Should You Have Any 4th Amendment Rights In An Airport?

from the seems-kind-of-important dept

Wed, Mar 22nd 2017 9:20am — Mike Masnick

For many years, we've written about the craziness of the so-called "border search exception" to the 4th Amendment, in which the US government has insisted that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at the border, and thus it's allowed to search people at the border. The initial reasoning was -- more or less -- that at the border, you're not yet in the country, and thus the 4th Amendment doesn't apply yet. But that's expanded over time -- especially in the digital age. Perhaps, back when people just had clothes/books/whatever in their luggage, you could understand the rationale for allowing a search, but today, when people carry laptops and handheld electronic devices that basically store their whole lives, the situation is a lot scarier. Unfortunately, (with just a few small exceptions) the courts have simply taken the historical ability to search luggage at the border and expanded it to cover electronic devices. Then, things got even more ridiculous, when Homeland Security decided that anywhere that's within 100 miles of the border could be "close enough" to count as a "border search," making the "border search exception" apply. That's... messed up.

There's now a case in the 4th Circuit that shows how this is expanding even further, and on Monday we joined with the Cause of Action Institute and the Committee for Justice to file an amicus brief in the case of Hamza Kolsuz (the ACLU has also filed an amicus brief). Kolsuz had his phone searched under a "border search exception" -- but here's the thing: He was in the process of leaving the country, not entering it. A regular bag search turned up handgun parts in his checked luggage, for which he was arrested. After that, his iPhone was seized and searched without a warrant. Remember, just a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that you need a warrant to search a mobile phone in the Riley case. But here there was none.

Law enforcement tried to get around this by claiming that since Kolsuz was at the airport, the search of his phone should count as a border search exception. But that's crazy. Unfortunately, the district court accepted this reasoning -- and now the case is on appeal. We signed onto this amicus brief for a variety of reasons, but a big one is that, as journalists, protecting sources and documents is important. We shouldn't be subject to warrantless searches of our work every time we just happen to be in an airport. As the brief notes:

The District Court erred in denying Mr. Kolsuz's Motion to Suppress and this Court should reverse and remand for a new trial. First, while the border search doctrine constitutes a narrow exception to the otherwise unequivocal Fourth Amendment requirement that the government obtain a warrant to conduct a search, the governmental interests that justify this narrow border search exception were not in play when the Defendant's smartphone was searched incident to his arrest, and this exception therefore cannot be used to justify the search here. The fact that Mr. Kolsuz was arrested and his phone seized at an airport--the equivalent of a border--does not change this case from one that fits squarely within Riley v. California... to one that is suddenly part of a narrow exception of cases justified by the sovereign's customs enforcement rules.

The Court should see this search for what it was: a month-long, detailed, forensic search to gather evidence against Mr. Kolsuz for use in a trial on the very charges for which he was arrested. Since the search here was not actually a border search, the border search exception cannot save it.

Second, the United States essentially seeks a mechanical application of a Fourth Amendment exception even where the interests that justify the exception were not implicated in this case. The dangers of such a mechanical application are readily apparent. People traveling into and out of the United States routinely cross with smartphones or computers that contain the equivalent of "every piece of mail... every picture... [and] every book" a person has.... These individuals include journalists, lawyers, and business travelers with confidential information typically safeguarded under American jurisprudence. Nevertheless, customs agents purport to have unfettered access to the contents of electronic devices carried by such individuals, without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime, simply by the fact that the individual wishes to leave or enter the United States. This is not the application of the border search exception that the Supreme Court had in mind when it outlined its narrow purview.

Of course, many of us still find the very idea of a "border search exception" to be nonsensical in the first place. But if it's there, the idea that it could be abused in this manner is even more problematic and concerning. Hopefully the 4th Circuit corrects this injustice. We're proud to sign onto this brief, and hope the court listens.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, airports, border search, border search exception, hamza kolsuz, privacy, warrants

72 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:26am

If I am not in the country for the purpose of my rights, then logically I must also be outside of the country for purposes of your authority to search. Or perhaps if we are in a no rights zone, then you also don't have a right to keep breathing. We really shouldn't be encouraging lawlessness like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  The other funny thing is that borders seem to be wherever they say they are. Reagan said territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from the shore. The exclusive zone extends 200 miles from shore, which seems to be appropriately related to Customs in particular.
  
  So perhaps they should ring the country at one or both of these two distances with their respective agents and let them tread water until they can find someone to search.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  It is a fact of federal law (statutory) that if a US citizen violates US law while outside of US jurisdiction, they can be prosecuted for that violation when they return to US jurisdiction -- even if what they did was not illegal where they did it.
  
