Trump Administration Sued Over Phone Searches at US Borders (reuters.com) 138
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.
Started with Obama, continued with Trump (Score:2, Informative)
"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
Started with Bush, Expanded by Obama & Trump (Score:2, Informative)
Border Officers Nearly Double Searches of Electronic Devices, U.S. Says [nytimes.com]
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.
Re:Started with Bush, Expanded by Obama & Trum (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Define Borders (Score:1)
The way that the U.S. defines borders, almost the entire country is constitution-free. Start with 100 miles from any border [aclu.org] and add a functional equivalent border around international airports. That covers roughly 2/3rds of the population of the U.S. including most major cities, all of Michigan, Florida, and several north-eastern states.
Not that the constitution is followed in the U.S. anyway. Practically every single amendment is violated by the government.
Re: (Score:1)
As soon as people started carrying electronic devices across the border, they started having them searched.
Nobody has ever demanded the password to any computer, mobile phone, PDA, or other device that I have carried across the U.S. border, in either direction, ever. So your statement is patently false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that people are having their electronic devices searched. The assertion was that warrantless searches of electronic devices at the U.S. border has been a given ever since electronic devices were invented, and that's ridiculous. The precedent for this kind of government overreach is quite new. Plenty of people have been detained at the U.S. border for one reason or another without turning over all their passwords. This is a new thing, and to claim it isn't is basically to be complicit with tota
Re: (Score:3)
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.' [wikipedia.org]
Seems fair well cut and dry there. The border searches of private personal devices are unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you THAT incompetent at reading?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
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 ..."
Stop selectively quoting
Thanks to Scalia, it is REASONABLE if a cop THINKS it might be reasonable.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Started with Obama, continued with Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
As they should be. If it's the law or standard practice, it should be enforced so that it shines light on it and if negative, is changed through legislation, eventually stopping this discretionary enforcement that's been going on as the executive branch changes parties.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As they should be. If it's the law or standard practice, it should be enforced so that it shines light on it and if negative, is changed through legislation, eventually stopping this discretionary enforcement that's been going on as the executive branch changes parties.
We already have the necessary legislation, "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", it just isn't being enforced within 100 miles of the border.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the number of electronic devices carried across the border continues to increase since the bush administration.
Re:Started with Obama, continued with Trump (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest spike? Let's see, a quick Google shows it spiked from 2560 in October 2016 to...2595 in March 2017.
Note that both of those numbers are about triple the number for October 2015.
A few more quick Googles, and I find that, while the problem has gotten a lot more media attention since Trump became President, the problem started back after 9/11, and has continued a steady rise during both the last two Administrations, with essentially no change since Trump got the job (no change, in this case, means the trends have pretty much continued, almost like it was being done by the bureaucracy, rather than the policymakers)....
Re:Started with Obama, continued with Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
"sense of discretion"?
Does that mean the searches are ok and don't deserve notice as long as the President, who has no possible way to oversee the choices of who gets searched, uses discretion?
I personally believe that DHS should search through every single phone that comes through the border, with agents mocking all the selfies an vacation pics, while rubbing themselves when there are pics of hot chics. Maybe then, Americans would finally wake up to how unprofessional, un-Constitutional, and utterly disgusting warrantless searches are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Started with Obama, continued with Trump (Score:1)
In other words... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I call bullshit. For the past 8 years, every story related to the government was about "...the Obama administration...". So now that it's Trump, nobody's allowed to say Trump?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not saying it's not allowed, he's saying it's counterproductive to gratuitously invoke it (just as it was with Obama). Besides, with all the stupid shit Trump actually does, why dilute it with this inappropriate use?
Truth trolling ... (Score:2)
... Trump does stupid shit [youtube.com]?
Trump & Billy Bush lewd conversation about women Donald Trump On Tape: I Grab Women "By The Pussy” - YouTube
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I call bullshit. For the past 8 years, every story related to the government was about "...the Obama administration...". So now that it's Trump, nobody's allowed to say Trump?
No, back then they blamed it on "homeland security", or other departments, not "The Obama Administration".
https://www.dailydot.com/layer... [dailydot.com]
http://www.allgov.com/news/top... [allgov.com]
Can you honestly say that you think this story today would not have been blamed directly on Trump?
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/0... [salon.com]
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Informative)
If the federal government was doing it and it was bad - it was "The Bush Administration" - if it was doing something good - it was the executive organization that did it (justice department, FBI, EPA, etc)
As soon as the Obama Administration came in the script was flipped - if it was bad it was the exective organization and if it was good then it was Obama himself doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you honestly say that you think this story today would not have been blamed directly on Trump?
To be fair the government is full of brain dead power hungry idiots. Normally they are in some over funded department, right now they just happen to be in the oval office.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What IS noteworthy is that it was actually more in the first 6 months of this year than in the combined years of the other previous presidents, so the Trump administration is responsible for using this privilege to an excessive extent.
Is that liberal math you are using? FTA;
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol reported in April that searches increased from 8,500 in fiscal year 2015 to about 19,000 in fiscal year 2016. The agency has conducted nearly 15,000 in the first half of fiscal year 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
Meaningless, as the number of electronic devices carried across the border is continually increasing. I'd like to know what the ratio of searches to devices is.
Re: (Score:1)
It's destined to turn into a political shit-flinging contest now.
Precisely its intent, no? Nothing has been "derailed". Trump is the conversation in almost every "news" story now.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if people don't play party politics and oppose the trump agenda, for sure we will lose our personal freedom. Seems like a great time to get involved in politics. No can say right now "oh, there's no difference"... well, you can say that, but that's an "alternate fact".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd place blame on Bush more for helping pass the Patriot Act, then Obama for extending it, then signing the "Light" version of it before leaving office.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Informative)
Bush didn't need any help. It was overwhelming passed by Congress, all he had to do was ask for it and sign it.
