Court Says CBP Likely Violating First Amendment By Forbidding Photography Of Publicly-Viewable Border Crossings
from the muh-national-security dept
Another (partial) win for the First Amendment, the ACLU, and American citizens. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a decision forbidding the photography of CBP officers at border crossings. (h/t Mitra Ebadolahi)
The CBP seems to have a problem respecting the First Amendment rights (along with several other rights) of American citizens when engaged in its border patrolling and protecting. This same appeals court recently allowed the heavily-harassed citizens of an Arizona border town to move forward with their First Amendment lawsuit against the agency, ruling that the CBP acted arbitrarily when dealing with protesters and activists documenting checkpoint activity. The record clearly showed the CBP removed people it didn't like from its imaginary zone of exclusion while allowing other random citizens more aligned with the CBP's open harassment of American citizens to venture inside the ad hoc DMZ to harass citizens documenting harassment.
This lawsuit centers on allegations CBP officers confiscated cameras and phones of people documenting border checkpoint activity and destroyed photos and videos. Here are the narratives of the two plaintiffs, taken from the Appeals Court decision [PDF]:
On the afternoon of April 19, [Ray] Askins stood at the intersection of First Street and Paulin Avenue on the U.S. side of the border, near the shoulder of the streets and immediately in front of the park. He was approximately 50–100 feet from the exit of the secondary inspection area, and he had not crossed the border or otherwise passed through border security to reach his location. Standing in the street, Askins took three or four photographs of the exit of the secondary inspection area. Multiple CBP officers approached Askins on the street to demand he delete the photographs he had taken. When Askins refused, the officers threatened to smash his camera, then searched and handcuffed him, confiscated his property, and detained him inside a secondary inspection area building. Askins was released after approximately twenty-five to thirty-five minutes and his property was returned, at which time he discovered that CBP had deleted all but one of his photographs of the exit of the secondary inspection area.
[...]
[Christian] Ramirez observed male CBP officers at a security checkpoint below inspecting and patting down only female travelers. Concerned that the officers might be acting inappropriately, Ramirez observed the checkpoint from the bridge for ten to fifteen minutes and took approximately ten photographs with his cellphone camera. Ramirez and his wife were approached by men who appeared to be private security officers. The men ordered them to stop taking photographs. The officers also demanded their identification documents, which Ramirez refused to provide as they had already passed through border inspection. The officers radioed for backup as Ramirez and his wife walked away, and at the bottom of the bridge, Ramirez was met by five to seven CBP officers. The CBP officers questioned Ramirez, and, without Ramirez’s consent, a CBP officer confiscated Ramirez’s cellphone and deleted all of the photographs Ramirez had taken from the bridge. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer confiscated the Ramirezes’ passports and walked away, leaving Ramirez surrounded by the CBP officers. After ten to fifteen minutes, their documents were returned to them and the Ramirezes were allowed to leave.
Both plaintiffs allege the CBP's practices violate the First Amendment. They are not seeking to photograph the inside of buildings or other sensitive areas not visible to the public eye, but rather border checkpoints where inspections and questioning are performed in public, completely visible to passersby. The CBP somehow believes what happens in public can't be documented by the public.
The district court decided to take the CBP up on its irrational argument, tossing aside logic to embrace the agency's claims about the super-secret nature of national security activities performed out in the open, visible to the unadorned eye. The appeals court says this isn't the way things are done. The lower court should not have lifted the government's burden of proof onto its own shoulders and carried it home for it.
The district court found that the CBP policies survived strict scrutiny because of “the extremely compelling interest of border security” and the government’s general interest in “protecting United States territorial sovereignty.” To this, the government adds that the CBP policies serve compelling government interests in protecting CBP’s law enforcement techniques and the integrity of on-going investigations; protecting the privacy of travelers, suspects, and sensitive digital information; ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the ports of entry; and protecting against terrorist attacks. In conclusory fashion, the district court held that the policies were the least restrictive means of serving these interests.
These conclusions are too thin to justify judgment for the government on a motion to dismiss. [...] It is the government’s burden to prove that these specific restrictions are the least restrictive means available to further its compelling interest. They cannot do so through general assertions of national security, particularly where plaintiffs have alleged that CBP is restricting First Amendment activities in traditional public fora such as streets and sidewalks.
The decision does not hand the plaintiffs a complete victory. It does shift the burden of proof back on the government and instructs the lower court to allow the case to proceed to see if the government can actually offer up anything supporting its random time/place restrictions that border on total violation of established First Amendment principles. The appeals court seems inclined to believe the CBP cannot simply forbid photography of publicly-viewable enforcement activities by members of the public. We'll have to see what the lower court does on remand, considering it already granted the government a free pass once, because National Security > Established Constitutional Rights, apparently.