  The US Constitution does not have territorial limits built into it, those have been created by the courts. It is a violation of federal law (Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241-242) to violate the rights protected by the Constitution (as well as statutes) under color of law. Doing so alone and unarmed is punishable by a year in federal prison. Doing so with two or more people or with the threat of a dangerous weapon involved increases the punishment to ten years in prison -- a felony by the standard both state and federal governments use to determine such things.
  
  Federal courts and many state courts have ruled that mere possession of a dangerous weapon while committing a crime -- even if the victim never knows the criminal had the weapon -- adds the with-a-weapon enhancement automatically.
  
  Tl;dr: Every time an agent of the US government acts like the Constitution doesn't exist at the border, they became a felon -- but the government didn't see any need to prosecute itself, and ignored the crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:37am

A matter of perspective
"the courts have simply taken the historical ability to search luggage at the border and expanded it to cover electronic devices."

As the law sees it it isn't an expansion at all. Just because something is stored in a digital format shouldn't automatically give it more protection that something printed on paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cdaragorn (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: A matter of perspective
  Actually the law does see it as an expansion. The point wasn't about how the items were being stored at all. if you read a little more than just that sentence you'd see that it was about HOW MUCH is being stored.
  
  When you can carry your entire home and 3 cars in a handbag, then maybe you'll have a point. For now, the exception only made sense because of the limited amount of stuff that was being searched.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:33am
    
    Re: Re: A matter of perspective
    >if you read a little more than just that sentence you'd see that it was about HOW MUCH is being stored.
    
    Are you referring to the amicus brief? If so that's just the opinion of special interest groups. It has no legal authority.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - thewix (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 1:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A matter of perspective
      Riley v California, it's right there in the article. The Supreme Court unanimously held that a search of the contents of a cell phone incident to arrest requires a warrant, in part because phones usually contain information far beyond the papers and effects a person may happen to be carrying.
      
      Whether that applies to searches at the border may not be settled law, but if this makes it to the Supremes, I know which way I'd bet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:40am

They had a suitcase in their closet and I suspect they might have gone to the airport at some time and therefore we were doing a border search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:41am

Searching books

Perhaps, back when people just had clothes/books/whatever in their luggage, you could understand the rationale for allowing a search

We should never have been looking at the text of books or papers. The only search that should be allowed is to determine that it's actually a book, not a weapon or smuggling-container disguised as one. The same for electronics: there's no excuse to be reading the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: Searching books
  What if it is an animated gif that they intend to use against epileptics?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TasMot (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:41am

Where exactly is that Border?
So, there is a 100 mile border going inland. However; the US government also claims that you have to be more than 3 miles offshore before gambling because otherwise it's still in the country (see http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1997-12-09/business/9712080480_1_gambling-boats-casino-boats-casino -gambling). Wow, that is one really flexible border definition.

Since I live near the coast of the Chesapeake Bay, am I in the country or not? Or am I in that nebulous 100 to 103 mile "Constitution Free" zone (that is still governed by US law but not the constitution)?

How can someone that is covered by US law that is granted by the power of the constitution not be covered by the constitution when it comes to the non-LEO rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: Where exactly is that Border?
  "Since I live near the coast of the Chesapeake Bay, am I in the country or not?"
  
  Shut up, pay your taxes, and hope we never come for you.
  
  - The US government
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:52am

I wonder....
What if they came across an encrypted zip file titled "Correspondence with my Attorney?" Would or could they demand it be decrypted?

How would that EVER be legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: I wonder....
  The claim that the file contains protected content needs to be verified by them looking at all the content, see catch 22.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:59am

If I were a betting person, I'd put my money on the courts siding with the government again. The reason being it doesn't matter if you're entering or leaving the country, when you're at a security checkpoint the other side of it is legally an international zone. The checkpoint is a border search and therefore covered under the exception. All baggage inside an airport terminal is subject to stop-and-search protocol regardless if you're coming or going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  He was not at the checkpoint. His checked bag had handgun parts. They found those with a search that could pass the border exception, but then they arrested him.
  
  Once he was under arrest, he was no longer leaving the country - that's when they searched his phone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Irrelevant. He was at the airport at the time and the airport terminal itself is considered secured territory and baggage, including electronic devices, are subject to search. You can argue about it all day, but the courts are going to side with the government that this was just another border search, since the actual crime was committed at the airport. It's not as ambiguous as the article author suggests.
    
