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

281–290 of 617 posts

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

#281

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#282

Post by 8bitsrule »

Reasonable suspicion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

>a legal standard of proof in United States law ... more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.

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

#283

Post by mrandish »

mark-r wrote: post #135
dontbenebby wrote: post #95

IANAL, so can someone help me understand: How is this the final say if it's out of a court in Boston? Isn't that only one circuit?

Aren't rulings in one circuit often used as arguments in another circuit? Obviously it's not the final word unless it comes from the Supreme Court.

IANAL, but AFAIK attorneys can (and often do) cite a different court's ruling as support for their argument but if the cited court is not above the current court and in the same 'branch' of the tree, the current court isn't bound by it.

That's why supreme court rulings are such a big deal. They are the ultimate 'root' authority.

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

#284

Post by ta0987 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #172
arcticbull wrote: post #165

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. 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 framewo…

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…

e.g. to serve as a police officer

You can't legally work in any job as an illegal immigrant - it's a Federal law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a

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

#285

Post by User23 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #140
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.

The well regulated militia is subject to regulation.

And every citizen and immigrant who intends to become a citizen man (and women in the Guard) at least 17 years of age and under 45 is a member of the Militia of the United States[1].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

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

#286

Post by gamblor956 »

mark-r wrote: post #110
landryraccoon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, if a warrant is obtained using illegal evidence, then you poison the warrant and all the evidence arising from it.

Parallel construction happens way less frequently than people think it does, since it requires that there be an actual parallel path to the evidence that would have been available at the time the evidence was improperly obtained. It's basically only upheld when evidence was collected improperly through one means (i.e., a confession without Miranda disclosure), but could have been collected properly through other means available at the time of the improper collection (i.e., if the contents of the confession would have been revealed by a standard CSI search).

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

#287

Post by cinquemb »

mrandish wrote: post #278
dontbenebby wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as a practical matter, is it likely border officials will honor the ruling?

As with virtually all govt authority figures whose 'authoritah' gets constrained by pesky constitutional 'noise', they will adopt the minimal appearance of compliance that their dept lawyers estimate they can get away with. I wish I was kidding. It's definitely a good ruling to have on the books but it could very well just end up being a checkbox matter to have a pretense of "suspicion" (ie "this person appeared nerv…

Well, I'll be more tempted to fly into logan, at least for now…

But yeah, all hangs on what is "suspicion" (or what passes for it in practice), compared to say a targeted op or warrant provided by a court (even if its one of those secret courts like FISA).

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

#288

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by compiler-guy »

michaelmrose wrote: post #257
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.

Your argument is poorly formed this was an extremely obvious case of reading the plain language of the law as already quoted. Which court it arrived in isn't proof positive of the complexity of the law. Its proof of how irrational and diseased our system of government is. Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices to virtually riffle through an individ…

> Perhaps you would like to advance an actual argument

> insofar as abusing access to portable computing devices

> to virtually riffle through an individuals entire life

> without benefit of court or even articulable suspicion?

You seem to think that I support a side I don't. Cases like this don't survive motions for summary judgement if the one side is completely implausible. This case either survived a motion for summary judgement, or the "obvious" side didn't make such a motion.

So if you think it is completely obvious, you should take it up with either the judge that denied the motion, or the lawyer who neglected to bring it.

> Lest we forgot Texas had to have the supreme court tell them that they couldn't outlaw gay sex not that long ago.

Any law that forbid it was unjust, and it should have been fixed long, long before Obergefell. But just because a law is unjust, doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional on its face, (cf, civil asset forfeiture--manifestly unjust and currently legal in many circumstances) This is a mistake many court-watchers make.

It is a very safe bet that a 1950's court would have gone the other way on Obergefell, so on a plain language standard kind of fails. At some point, society gained a better understanding of what justice is and is not--and that is a great thing. But if the plain language didn't change, then the appeal to plain language isn't what gets us there. Rather, our understanding of justice did.

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

#290

Post by paulddraper »

babypuncher wrote: post #182
tus88 wrote: post #20

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

I would argue that any individual deserves most or all rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, regardless of citizenship or geographic location. These are fundamental human rights. I'm aware this is not how the constitution is written, it's just my opinion.

Some of the Bill of Rights are fundamental human rights, like right to free speach and right to bear arms.

Others are not, like the Tenth Amendment.

The 4th Amendment is probably closer to the first category rather than the second.

Post reply on HN