Court Upholds Government Right to Search Laptops and Phones at Border Crossings

I support efforts to ensure national security and will aid the authorities in those efforts - until they infringe upon my personal rights. A federal judge cannot tell me that although my search was unjustified, in many other cases it might be so "screw my rights". At that point I shut down and give no aid to government cowboys playing fast and loose with our freedoms. Just where the hell is all this heading?

It is called 'probable cause'. Which translates to "it's Probable that we can do this 'Cause we want to, and there ain't nobody that can stop us".

I believe there is a flaw in that logic.

Searching is one thing...but we have witnessed active penetration of private computers by government. I really don't want the government inserting keystroke trackers in my computer while pretending to search it.

How about data sniffing dogs?

Makes sense, because if I had naughty stuff on my laptop, there'd be no other way to get it in or out of the US other than physically transporting it on my hard drive.

Even Americans do not have the rights codified in the Bill of Rights at the border. That is the way it should be. You are not secure in your "person or papers" when crossing a border. Extending the right to search at the border to electronic equipment is a natural progression as our "papers" have turned into data files.

The application of the duties of government at the border is where it all falls apart. The people at the crossing take great liberties with their charge to protect the US from harm. With essentially unchecked power people will become corrupt, and the Homeland Security has little in the way of checks and balances to guard against corruption of individuals.

There is a work around for those that need to carry devices across borders. Don't have the data on the device. Use the cloud to hold the data, and cross with devices that are blank slates. You can also mirror a copy of the device and check your device against the mirror when it is returned to you for any changes made by authorities.

If anyone is interested in a little light reading, this is one link to the judge's decision.
Aside from things like 'Plaintiffs must be drinking the Kool-aid...",

The judge points out that the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior.

just food for thought.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/abidor_decision.pdf

Don't forget the "border" is the area 100 miles from a border.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/images/2008/10/22/imagemap.gif

Want to search my laptop? You buffons better have a court order. Otherwise piss off.

This isn't exactly news. Warrantless, suspicionless seizures at the border were upheld as constitutional in 1977 (US v. Ramsey), and have be reaffirmed several times since then. Solution is simple: put the media (disk drives, FLASH) into a padded mailer, and send them ahead to your destination. It's a bit annoying, to be sure, and makes the whole "you can now use your electronic devices on board" somewhat pointless, but if you care at all about your data, it's what you have to do.
Or just stay home. Your call. :-/

Dont they already have the ability to search whatever they want upon arrival from an international destination? What is the difference in my computer and my bags?

One shoe bomber = taking off shoes at security forever. One underwear bomber = nothing. Seems the Department of Homeland Hypocrisy will find a reason to collect $Billions from the nation and continue to mong fear in exchange.

What sort of law school trained this judge? Was he educated in the Phillipines?

“there is not a substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion.”

Faulty. The constraint of the Fourth Amendment cannot be diluted through any such extrapolation. And what constitutes "substantial risk"? Who decides that? What nonsense!

Reasonable suspicion is cited. This is a far weaker standard than probable cause and in no way justifies a search. Reasonable suspicion is the first step and permits a "stop and frisk", where the stop is to test the reasonable suspicion and the frisk is to make certain that the individual is not an immediate physical threat: "The officer at the border had reasonable suspicion to believe the US citizen was smuggling contraband as the citizen appeared nervous during the routine border inquiry. Therefore the citizen was temporarily detained and refused to allow his vehicle and bags to be searched. This raised the encounter to the level of probable cause, and therefore a search warrant based on the facts was sought."

If the border patrol or any other government agency wants to search, get a warrant.

No playing Guantanamo at the border.

Ever since the ruling that LEAs can collect DNA without conviction and/or a court order, I lost faith in any effort in continued liberty. And the odd part was it was upheld largely by "conservatives" and the liberal justices dissented.

The Framers are rolling in their graves.

Your rights have slightly changed because of our sick society members. Get used to change, and please write your congressman a letter stating how you have a better way to control terriost. I know I'm always open to good ideas that won't tax society.

"Your papers are not in order..."<stiff rooskie accent>

By the way it is not just at the border but within 100 miles of the border. Did the judge figure out how many people that would include?