    It SHOULD be, we should have never allowed search and seizure of *documents* and by extension *electronic data* at the border to begin with. There's no reasonable argument for security or safety of passengers or the country as a whole for doing so without cause (and a warrant).
    
    But that genie is already out of the bottle, thanks to the courts, so no, it's no stretch at all of the current practices.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Roger Strong (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Keep in mind that the Border Patrol now routinely stops and searches people who are not at an airport, are not at a border, but are merely within 100 miles of the border.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where do you live? I am in New Jersey, which is 100% covered by the 100 mile rule. Never heard of anyone being searched by border patrol.
        
        Maybe NYC can get DHS to do stop and frisk and eliminate 2 birds with one search.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Wanderer (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 5:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The fact that they do not routinely do it does not make the fact that they claim (and have apparently been permitted) the authority to do it less of a problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree but a previous comment stated that "keep in mind the Border Patrol now routinely stops..."
        
        My point wasn't that it is right or wrong, but that it doesn't happen routinely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I provided a link. Here it is again. The checkpoints had become routine.
        
        Granted, it was only causing problems for foreign students. But that was only after stopping everyone and checking to see if they were non-citizens.
        
        There have also been stories posted to Techdirt about people stopped near the southern border. Not while crossing; just driving on the highway NEAR the border. With the border patrol objecting to being filmed. Those stops are also routine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:25pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 22nd, 2017 @ 9:59am
  I think you hut it exactly.
  
  Presenting yourself at tge border going in either direction is a question of security and national interests.
  
  Put it another way. If they can search his bag and they can give him tge rubber glove treatment tgen there is no logical reason why the phone should be magically out if bounds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rapnel (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:14am

Exceptions for content are complete bullshit. Absolutely nobody, anywhere should have any access to your devices, once they are proved functional devices, for any reason without a warrant.

But.. I guess that ship has sailed - I, for one, do not welcome my new authoritarian overlords and hope they burn in a pool of fire and shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:22am
  
  Re:
  
  But.. I guess that ship has sailed - I, for one, do not welcome my new authoritarian overlords and hope they burn in a pool of fire and shit.
  
  They are doing their best not to have to commute for that in future.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:16am

So, which "rights" are in effect?
so the 4th can be disregarded but the right to immigrate isn't? How can a Federal Judge claim a violation if it's done within 100 miles of the border or at a point of entry (ie: Airport) Seems like the right hand has no clue what the left hand is doing.
so one is ok but the other is not, Both should be the same, you can do one or both; Not in conflict with each other.

Both are "rights," the odd part is the Fourth is as written, immigration, no so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: So, which "rights" are in effect?
  It's largely become "due process" is what the courts and legislature says it is rather than what the Constitution unambiguously has already stated. Civil forfeiture, warantless wiretaps, wholesale surveillance, pretexts for searching electronic devices, third party doctrines, anything the government and its agents can come up with to erode civil rights all in the name of "law and order" and "safety". And we as citizens as a whole are too apathetic to force a return to sanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tom (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:02am

Still trying to understand why having gun parts in checked baggage justified a search in the first place. You are allowed to carry declared fully operational firearms in checked baggage provided they are in a locked container. Sounds like the govt. was on shaky ground for the first search and used the 'border exception' excuse to allow the search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 23 Mar 2017 @ 6:41am
  
  Re:
  Check out the guy's name, then ask yourself the question again. Unless he was a felon or otherwise restricted in terms of legal gun ownership there's no problem with him having gun parts in his baggage, is there? It'd not as though the gun was loaded, cocked, and ready to fire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:05am

just suck it up guys! we've allowed the USA to become a worse 'Police State' than any of the countries that the USA criticizes as being 'Police States' and we made it worse when we elected trump!! look at what he has been doing to our freedom and privacy in the few weeks he's been in office and what he has done to show the rest of the world what he and his appointed heads of security etc are actually like! do you think we have any credibility left with any other nation? every person in the world, including all USA citizens whether at home or abroad are tared with the same brushes as terrorists from the likes of Iran and N.Korea! how can we ever condemn anywhere else again, in all good conscience, when even we are not trusted??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:26am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, we should be like France and welcome our new terrorist overlords. Let them repress women and kill the gays.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Stupid and paranoid is no way to go through life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The thought of having a legal harem does sound good. But then I remember I can barely manage my one wife, good luck trying to manage several.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 1:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It gets easier since it would be legal to beat them, and if they really act up, throw rocks at them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wendy Cockcroft, 23 Mar 2017 @ 6:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not every Muslim thinks or acts that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, we beat women too, but adding rocks into the mix would be a bonus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 24 Mar 2017 @ 3:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm thankful that not every white western man thinks that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    American's don't need immigrants to cause crime. Plenty of criminals (and terrorist) are good ole born and bred citizens.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And some of them become president. (Not talking about any specific president, this applies to both past and future presidents)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So lets just invite more of them. Like the 17 year old in Maryland that raped a 14 year old girl in the boys bathroom recently?
      
