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?
The US has common law, so I believe this ruling becomes precedent unless it is overturned.
Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
111–120 of 617 posts
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#112Earlier 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.
Have the higher courts have addressed that? The tourist example I'm expecting they _should_ since they are not breaking any law.
Hm. Page 27: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf
I'm ignoring FFL's because it's not directly relevant.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#113I’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…
> 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.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#114Earlier 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…
It looks like the page has been updated:
> Part of a Broader Problem: The spread of border-related powers inland is inseparable from the broader expansion of government intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans. For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth of personal information stored on such devices. At least one circuit court has held that federal officers must have at least "reasonable suspicion" prior to conducting such searches and recent Supreme Court precedent seems to support that view.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#115OK, 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.
Nothing. What happens is if the cause for the search was insufficient, the case gets kicked out in court.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#116Earlier 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?
Yes. If the magistrate fails to notice the illegal-ness of the evidence and gives the warrant, it is valid nonetheless.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#117Does this apply to the "special Constitution zone" that intrudes 100 miles inland from the US border? Doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not if you're in a no-constitution zone.
Hmm. Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that the "special Constitution zone" was constitutional? Because, on its face, it looks like it's not...
[deleted]
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#118But are travelers (foreigners) part of "the people"?
It’s a bummer there is still so much serious political discussion about which people count as people.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#119Earlier 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.
I don't think that is true in practice
It is true in practice.
One example: the children of illegal immigrants are legally entitled to public education, even though they aren't citizens.
Re: Court: Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
#120IANAL, 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?
It's not even a circuit yet, this is a district court judgement. It is not a final say.