Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Sued Over Phone Searches at US Borders (reuters.com)
The Trump administration has engaged in an unconstitutional practice of searching without a warrant the phones and laptops of Americans who are stopped at the border, a lawsuit filed on Wednesday alleged. From a report: Ten U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident sued the Department of Homeland Security in federal court, saying the searches and prolonged confiscation of their electronic devices violate privacy and free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution. DHS could not be immediately reached for comment. The lawsuit comes as the number of searches of electronic devices has surged in recent years, alarming civil rights advocates.
"An NBC News investigation published in March turned up 25 instances in which American citizens said border agents demanded their phones and passwords at airports and border crossings. Cellphone seizures by border officers are said to have spiked significantly in recent years, at the end of the Obama administration and beginning of the Trump administration. "
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/350449-dhs-sued-over-warrantless-electronic-device-searches-at-border
The Trump administration is basically continuing practices that were commonly done when God-Emperor Obama reigned over us in all His Holy Gloriousness.
Yet again proving that Trump is worse that Hitler and that the Russians did it.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
What does this have to do with Trump Administration, is the Donald searching these phones personally? Is DHS doing something they have never done before solely on orders from Trump? I guess you gotta put 'Trump' in the headline for them clicks
That's probably why they filed in Massachusetts, which is part of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If they win in the trial and appellate courts, there will then be a split of authority between the First Circuit and the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which have held the search of electronic devices at the border to be constitutional (subject to minor constraints). The odds then go up considerably that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.
Border Officers Nearly Double Searches of Electronic Devices, U.S. Says
The policy of searching cellphones and other electronic devices at the border started in the George W. Bush administration with a focus on specific individuals, but the searches have recently [as of 11 April 2017] expanded to include broad ranges of people who do not pose a threat.
This has nothing to do with any specific president.
As soon as people started carrying electronic devices across the border, they started having them searched.
The problem isn't that electronic devices are being searched at the border. The problem is this ridiculous notion that the laws that apply everywhere else in the country shouldn't also apply at the borders of the country, And that's something that happened so long ago that I don't know if anyone even remembers who the idiot was who thought that was either a good idea, or consistent with the constitution.
not only are they not immune to lawsuits
Err, yes, they are immune to lawsuits.
That applies to tortious acts and contract matters. The government isn't immune to suits regarding infringement of freedoms, failure to disclose information that it's obligated to disclose, etc. Think of how many ACLU lawsuits there have been, for example.
Obama continued the practice.
Ignoring the Constitution at the border started a VERY long time ago.
Lock your phone with software that has two unlock codes, one of which unlocks it and the other of which wipes it down to the bare metal. When they demand the unlock code, give them the latter one. Keep the phone backed up, obviously, so it can be restored.
Apple made access to and searches of iPhone X easier with FaceID.
Law enforcement can just hold your iPhone X in front of your face and it's unlocked.
If you claim the Constitution applies to U.S. citizens regardless of location, then suddenly non-citizens (both legal and illegal) and even people brought into the country against their will (e.g. alleged terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistan) have no basis for claiming Constitutional rights.
How does that follow?
If you claim the Constitution applies outside U.S. territory, then you're basically advocating that the U.S. should be allowed to apply its laws to other countries.
Umm, no, it's not advocating that at all. What it's advocating is that the US government should be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution no matter where it's operating. It's about US government actions, not about applying US law to other countries.
The Constitution is the controlling authority of the relationship between the citizens and the federal government.. This means that non-citizens only have rights that we voluntarily give them when they get here (which is more descriptive of what actually happens anyway), and American citizens should enjoy the full protections of their citizenship ANYWHERE in the world (unlike now).
AS far as enforcing their laws elsewhere, they already do.
Full disclosure:
Captcha = confused
Border checkpoints within the actual border or international airports within the borders aren't "technically still outside the country". They're absolutely within the country. Could you imagine a group of scary-looking Muslims holding meetings in the "not in the US, yet" zone of LAX and the US letting it happen?
They're only "technically still outside the country" because they want to illegally fuck your rights.
You listed two choices, then mentioned three choices. Did you change your mind and remove the obvious and correct choice of the Constitution delineating the powers of the federal government (regardless of where it is acting or upon whom it is acting) while guaranteeing all other rights to the states and the people?
The Constitution applies within US borders, always. The Constitution applies to US citizens, always. If it is at odds with the law where a US citizen is, then treaties come into play as they are the only laws that are ranked as highly as the Constitution. The Constitution applies to what the federal government does, always and everywhere.
What exactly are you saying here?
...that the fourth amendment protects against search and seizure without a court-issued warrant. Full stop.
'[The fourth amendment] requires governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.'
Seems fair well cut and dry there. The border searches of private personal devices are unconstitutional.
The policy of boarder search exemptions to the 4th amendment goes back to 1953 when the Justice Department implemented it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed for this. And since SCOTUS gets to decide what is and isn't "Constitutional", this lawsuit isn't going anywhere.
Just another day in Paradise