      Sure, it doesn't happen often, but the fact is, if that illegal wasn't in the country, that 14 year old girl wouldn't have been raped (unless of course you think some other US citizen would have stepped up and raped her.
      
      So why do you support children rapists?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really aren't very good at this. Why don't you go play with an unsecured handgun or two and let the grown ups talk?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hard to argue with facts, isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 23 Mar 2017 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rape is bad, whoever does it.
        
        Moral panicking over immigration isn't going to stop it; you've got plenty of home-grown rapists. Remember Steubenville? I haven't forgotten it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rapists should be killed.
        
        That being said, there is a 14 year old girl in Maryland that wouldn't have been raped if this kid wasn't in our country. That is a fact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And...? Most other rapes wouldn't have happened if you stopped immigration 150 years ago before several much larger waves of immigrants.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 24 Mar 2017 @ 3:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, if this kid. *This* kid.
        
        Now if you've got a plan to pre-screen men for rape-y tendencies prior to entering the country, let's hear it.
        
        Then extend it to all men. As I said, you've got home-grown rapists, too. Let none escape the arms of justice!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 12:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, blaming an entire group for the crimes of individuals. Sure, we can do that, lets just fire and jail all members of the police for killing unarmed innocents or get rid of all politicians for obvious corruption.
        
        Sure, those things don't happen often, but the fact is, if those people were not allowed in the country, the crimes committed by them would not happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - discordian_eris (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 5:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or the Border Patrol agent who raped two teens? Bet he would have volunteered.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:11am

I can understand why you would do a search at an airport. It is technically a border in that you do enter our airspace at some point and it's not like you have to land at the border. We're not going to do mid-flight searches of the cargo hold at 30,000 feet.

If, for intance, we can't inspect containers at an airport someone could bring in a plant, animal, disease, etc., that decimates the eco-system or kills people.

But, the damn phones. They contain too much information and there's almost no protection of the information in them at any meaningful level past encryption. We've approached privacy in this country completely backwards. We should have put laws in place that everything is protected, period. Instead, we chose the alternative, basically anything you can get your hands on is yours to do with as you please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2017 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re:
  We had one:
  
  "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."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:12am

Abolish the TSA
This is just yet another reason to abolish the TSA entirely. Take people who are literally less well-trained than Mall Rent-a-cops and tell them they're the only thing that stands between their friends and families and the next 9/11, and you're bound to see some people bending and breaking the rules in the name of Security.

When they don't even perform as well as the previous security (this is fact - Red Team exercises manage to get past their own security nearly twice as often as they used to bypass pre-TSA security) and literally nobody likes them, it's a wonder they've managed to survive this long.

But, in truth, only corporate pressure on Congress is going to finally drive a stake in the TSA. So I'm doing my part: prior to the TSA, I took about 25-30 commercial flights. I was 13 when 9/11 happened, and I'm 30 now. I've flown ONCE since then, and the experience was so bad, I've vowed never to fly again until the TSA is abolished.

If more people did the same, the airline industry would be forced to act on our behalf and lobby congress to abolish the TSA, too. With that kind of pressure, this could actually happen.

And...given than I live in Alabama and I want to visit Seattle for the third time before I'm 40, it'd be really nice if you could all join in. Thanks :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mhajicek (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 8:31am
  
  Re: Abolish the TSA
  I haven't flown since TSA. I've driven from MN to Florida and Texas round trip.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:23am

So when the courts wouldn't allow terrorists from coming in, that was good as they are always right, but when courts want to search an iPhone, that is bad and they are always wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:25am
  
  Re:
  Wouldn't allow Trump to keep terrorists from coming in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  One of these things isn't like the other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure it is, in one case, court is wrong, in the other the court is right (and is in fact infallible and no other branch of the government should ever question it.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 2:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You might want to go take a civics class before you embarrass yourself anymore.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wendy Cockcroft, 23 Mar 2017 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, sodding hell...! Does anyone remember when "Irish" equalled "terrorist?" Many British people do.
        