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: arizona, border patrol, cbp, first amendment, free speech, photographing border patrol
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Awesome first step!
With the exception of a few fighting citizens with video cameras all over their car, a notice that "I won't answer any questions" and a youtube channel most people and *ALL* truckers *submit* to this practice daily.
If you try and take pictures or video (except for the special people who make a living out of this as above) they will intimidate you, send you to "secondary" (timeout for 20-30 minutes while they ignore you), etc.
It's about time the judicial branch stepped in to put a stop to what already should never have been there. But then, the problems with the executive start at the top.
Ehud Gavron
Tucson, AZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awesome first step!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awesome first step!
The general public only values free speech if it's speech we agree with. We only tolerate religious view points that are our own, while our own are inherently right and proper regardless of who they hurt or demean. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments merely protect the guilty from lawful prosecution... until it's someone we know then we wonder why they're so weak, why our car was seized and sold off because someone ELSE used it in a crime... Then we all pile on the latest "NAMED VICTIM" law that's so poorly written that it erodes our rights even further in the name of Law and Order and Safety.
The judicial system is supposed to be our bulwark against this kind of thing but when it errs there is usually little legislative will to fix the error, and even if there is special interests are invited in to tilt the playing field in their representative direction resulting in more regulatory capture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awesome first step!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awesome first step!
To blame the victim is to say you do not give a shit about the problem and are simply pointing the finger away from your self and or others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awesome first step!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just what are we talking about here?
Are Canadians coming into the the US to stop US citizens from filming the border crossing
or is the US border patrol going nuts again?
Recall last week we had a decision in a court case where the US border patrol was shooting across the border and killing Mexican citizens in Mexico because the Mexicans were throwing rocks across the boarder.
Who is doing what to whom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if Canada were involved in such an extreme case of overreach as to have checkpoints at the Mexican border, US court decisions regarding rights violations of particular individuals would not be what is happening. There would be something far, far more interesting afoot.
Also, there is no "Canadian Border Patrol", unless you are referring to the entertainment industry, in which case ... well geez, just never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More on the CBP
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/trump-ice/565772/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
We need to stop thuggish government agents, not tell people how to work around the thuggery, although that's important too. Solving the problem is better than technologizing around it -- all that causes is the "growing dark problem" and government working to remove even those technological workarounds.
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
I know that you are not satisfied with the results of lawful elections, because you lost, thank God. The rest of us feel pretty good. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
There are many that are not, and the current system of paid for government doesn't work for us either.
Expect change. It might not be through elections, though I hope it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
We might get to your method, but there a lots of possibilities in the interim. Consider those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
The point is, education of the electorate, getting them to understand how corrupt the system is, and getting them to forget their political loyalties is a method that is in the works. It certainly needs more work, but there is in fact a method that is not yours, but could work. There are likely more.
BTW, being more adamant does not make you more correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
“The electorate needs to understand how corrupt the system is” - ok, I’m right with you on that. Sunlight is the best remedy to corruption. How corrupt is he existing system, and what would you replace it with? Are you advocating no system, improving the current system, or abandoning the current system in favor of a new one? If no system, ok, you’re an idiot, and I take back what i said about wanting to listen to you. If you want to improve the current one, what ideas do you have? If you have a new system in mind, how exactly would you prevent corruption in the new system?
Everybody knew, dating back to the founding fathers, that any system of government is likely to be affected by corruption (and pretty faces combined with strong vocal tonality). However, the only way to eliminate corruption altogether is with totalitarian methods, which are worse. I hope you are not advocating totalitarian methods, because you would be back to being a blithering idiot again.
What are you advocating? I’m all ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
Sad to see what’s happened since then, don’t you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
Though written long ago, that pretty much describes the situation today.
The question remains whether the abberant factions of the disenfranchised can be confederated in Modern America, or whether they will first consume each other in the blazing fire of multi-generational hatred and condemnation. Without a unifying leader, it seems doubtful they will manage to stay on point, and will instead dissolve into nothing, each claiming a superior harm from generations past, unwilling and unable to sacrifice in support of each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
lol
are you on drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAGA = Godwin's Law
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
Your every deepening decent into delusion and dishonesty is, as always, a source of never-ending entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
And you should definitely get over the whole censorship thing, it’s a real blemish on your integrity and reflects badly on your whole (strange and secretive) group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MAGA = Godwin's Law
You compare Make America Great Again to Nazis.
Neo-Nazis openly showed their support for Trump's government and have been consistently asking him to reciprocate after his seat in the White House was confirmed.
