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

EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#41

Post by TimorousBestie »

superkuh wrote: post #39
TimorousBestie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026. Exactly. Everyone reading extremely fine distinctions into the relevant laws should at least do the work of also showing that those laws are currently applied in the manner they imply. To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application.

> To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application. It's not speculation. It's lived experience. And while I understand most probably don't have it, it doesn't invalidate it.

> It's lived experience.

Then it should be easy to cite recent case law backing up their claims, hmm?

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#42

Post by tptacek »

ryandrake wrote: post #31
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's Supreme Court precedent establishing that this isn't the case. ACLU itself had backed off it, last I checked, but since they used it for a very long time in fundraising, people will never, ever stop believing that 80% of the United States lives in a "Constitution-free zone". You cannot in fact be border-searched on the streets of Chicago; in fact, you can't even be border-searched at a lawful fixed immigratio…

The words of the law don't seem to matter much anymore. If the government does something, and they receive no push back (either from the people supposed to be checking-and-balancing, or from the victim in the form of successful lawsuits), then they, for all intents and purposes, can in practice do that thing.

Then none of this matters and there's no point discussing it.

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#43

Post by BizarroLand »

sowbug wrote: post #12

This defendant was convicted of possessing CSAM. Before that fact causes you to lose sympathy for the case, note that almost every significant criminal case affirming constitutional rights involves a defendant who did something unsavory, if not reprehensible. Miranda was a kidnapper and rapist. Danny Escobedo (right to an attorney during interrogation) murdered his brother-in-law. Clarence Earl Gideon (right to a cou…

There is a reason why justice is always depicted as blind and holding a scale.

What matters is the law, not who the law is applied to or the circumstances for invoking that specific law.

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#44

Post by hn_acker »

rmunn wrote: post #20
hn_acker wrote: post #2

The original title is: > EFF to Fourth Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

That's what the title is now, except that "Fourth" is now "4th". Was it meaningfully different at the time you posted that comment?

Usually I post the original title in a comment for the sake of transparency (because some people may comment without reading the entire article), but that is not the case here. In this case, I posted the original title so that future me would be able to use HN Algolia search to find out whether I had cited or posted this article in the "past".

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#45

Post by mrguyorama »

ryandrake wrote: post #30
ceejayoz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in... > The U.S. Border Patrol has stated: "Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions 'Are you a U.S. citizen, and where are you headed?' they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S." I'm not convinced "the la…

> I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026. In fact, we're finding out very quickly that "what the government can do" is in practice, only limited by the rest of the government's willingness to push back. The set of things grows every time the government tries something new and receives no push back from the other two branches of government that are captured by the same political…

In a somewhat democratic country, it's limited by what the people vote for.

Unfortunately, right now the people voted for obscene corruption and dismantling of institutions and selling pardons and a destruction of law and order.

Republican politicians support this and do not stop Trump because stopping Trump will get them voted out.

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#46

Post by singleshot_ »

voxic11 wrote: post #33
sjtgraham wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before that fact causes you to lose sympathy for the case, note that almost every significant criminal case affirming constitutional rights involves a defendant who did something unsavory, if not reprehensible. Not always. Often times prosecutors pick cases with bad fact patterns to be test cases when they want to attack a right. A recent example is Biden DoJ choosing to take US v Rahimi to SCOTUS in an attempt to…

Hence the saying "hard cases make bad law"

That is not the saying

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#47

Post by singleshot_ »

stult wrote: post #19
sowbug wrote: post #12

This defendant was convicted of possessing CSAM. Before that fact causes you to lose sympathy for the case, note that almost every significant criminal case affirming constitutional rights involves a defendant who did something unsavory, if not reprehensible. Miranda was a kidnapper and rapist. Danny Escobedo (right to an attorney during interrogation) murdered his brother-in-law. Clarence Earl Gideon (right to a cou…

Bad facts make for bad law

That is the saying

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#48

Post by plausibility »

egorfine wrote: post #36
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't familiar with the acronym, therefore here you go: CSAM = Child Sexual Abuse Material.

[flagged]

The rebrand here is because for something to be porn, the person in it has to be able to consent. Children can’t consent, thus it’s material showing sexual abuse.

I think this new name is generally accepted at wide and will stick around in perpetuity from now on.

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#49

Post by superkuh »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #41
superkuh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application. It's not speculation. It's lived experience. And while I understand most probably don't have it, it doesn't invalidate it.

> It's lived experience. Then it should be easy to cite recent case law backing up their claims, hmm?

Hard to cite case law when the federal government in the form of the DHS refuse to even officially name their employees who commit cold blooded murder that is video recorded by the public from several angles. We all have seen it. They won't name them, let alone indict them or give them a fair trial.

But I get it. Until it starts happening where you live you won't be able to believe the USA federal government is lawless. I didn't. It's just how humans work. I can assure you, the border is very nebulous now and the actions of the feds don't follow the law but instead obviously illegal loophole interpretations who's only basis are internal memos.

Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

#50

Post by TimorousBestie »

superkuh wrote: post #49
TimorousBestie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's lived experience. Then it should be easy to cite recent case law backing up their claims, hmm?

Hard to cite case law when the federal government in the form of the DHS refuse to even officially name their employees who commit cold blooded murder that is video recorded by the public from several angles. We all have seen it. They won't name them, let alone indict them or give them a fair trial. But I get it. Until it starts happening where you live you won't be able to believe the USA federal government is lawle…

The speculation I referred to above is the argument “the law says X; therefore, no X is occurring.” For example, “the law says a border agent must be proximate to the border; therefore, no searches not proximate to the border happen.” That’s obviously false. As you say, we’ve seen the evidence.

The reasoning fails precisely because several government agencies are now operating as scofflaws. If the armchair lawyers above want to repair their arguments, they also need to show that the law is still being upheld in practice, even by these scofflaw agencies. (They can’t do that, because it isn’t.)

Post reply on HN