Slashdot Mirror
Woman Sues US Border Agents Over Seized iPhone (bbc.com)
An American woman who had her phone seized by border agents as she returned home to the United States is suing the country's border protection agency. Bob the Super Hamste shares a report: Rejhane Lazoja was stopped at Newark airport, New Jersey, after returning from a trip to Switzerland in February. Her iPhone was seized by agents after she refused to unlock it for them. The lawsuit alleges that border agents took a copy of the data on her smartphone and failed to say whether it had been deleted. According to legal documents, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) kept the phone for more than 120 days before returning it to Ms Lazoja, who is a Muslim woman and wears a hijab. [...] "Neither was there probable cause, nor a warrant [to search the phone]. Therefore, the search and seizure of Ms Lazoja's property violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment," the filing says.
her lawyer should have told her that the border agents have that authority... as bad as it sounds...
probably should wipe phone before travel as a privacy measure. delete pics and texts... probably better to use a travel phone with nothing on it.
its retarded... but we live in retarded times.
What malarky is this? Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment, from the US Govt. It says so right there, and there are no clauses based on locality.
If a foreign government seeks to search toy in their country, that is between you, them, and maybe the State Dept.
But, our rights are our rights and our government can not breach them, just because we are somewhere abroad.
Yeah like America, where there have been Muslims since inception. WHAT A SHITHOLE, it's full of Republican traitors trying to jack eachother off with tax breaks for people who don't need 'em. Crazy world!
Good points, stay strong, drink Brawndo.
So the question boils down to this. Can Border Agents search you as you enter the USA or not? Does that include your phone and other personal effects?
On one hand, we have the 4th amendment which prohibits warrantless searches without legal review. On the other hand, we have the clear need to secure the border, which requires some level of inspection of persons and the things they are carrying.
The whole argument about the content that might or might not have been on the phone is moot regardless of her religious views. If the data from the phone has been deleted or not is also moot. I also doesn't matter how she was dressed. That stuff is just thrown in for PR purposes, as she's trying to claim she was profiled.
My guess is the courts will hold it was legal to inspect the phone, demanding she unlock it and confiscate it when she refused. But that begs the question about it this is really how we want to do things.... I'm not so sure.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Could be worse...I could be a white farmer in South Africa...
"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Try to go through TSA bearing and keeping Arms. Whenever allow exceptions to made illegally against one right you start to lose all your rights.
The constitution has no such exception. The failure of the courts to enforce the bill of rights doesn't change what it says. This woman's phone was stolen.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why do we try so hard to try to justify being cruel to other people?
People spend years digging in books from recent to thousands of years to come up with a justification to be cruel to that person who is different.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Get back to molesting people, TSA goon.
Requiem for the American Dream
he, NO, your quote is not even correct.
That 4th says...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Let me break this down. This amendment says the word "unreasonable" but that word is not saying that anything the "government deems" as reasonable is now fair game. The amendment is specifically stating that any "search or seizure" that is NOT accompanied by a WARRANT, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, is what the meaning of unreasonable is in the context of the 4th amendment.
Even Star had more restrictions and limited scope than Muller.
Are you seriously trying to claim that an investigation over a failed land deal in Arkansas that ended up charging over a blowjob in the White House decades later was restricted in scope?
Not sure what you are getting at, but the Supreme Court has held on many occasions that the government has a "compelling interest" in keeping people safe which outweighs a "minor inconvenience" to the people. Yes, they actually say this as if ensuring convenience is the reason we have a constitution. This is the justification for allowing such things as immigration checkpoints well inside the border, DUI checkpoints, safety (i.e. license and insurance) checkpoints, etc...