If you can't stand that comparison maybe your beloved President shouldn't have appealed to that portion of his voter base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
Thank God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
"lawful election"
The jury is still out on that one but I think most everyone now realizes that is was not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
Yes, *ideally* these problems need to be fixed at the government level. But guess what, they're fucking NOT being fixed right now, therefore it's YOUR responsibility to use your damn brain and develop a sense of vigilance.
Complaining about your rights being violated is good -- by all means, protest the hell out of this stuff -- but don't act like your rights are some kind of magical shield that can never be penetrated. There are murderers, rapists, hackers and corrupt government employees everywhere. Learn how to defend yourself against each specific type of threat that exists in your community. Arm yourself with knowledge of law, martial arts, weapons, surveillance technology, encryption, data storage systems, anything you can legally get your hands on. Hope that you never need to use any of it, but be prepared to do so whenever necessary.
I admire your idealism, but I'm concerned about your lack of realism. Legally, nobody can enter your home without your permission, but I'm willing to bet you still lock your doors.
Since you mentioned the "short skirts" problem, I'll address that too, since so many people get this shit wrong. First of all, go ahead and wear whatever you like, that's your freedom. However, don't expect rapists to leave you alone just because the law says so if you're stumbling through alleys in the roughest neighbourhood of your city at 2:00 AM, alone, drunk on eight beers, completely unarmed and staring at your phone instead of looking around and being aware of your surroundings. I call that stupid, and a rapist calls that an opportunity. The smart thing to do would be to expect trouble and be prepared. Travel with friends, get a cab, limit your drug intake, take a longer but safer route, carry a .22 in your purse if the law permits it, that sort of thing.
It's not your fault if bad things happen to you. It *IS* your fault if you consciously make a choice to refuse to be safe, smart and realistic, just because it doesn't sync up with your political and social ideology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
"stumbling through alleys in the roughest neighbourhood of your city at 2:00 AM"
fyi - this is not the situation in which most rap[es occur.
"alone, drunk on eight beers, completely unarmed and staring at your phone "
and this further points out the silliness of your hypothetical situation. Did you forget to mention the money hanging outta yer pocket or maybe the boob hanging outta yer bra? I realize it is exhausting coming up with these scenarios depicting dumb people in a feeble attempt at rationalizing victim blaming - but come on man, I know you can do a better job than this.
A .22? Even pimps carry larger than that.
Look, I get what you are saying, but it does not help.
Seriously, it is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The "don't wear a short skirt problem"
I only described one, highly-exaggerated situation in which rapes occur, in order to demonstrate a point. I'm not going to bother doing the thinking for you where a person could defend themselves in an alternate setting. That would be a waste of my time, because you have been programmed to believe that giving advice to a victim is equivalent to condoning the atrocities committed against them.
I suggested a .22 because it's easy enough for anyone to handle, even a 90-pound socialite with spaghetti arms. It's not a nerf gun, it's a real gun that fires bullets. Did you know that bullets can stop and kill people regardless of how big they are? Who would have thought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One bit of jursidputance I would love to see
Either that or amend the definition of treason to include national security as an argument. That phrase needs to go die in a dumpster fire along with ironically 'fire in a crowded theater' which has its origins as justification for banning antiwar protests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Security = 'Yeah, we have nothing.'
If 'national security' can be threatened by people taking pictures of activity taking place in public, then they are basically admitting that there is no security to be found, and they are so grossly incompetent that a simple set of working eyes is enough to damage 'national security.'
That being said exactly what do they plan to do to deal with actual criminals with working eyes who are capable of remembering things for later, or criminals that are willing to pretend to be friendly to them in order to get close enough to do something?
Why, it's almost as though the 'national security' excuse is bullshit, nothing more than 'refusal to grovel sufficiently' wrapped up in Important Sounding Words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have every right to record anything you can see so long as you are on Public Property. You have no expectation of privacy when you're in public. If you don't want people recording what you're doing, Put a wall around it!!!
CBP does act like THUGS!!! They have ZERO right to take a person's camera, let alone to delete anything. In fact, I think a group of people in the area should go to these checkpoints and record the F out of them. Do it every few days. I'd also make sure that you are recording them LIVE on the Internet so that if they Delete anything, it doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The reason: Nobody fucking cares.
Also, if you're going to be a geography know-it-all, America is TWO continents, dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're from Canada - no body fucking cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Am I to assume that if I -- a non-American -- visit the US, I am afforded no Constitutional rights and may be legally hunted for sport? That "We the People" does not apply to me, therefore I do not qualify as a person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, it Should not work that way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]