible. There is no right to enter a country where you're not a citizen.

Yes, but the whole point of the attorney is to make sure that the correct laws are applied to you. This ensures that it's the country that's determining who is admissible rather than just a petty tyrant who got out on the wrong side of the bed.

But you're not under arrest or being detailed in this case. Not sure what a lawyer could do in this instance.

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

#269

Post by dmix »

abtinf wrote: post #254
compiler-guy wrote: post #195

I support this ruling very strongly, and am super-glad it went the way it did. But at the same time, if it were as obvious as just quoting the constituion, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The SC decides cases that are difficult, not cases that are easy. Again, I believe this is the right decision, but it was no layup.

There are many obvious cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. All it takes is a pig headed state or federal attorney general who insists on trying to uphold oppressive laws.

Just like how FISA courts have granted NSA access to whatever they want because “the person will never find out their privacy was violated, therefore it’s not that big of a deal”.

This is what the Yahoo attorneys were told in one of the few partially declassified FISA court hearings by the judge when they tried to push back on a sweeping warrant, which I believe involved full emails/information for not only a group of individuals but every person they talked to 2 hops, which quickly turns into thousands of people and companies.

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

#270

Post by dragonwriter »

jakeogh wrote: post #185
Rebelgecko wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Looks like it was recently (thankfully) reversed and remanded: https://ballotpedia.org/Rehaif_v._United_States Weird quirk with the huntling license, so that second example is a state law?

No, it's federal law that includes among it's explicit exemptions possession of a valid state hunting license. The law has not been much litigated, though the Ninth Circuit upheld it earlier this year in a case that was mostly a campaign finance crimes case but also involved gun possession by the foreign, non-immigrant defendant.
Post reply on HN