US border cops told not to search seized devices just for the hell of it A US Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that American border agents cannot randomly order deep searches of travelers' electronic devices. The three-judge panel at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals all agreed on Wednesday that officials will need to have at least "reasonable suspicion" of a crime in order to obtain a …
@Throatwarbler Mangrove
I don't think so - Americans only believe 'right to carry', concealed or otherwise, only applies when they go over the Northern border to that Big Grey Blob(tm) above them. You know, the place where all the bad weather (supposedly) comes from. At least, that's what border weapon seizure numbers seem to suggest. Their 'justification' often appears to be that said weapons are legal in the US, so it must be alright - right?
When and if the Big Grey Blob's national marijuana legalisation goes through, I'm willing to bet being found carrying any South will be, um, 'different'. Sigh...
I'm not sure I get this... he was found to be carrying illegal items onto an airliner... so a search of his phone (in his lawyer's eyes) wasn't appropriate? I would think that a full body search along with ALL carried items would be appropriate. And then applying for a warrant to search property (home, car, etc.) would then be needed.
This post has been deleted by its author
The matter revolves around whether a warrant was needed to carry out a forensically detailed search of the defendant's phone. His lawyers tried to argue that a warrant was needed for such a detailed search thereby redering the evidence found on his phone inadmissable in court in the absense of such.
The Appeals Court found that 'reasonable suspicion' was enough of a hurdle to allow a forensic search of anyones phone. No warrant needed. In this case the presence of illegal firearms found in his suitcases (and his record of two previous attempts at smuggling firearms out of the US) had provided sufficient grounds for that 'reasonable suspicion'.
But the Court also found that for the average traveller, where no 'reasonable suspicion' exists, a forensic scan of their phone is not allowed as a matter of simple routine.
There was some additional detailed arguments over whether the phone, transported some miles from the airport for an examination that took several weeks, was still under the rules that apply at the 'border'. The Court found against the defendant in this part as well.
@Mark 85 - His problem was he been found guilty twice of trying to smuggle? firearms. Thus, finding legal gun parts would naturally be suspicious for someone who is a known smuggler. The court gave a split decision; the agents need more than a whim to search electronic gadgets but in his case the agents had enough reasonable suspicion to search. It seems they got the situation more or less correct - no warrantless search at the border unless there is reasonable grounds to suspect a possible crime.
Those with prosthetics/operations withstanding (though, possibly not if you get it wrong), you could cut out the middle man (ouch) and just use giant fair ground grabbers with magnets... they would "remove" any smuggling attempts automatically, and drop them off in a cell... A bit like that scene from Toy Story...
Good news about the higher standard but I gotta say that guy certainly seems to be either intellectually challenged or wisely going with a cost/benefit analysis. In other words, was he figuring that the third time would be a charm or is it more a matter of smuggling gun parts every other weekend for six years and he was only busted twice before?
"officials will need to have at least "reasonable suspicion" of a crime"
"Reasonable suspicion" is an incredibly low bar. So low as to be meaningless. All it really means is that border cops will have to spend an extra 30 seconds to make up a reason before engaging in speculative searches.
Yep. Prior to this anyone within the regulation distance of a US border, 100 miles, could have their computer ceased and searched:
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
(Convenient map on that page.) So, I *live* within that orange zone. In principle border control could take the computer I'm writing this on and search it. Given that Windows Hello and, indeed, Android and iPhone biometric verification can be used to open a computer or phone given just a couple of cops holding your head, or hand, sufficiently still that was a pretty great risk.
Of course no one in the UK gives a damn; you guys just get locked up until you reveal the password.
John Bowler
we might get locked up if we dont reveal a password but we weren't allowed to seize the kit in the first place without a magistrate order. Or in case of airport seizure a decent reason. I cant think of a newsworthy article that had someone in the UK locked up for a completely random seizure of kit in a UK airport.
The obvious solution
is to avoid going to that country in the first place.
