Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 181 posts

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#21

Post by RIMR »

beaglesss wrote: post #16
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #11

> But on Wednesday, Judge Nina Morrison in the Eastern District of New York ruled that cellphone searches are a "nonroutine" search, more akin to a strip search than scanning a suitcase or passing a traveler through a metal detector. Honestly, I would probably rather undergo a strip search than a cellphone scan. There won’t be any incriminating evidence I have forgotten about and everything is done as soon as I leave…

You think that. I was strip searched When that came up with nothing they appeared in front of a judge claiming drug baggies were sticking out of my ass, then I was imprisoned, printed, and loaded up in a prisoner van and dragged to several hospitals while they tried to convince doctors to X-ray or invasively search me. It sounds so insane, and gross, people usually don't believe it. I was sent the medical bills when…

Yeah, that sounds like the cops.

This is one of those things you should talk to a lawyer about, and possibly, if you want to and your lawyer approves, the media.

Being invasively searched for drugs due to false testimony by officers, where it was proven that you were free of contraband, but then being billed for the process, is fucked up and a clear violation of your constitutional rights.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#22

Post by RIMR »

mindslight wrote: post #12

So these criminals that have been performing the illegal searches. The next step is they'll be charged with false imprisonment, extortion, and conspiracy, right? Oh, okay then, how about at least for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law? Well then, what about monetary damages for the people whose data was copied, devices were stolen or could no longer be trusted, wasted time and missed flights, costs of…

You can't apply the law retroactively.

The law, despite being unconstitutional, allowed this, so you can't go back and arrest people who weren't breaking the law at the time.

What you can do is track back every arrest that resulted from one of these searches, and ask for all charges and convictions to be vacated/overturned because the evidence was collected in an unconstitutional way.

I'm more interested in damage control than revenge on this one.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#23

Post by beaglesss »

RIMR wrote: post #21
beaglesss wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that. I was strip searched When that came up with nothing they appeared in front of a judge claiming drug baggies were sticking out of my ass, then I was imprisoned, printed, and loaded up in a prisoner van and dragged to several hospitals while they tried to convince doctors to X-ray or invasively search me. It sounds so insane, and gross, people usually don't believe it. I was sent the medical bills when…

Yeah, that sounds like the cops. This is one of those things you should talk to a lawyer about, and possibly, if you want to and your lawyer approves, the media. Being invasively searched for drugs due to false testimony by officers, where it was proven that you were free of contraband, but then being billed for the process, is fucked up and a clear violation of your constitutional rights.

I talked to several including the lawyer of Ashley Cervantes v US , a woman warrantlessly digitally raped (fingered) by doctors at the same hospital in search of drugs. Her case was publicized and far more egregious.

They essentially told me they'd given up.

I also reported a nurse who acted without consent to the nursing board. The board covered for her. And in Cervantes case, her doctor simply testified it was a he said she said and he pretty promised she consented.

The ACLU occasionally picks up cases but rarely and even rarer for an unsympathetic white guy.

It feels pretty hopeless honestly. They have QI,the courts, and every institution covers for them. At the border, CBP is god, even immune from 1A right to record them.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#24

Post by qingcharles »

mindslight wrote: post #12

So these criminals that have been performing the illegal searches. The next step is they'll be charged with false imprisonment, extortion, and conspiracy, right? Oh, okay then, how about at least for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law? Well then, what about monetary damages for the people whose data was copied, devices were stolen or could no longer be trusted, wasted time and missed flights, costs of…

Well, it's more complicated than that under federal law. If there is no completely specific SCOTUS ruling on the issue then it comes down to whether there is a published opinion by the Circuit Court in the government official's area. If there is, then they are expected to have read it and taken it into account when they acted. If they violate that opinion then they are liable.

You can only be civil liable for these sorts of violations. I think to criminally liable under a constitutional violation you need an act of violence? e.g. like the Floyd case?

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#25

Post by Retric »

qingcharles wrote: post #19
fbdab103 wrote: post #2

Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?

SCOTUS doesn't always make shitty decisions. Sometimes dozens of lower courts will all make a shitty decision and then it gets to SCOTUS and they somehow use their greater resources to produce a better decision contrary to everyone's expectations. IIRC pretty much 99% of state and fed courts had ruled against the warrant requirement for GPS tracking until it hit SCOTUS and they went the opposite direction (just): htt…

2012 was a very different court.

