Constitutional aspect aside, it seems like such a pointless / resource waste of an activity. It seems highly unlikely to dig up much of any value.
Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
341–350 of 617 posts
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#342But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?
It's unfortunate that this is a reasonable question. I've been surprised to learn how conditional being treated like a human being really is (location, citizenship, etc.). It would be my preference for my country to treat all people kindly, fairly, equally.
If non-citizens are treated perfectly equally to citizens, what is the point in having a distinction between citizens and non-citizens?
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#343I’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…
Unless they claim to be acting in "Good faith", that is, didn't think at the time that the search was improper and it wasn't clearly settled law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States#Sub...
You can win a Supreme Court case about a search being illegal, and still have that evidence be used to nail you on the original charge.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#344Yeah, too bad the border control agents basically do what they want and this case means nothing. They'll do the same thing, and someone will say "But what about Alasaad v. McAleenan?" and in the small windowless holding room the agent will say "What about it? You want to leave, unlock your phone."
Evidence from an illegal search cannot be used in court. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2087
Unless they claim to be acting in "Good faith", that is, didn't think at the time that the search was improper and it wasn't clearly settled law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States#Sub...
You can win a Supreme Court case about a search being illegal, and still have that evidence be used to nail you on the original charge.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
In colonial era English language, well regulated refers to something being properly functioning, ie in working order. It has nothing to do with regulations.
Regulations are the means by which you make something be regulated. The relationship between these words hasn't changed. https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.
https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The sense of the term above is something like 'normal', 'well-ordered', 'regular'. Indeed the word 'regular' also shares the same origin as the word 'regulations', yet its common meanings are unrelated to the concept of regulations.
Parsing the 2nd Amendment, the US Supreme Court wrote that "the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training", and elaborated (quoting another scholar, Thomas Cooley):
> The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi...
The phrase "a well-regulated militia" in this context consequently means a militia that's learned, proficient, and effective in firearm use. In any case, what we're discussing is the preface of the amendment, which announces a purpose for the amendment and does not limit it. As the court wrote:
> The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 throu…
I don’t think you have to be mirandized to give a confession, no?
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
> surely I can’t impede law enforcement because they haven’t justified their authority to me Unless you've broken the law (and certain special cases), they have no authority over you. Because of the nature of their jobs, which requires them to sometimes take away a person's freedom or life, they must be held to a much higher level of accountability than your average person. You cite fear of harassment as a reason for…
>Unless you've broken the law (and certain special cases), they have no authority over you. This is not true at the border. They can seize your property, and delay you for what the law would say is temporary, but is long enough to be a major inconvenience.
[deleted]
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from all the arguments brought up so far, there's that word "unreasonable" which the courts have historically interpreted with an "expectation of privacy" standard. You have a high expectation of privacy when you're in your house, somewhat less when you're in a car, and much less when you're entering an airport or crossing a border. In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in…
> In the old days, it was routine for customs officers to search ships coming in to harbor, including the effects of their passengers, to enforce importation laws Yes, but electronic devices can't digitally contain physical substances that might be subject to customs laws. It's not comparable. It's probably still today reasonable to search ships in the harbor and passengers for physical substances (like banned animal…
Evidence of the four horsemen[1]. Child porn, terrorism, drugs, and the all-encompassing "organized crime" — which can include money laundering, which in turn can mean having enough money the government wants to steal it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#349Good to see common sense prevailing
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#350But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?
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)
One of the best things about the USA here