These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn... [educate-yourself.org]
Very few of the Democrats in the Senate learned their lesson, and so voted to reauthorize it by close to the same numbers in 2006, and Obama signed off on at least one more renewal (I've lost track).
The list of two-time Yeas includes Hillary Cllnton, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Rockefeller, Sarbane, both Nelsons, Diane Feinstein, Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, ...
The House was a tad better as far as Dems voting Nay, it passed the House 357-66 in 2001 and 280-138 in 2006.
Re: (Score:1)
God-Emperor Obama?
You really are a toothless idiot
Re: (Score:2)
holy cow, someone rated the parent troll as "informative"???
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the government.... (Score:2)
(Effectively, that is... you can sue them if you get their permission first, but all that actually seems to mean is that they are willing to reach a settlement)
Re:I was under the impression that the government. (Score:5, Informative)
not only are they not immune to lawsuits
Err, yes, they are immune to lawsuits [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The government has sovereign immunity to all lawsuits excepting those specifically authorized by congress. Without law that made it possible to sue the government for certain violations there would be no legal way to sue the federal government. Those lists of potential areas to sue are areas where congress allowed lawsuits in prior times.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
But in many cases the ACLU fights those cases on defense. If the government charges me with "unlawful speech," for example, there's nothing stopping me from retaining ACLU lawyers as part of my legal team. Or if I'm convicted, the ACLU can step in and offer to help with my appeal, in the interest of bringing the judgment to a court with sufficient standing to create precedent. But neither of those things is exactly the same as "suing the government."
In the case where information is not disclosed, I think fa
Re: (Score:1)
Well there's a great use of our tax dollars...
Build the Wall! (Score:1)
Then there will be no need for searches, we'll all be free as a jaybird!
Nope (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd love for this to succeed, but they'll need to go to the Supreme Court and challenge the disastrous "The Constitution doesn't apply at the border, near airports, within 100 miles of a Starbucks, etc." ruling. No chance in hell.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the Circuit often read each other's opinions and have some chance to be persuaded by them. That is, just because they aren't binding precedent doesn't mean they can be persuasive precedent. So all told it's somewhat more likely that the 1CA will follow her sister circuits than if they were the first to review it.
Pick your poison (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As soon as someone steps onto us soil, they become a US Person, and most Constitutional protections apply.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's way too simplistic (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Pick your poison (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Where exactly do you think the border exception rule came from?
Suing "Trump Administration" (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:Suing "Trump Administration" (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Gonna go with ICE and DHS being under the Executive branch of the government, of which Trump is the titular head?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Gonna go with ICE and DHS being under the Executive branch of the government, of which Trump is the titular head?"
And was it during the Trump administration that these searches started? No. It has nothing to do with the "Trump Administration" other than Trump hasn't stopped it yet. Let's hope he does, but I kinda doubt it.... Obama didn't start the searches either, and in the 8 years it was being done under HIS administration, were there any stories that were worded such as way? Of course not.
Re: (Score:3)
were you more, or less likely to click on the article after reading trump's name?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nailed it.
In my case the effect was neutral. I never read the articles. It is WAY more fun to infer their content from the long tail of angry slashdot posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Less
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
DHS is in the executive branch, which Trump heads and he could therefore put an end to this. He hasn't, therefore it's on him now, regardless of what his predecessors did or didn't do.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I think it's too late to sue the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Know Your Rights - 100 Mile Border Zone (Score:1)
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone?redirect=constitution-100-mile-border-zone
Re: (Score:2)
I think the ACLU's map is missing things. Surely DHS interpret "land border" in such as way that every designated international airport also has a 100 mile zone around it. How many places in the US interior have direct flights from Europe, Canada etc.? Denver, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City.... There's even a direct Sydney-Dallas service. I venture that there is probably no substantial US city outside the zone in the eyes of DHS.
Fun thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, and easier, is to not carry any electronics that have any personal information at all on them.
Ship them ahead to your destination through a parcel service, and carry a burner phone for your communication needs en route.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, any terrorists are just using cloud services anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Searches made easier now (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't look directly at the iPhone, it won't unlock. I'm guessing you can look down at your lap for longer than a cop can hold a phone in front of you.
The courts have held that the police have the right to take your fingerprints or picture. They have never said that they can force you to look at something.
They can force you to give handwriting sample and to read selected text to evaluate your voice. I am certain they can legally compel you to look at a phone. That is why people concerned about it should disable the biometric access before entering the border area, or any area where they fear such coercion. Then they just need to determine if contempt charges or monkey wrench cryptography (depending on jurisdiction) is worth the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the bright side! (Score:2)
Look at the bright side: At least they have to wait with smashing your face until after they have unlocked your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
This is untrue, as the face-detection software is claimed to be able to recognize your face even with glasses and other accessories, and even after significant facial changes such as gaining wait or scarring.
In other words, a few bruises and a black eye isn't going to significantly impact the ability of the device to recognize your face. Maybe if they pulped your skull, but then you've got bigger things to worry about than whatever they wanted from your fucking phone.
Will Be Summarily Dismissed (Score:1)
SCOTUS already ruled that warrants are not required to search upon entry to the country and for 100 miles inland.
Facts (Score:3)
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.
Re: More fake news (Score:1)
Bush* started it.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama continued the practice.
Ignoring the Constitution at the border started a VERY long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Dwight D. Eisenhower of the Republican party won the United States Presidential Election in 1952