  Gorsuch, Neil M.        April 10, 2017  
  Kavanaugh, Brett M.     October 6, 2018  
  Barrett, Amy Coney      October 27, 2020  
  Jackson, Ketanji Brown  June 30, 2022

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#26

Post by qingcharles »

RIMR wrote: post #22
mindslight wrote: post #12

So these criminals that have been performing the illegal searches. The next step is they'll be charged with false imprisonment, extortion, and conspiracy, right? Oh, okay then, how about at least for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law? Well then, what about monetary damages for the people whose data was copied, devices were stolen or could no longer be trusted, wasted time and missed flights, costs of…

You can't apply the law retroactively. The law, despite being unconstitutional, allowed this, so you can't go back and arrest people who weren't breaking the law at the time. What you can do is track back every arrest that resulted from one of these searches, and ask for all charges and convictions to be vacated/overturned because the evidence was collected in an unconstitutional way. I'm more interested in damage co…

The states might apply this differently, I'm out of touch, but under fed law, I think you can only apply new SCOTUS rulings to criminal cases that are still not "final." (e.g. haven't gone to trial, or haven't completed their course through all 11 or 13 stages of appellate review.. however many there are these days inc state + fed + habeas)

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#27

Post by qingcharles »

Retric wrote: post #25
qingcharles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS doesn't always make shitty decisions. Sometimes dozens of lower courts will all make a shitty decision and then it gets to SCOTUS and they somehow use their greater resources to produce a better decision contrary to everyone's expectations. IIRC pretty much 99% of state and fed courts had ruled against the warrant requirement for GPS tracking until it hit SCOTUS and they went the opposite direction (just): htt…

2012 was a very different court. Gorsuch, Neil M. April 10, 2017 Kavanaugh, Brett M. October 6, 2018 Barrett, Amy Coney October 27, 2020 Jackson, Ketanji Brown June 30, 2022

Amen to that, I mentioned that above too :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41084212

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#28

Post by BenFranklin100 »

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #10
fbdab103 wrote: post #2

Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?

A textualist interpretation of the constitution would likely take a very dim view of the federal government trying to stretch its powers and get around the Fourth Amendment. I don’t think we have much to worry about on this topic from the current court.

For the Hacker News members who are reflexively downvoting my comment, presumably for political reasons, I refer you to Riley vs. California, the 2014 SCOTUS decision that ruled warrantless searches of cell phones were unconstitutional:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/373/

The opinion was written by Roberts with a concurrence by Alito.

Again, presumably, the 2024 court is likely to take an even a dimmer view of the Feds trying to expand their powers and circumvent the 4th Amendment than the 2014 court.

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#29

Post by dcdc123 »

eurleif wrote: post #7
fbdab103 wrote: post #2

Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?

This is a ruling by a District Court. It could be appealed to the Circuit Court, and then to the Supreme Court. In the federal court system, District Court decisions are not binding precedent. Circuit Court decisions bind the District Courts in their circuit, and Supreme Court decisions bind all lower courts. This District Court is in the Second Circuit. Another District Court in the same Circuit made a similar decis…

So does that mean they may not want to appeal it at all to avoid a ruling in a higher court?

Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border

#30

Post by eurleif »

uoaei wrote: post #20
arnonejoe wrote: post #18

I’m curious, if your phone is locked, were they ever able to demand that you unlock it so they could conduct a search?

They can demand, and you can refuse. However if you have Face ID or other biometric measures, they can (legally) force your finger onto the sensor or hold the phone up to your face to unlock it for their needs. Passwords are personal data, faces and fingerprints are not, apparently.

>Passwords are personal data, faces and fingerprints are not, apparently.

The rulings you're referring to are based on the Fifth Amendment. They don't involve the privacy rights of the Fourth Amendment. Rather, they treat the act of revealing your password as testimonial: if you say "my password is hunter2", you are testifying; and the Fifth Amendment says you cannot be forced to testify against yourself; so you cannot be forced to reveal your password.

You can scan your fingerprint or face without speaking a word, so those acts are not testimonial, and forcing you to do them would not implicate the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, brute forcing your password, or searching for it written down in your notes, would not implicate the Fifth Amendment.

Post reply on HN