I get sent for work a few times a year. america is a great place, filled on the whole with polite, friendly, and decent people. Judging the people of a country by their political leadership is a dangerous game - I certainly don't want to be judged on the basis of that most bloodthirsty of former prime ministers, Tony Blair.
Your place(s) of visit must have been Democratic type places. Republicans will rob you and shoot you and then find you guilty because you stepped across a yellow line. They will probably sentence you to 30 years in a jail you have to pay for as well. America is becoming a banana republic before that happens I hope to be dead in a cemetery.
A decision most sensible people are coming to. The US is lovely country, people are friendly and happily welcome visitors, that's the same the world over from my experience, average Joe is always perfectly decent and always pleased to meet new people. However it's always what twat-addled boneheads in charge of any given country that ruin it for everyone. A combination of moronic government, Homeland Security and the TSA at the border I doubt I will ever set foot inside the US again, which genuinely saddens me greatly as I'd love to go again but I'll have to make do with my memories of 2001's trip.
"Just don't take electronics into the country, or shampoo, or cloths, or any luggage at all."
This is what I do when flying within the US. I take no luggage or carry-ons, but ship my stuff ahead to my destination via a parcel carrier. It's a ton safer for a whole lot of reasons.
This post has been deleted by its author
There is plenty of legitimate reason to search phones of suspicious characters. The ACLU is not working to protect mankind. It's good that the court made it clear that inspecting phones is acceptable under law. Fewer crims will get by claiming bogus privacy violations now. Society wins, the crims not so much.
"Fewer crims will get by claiming bogus privacy violations now. Society wins, the crims not so much."
AFAIK the presumption of innocence is as much part of what I assume to be your country's constitution as it is for mine, the UK's.
Thus you cannot point at a person and say "he's a crim" (to use your own terminology*). We are all presumed innocent until found guilty and so if any protections exist under the law they exist for all of us. Therefore the protections which protect those you call "crims" are actually there to protect you. Didn't you realise that? So if you ever find yourself having to claim a privacy violation to get the law's protection would it be, to use your own terminology again, a bogus one or is it the case that special rules apply to you so that your privacy is genuine and everyone else's is bogus?
I should point out that I spent over a decade working in crime investigation in circumstances which had an ongoing terrorist problem (substantially funded from the US as it happens) and I'm a firm believer in the presumption of innocence an essential part of the rule of law. This was something I had to think of everyday as it quite rightly set the standard for my work. The view from your sofa might vary.
*In case you never learned to spell the full word is "criminal".
Yes, the UK has a constitution. And the efforts by some to make it a written constitution have been fiercely argued (for and against) by some of their finest legal minds. I don't pretend to know anything more about it than that. But I do know that much.
And, as for the way that constitutional law works in the US, the constitution itself is practically a dead letter. Everything is based on precedent, and the court has, for instance, simply decided that it would not abide by part of the 21st amendment. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granholm_v._Heald)
So, where is the constitution that actually governs the US written? I certainly cannot find it.
You really are a first class bellend AC! Doctor Syntax above has covered the salient points but basically "innocent until proven guilty" is what holds most free nations in check and ensures no one can simply throw you jail without proper justice being served to prove beyond doubt that you actually did something wrong. By the looks of it you sound like the sort of twat who advocates the death penalty for anything worse than coughing in public, that is until someone you care about gets framed for a crime they didn't do and then you'd change your tune about "due process". Although it seems that as you're prepared to spout such utter bollocks in public I suspect it won't be long before you do something utterly stupid and end up in clinky anyway!
Anyone with common sense knows once you're pulled for anything, you are suspect for the next few years.
I forgot I had a small screwdriver in my laptop bag going on a domestic flight one time, you would have thought it was sword by their reaction, I just told them toss it in rubbish as not worth the hassle, but every time I flew for next 3 years, I was pulled out if line and patted down" just because"......
It all seems a bit similar. Every increase in public procedure, also increases the chances of failure. I'd be developing the randomness in some form or other as, at the end of the day, you're not dealing with rocket scientists. #myrobotpackedmybag #iveforgottenmytrousers
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