        There, I said it. Stop blaming the actions of a few rabid monsters on entire groups of people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sorrykb (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  
  So when the courts wouldn't allow terrorists from coming in, that was good as they are always right, but when courts want to search an iPhone, that is bad and they are always wrong?
  
  That's the thing, though. It wasn't a court that authorized the search. Had border agents actually gotten the courts involved by seeking a warrant as required by the 4th Amendment, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 11:34am

Being from Michigan I think it's hilarious Customs officials could search people without a warrant in Lansing (90 miles from Canada). 100 miles from the boarder puts 90% of Michigan's population in the "border search exception" zone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re:
  No one wants to search anyone in Michigan unless of course they are from Wisconsin or Ohio. No one else cares.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Taking the glove off now?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 22 Mar 2017 @ 12:18pm

Citizenship is not a one-way street.
If the U.S. is not good enough for you (and what clearer indication of that than venturing within 100 miles of its border or an airport?), you are not good enough for its Bill of Rights and will instead be presented with a bill of wrongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OA (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 2:04pm

If one were to analyze the behavior of "security enthusiasts", what motives could be found?

Assuming complete sincerity, it seems they want 100% perfect security which is impossible. If it were possible the side effects would be undesirable.

However, the attempts at security seem less than competent. It could be that the intent is just to collect the power to be able to do these things for some later purposes.

A push for "extreme security" might be preferable to fixing or addressing the conditions that create the need for this security. This is a basic redirection: commit acts that have some negative consequence (often predictable) - instead of stopping the acts or dealing with the consequence, translate the blow-back into a form someone else suffers for.

It's probably a combination of all three. None of three motives or any combination has any real chance of any positive ultimate outcome, for the populace or the "security enthusiasts".

-OA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 22 Mar 2017 @ 2:23pm

here is a question for all Congressmen, and lawyers, and Judges.

What exactly is the point of a national border, if we are not longer recognizing our own border in regards to constitutional laws. Expanding on that line of thought, why are we deporting people from Mexico if we, again, no longer recognize the borders of the United States? If there is a 100 mile exception to Constitutional law, and presumably at airports now, then by proxy, any person that is undocumented that is within 100 miles of a "border" or that is in an airport, thus cannot be legally deported.

One shouldn't read a law one way in one situation, and another way in another situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stosh, 22 Mar 2017 @ 2:54pm

So if you fly out of an airport that is NOT within the 100 mile "border" I guess you still have rights....further down the rabbit hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 22 Mar 2017 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re:
  You haven't been paying attention. For the sake of fascism, every International Airport is considered part of the U.S. border and host of a 100mile radius circle of civil rights suspension.
  
  Color a map of the U.S. with its constitution-free zones, and it will look like an X-ray of final-stage tuberculosis.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Châu, 22 Mar 2017 @ 4:50pm

100 miles = 100 meters?
Can foreigners sue US government in WTO for fail advertise search rules use Système international d'unités?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2017 @ 9:17pm

just too damn hard for govt to follow the law
everyoe is talking about the constitution as if it wasn't the law. the constitution is the law that supercedes all others. it is mental manipulation by the government that has led people to believe that the constitution is valueless and that people don't actally have the rights detailed therein.

the 4th amendment is very clear, "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."

a phone is "an effect", no specific warrant, no search.

as long as people don't resist, the tyrany will continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Wanderer (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 5:44am
  
  Re: just too damn hard for govt to follow the law
  The argument is that it's obviously reasonable for border agents to search baggage, et cetera, that is crossing the border - and thus that, since this is not an "unreasonable" search, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit it.
  
  There's a widespread idea that the Fourth Amendment contains the underlying assumption "any search which is not authorized by a duly-issued warrant is unreasonable", but the text of the amendment does not actually state that, and the courts have not universally held to that as a hard requirement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 7:26am

The real question is: what immediate threat to the flight an electronic device content may pose? One that immediately comes to mind is the 'terrorist' using it to activate a bomb in the cargo hold. There are two ways to prevent that. Either you make the cargo hold a Faraday Cage or you screen the bags properly. And bags don't get cancer and stuff so you can xray or whatever the hell out of them.

Examining the digital stuff of passengers does exactly zero to improve aircraft security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 10:01am

You have a right to overpriced, often bad food. You have a right to stand around in lines, waiting for screenings that have not actually stopped any incidents. You have a right to sit around waiting to get on your plane and being overcharged for the ability to either charge your phone or access wifi. You have a right to have your luggage rummaged through and stolen.

Seems like people have lots of rights in an airport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]