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.
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.
" 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. "
There is simply nothing on the phone that could be illegal enough to warrant seizure like this though; in the sense that border control should be concerned about it.
It's ones and zeroes. It's not produce or livestock that might need to be quarantined, its not radioactive or a bomb. Its not goods which need customs, duties or tarrifs levied.
Yes, it might contain terrorist plots, or child porn, or something bad; but that's true of every single phone in the country -- if there is a legitimate suspicion of that, just like for everyone else -- get a damned warrant, and by all means arrest and search. They've got all the airline reservation data so there are hours of lead time before any actual suspect arrives at the airport.
Beyond that, it's simply not something that really needs to be the concern of customs and border patrol, with carte blanche authority to confiscate, copy, or rummage through. Especially given that ANYTHING that can be smuggled in as a data on a smart phone can be trivially transmitted accross the border completely encrypted via the internet, terrestrial radio, satellite, flashes of light from a boat in international waters, stenography in cat videos on youtube.
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?