BajaNomad

BP agents can't search your phone without good reason

JoeJustJoe - 5-10-2018 at 07:41 PM

The border agents searches of personal cell phones really increased since 2016.

Thank You ACLU for fighting against these suspicionless forensic searches of cell phones at the border.
________________________________________

Border agents can't search your phone without good reason, US court rules

Federal appeals court says there must be some reason to suspect a particular traveler has committed a crime

US border authorities cannot search the cellphones of travelers without having some reason to believe a particular traveler has committed a crime, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The 4th US circuit court of appeals in Richmond ruled in the case of a Turkish national who was arrested at Dulles international airport after agents found firearm parts in his luggage.

A lower court judge refused to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of Hamza Kolsuz’s phone.

The 4th circuit upheld that ruling and found that a forensic search of electronic devices requires “individualized suspicion” of wrongdoing. The court said agents had that suspicion because Kolsuz had made two previous attempts to smuggle weapons parts out of the US.

The fourth amendment requires law enforcement officers to obtain warrants based on probable cause. But courts have made an exception for searches at airports and US ports of entry, finding that the government can conduct warrantless border searches to protect national security, prevent transnational crime and enforce immigration and customs laws.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had urged the 4th circuit to find that the government should be required to obtain a warrant or at least a determination of probable cause that evidence of a crime is contained on electronic devices before agents can search them at airports.

read the rest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/09/us-border-cell...

DaliDali - 5-10-2018 at 07:58 PM

firearm parts in the luggage
Busted twice before with firearm parts.

Well hello..........search his damn ear canals for all I care.

Outrageous ruling.

Paco Facullo - 5-10-2018 at 09:20 PM

Completely irrelevant as the NSA already knows everything that is on your phone .....

Welcome to the "New world order"

wilderone - 5-11-2018 at 07:50 AM

That court UPHELD the lower court's finding re reasonable suspicion for border searches. The ACLU filed the suit, persevered through the appeal, et., yet the underlying principles did not change. Too, this was only a Circuit Court ruling. The U S Supreme Court (supreme law of the land) has made previous rulings yet to be overturned. The standard is "reasonable suspicion" balanced against the known Fourth Amendment law at the time. So until the reigning cases dictating the law as applied in BORDER search cases are distinguished or overturned, they still prevail. Here are some of those cases:

The Supreme Court has thus allowed warrantless searches of mail and gas tanks entering the United States. United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 624–25 (1977) (mail); Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. at 155–56 (gas tanks). It permitted even the 16-hour warrantless detention of a woman at the border whom customs officials reasonably suspected to be smuggling narcotics in her alimentary canal. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 535, 541, 544. We have held that officials at the border may cut open the lining of suitcases without any suspicion, United States v. Chaplinski, 579 F.2d 373, 374 (5th Cir. 1978), and that with reasonable suspicion they may strip search suspected drug smugglers and drill into the body of a trailer, United States v. Afanador, 567 F.2d 1325, 1329 (5th Cir. 1978) (strip search); United States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir. 1998) (drilling into trailer). These cases establish that routine border searches may be conducted without any suspicion. See id. at 367. So-called “nonroutine” searches need only reasonable suspicion, not the higher threshold of probable cause. Id.; United States v. Kelly, 302 F.3d 291, 294 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Saboonchi, 48 F. Supp. 3d 815, 819 (D. Md. 2014) (“Defendant has not cited to a single case holding that anything more than reasonable suspicion was required to perform a search of even the most invasive kind at the international border, and I have found none.”).

bajatrailrider - 5-11-2018 at 09:14 AM

This law that law not important. They can hold you at border for hours make up anything. More easy here check my phone your on your way.

David K - 5-11-2018 at 09:45 AM

I often wonder if there are some Americans who don't realize they are in another country when they drive into Baja?

The border is the only place we can keep bad stuff or bad people from entering the United States... so it is not unreasonable that you may undergo extra questions or searches. For the number of cars and people that cross the border, they do an amazing job.

Sure, I have had stupid border guards ask or say really dumb things and the wait to get back into the U.S. is the only ugly part of a Baja vacation... but that is simply the 'price' of going to Baja... and it is still worth it to me. I suppose if you are into doing illegal activities, you may not want anything searched? The solution is to not go to Mexico or don't break the law. For them to take the time to look at your phone would mean some pretty bright red lights went off in their head or on their computer screen.

JoeJustJoe - 5-11-2018 at 11:46 AM

What I think most of us want is to be treated fairly at the border, and many of us don't want jackbooted thugs( CBP agents) with a chip on their shoulder to be profiling us by race, ethnicity, or because they have a whim, and now they want to search our computers, and cells phones, both manually by hand or with their intrusive forensic tools, which is about as equivalent to an anal cavity search except forensic searches are doing this cyber cavity search on your cell phones!

Now I could understand the border agents, using these tools if they have probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, but the border agents are doing these intrusive "suspicionless" cell phone searches just because they feel like it, or because we suspect they are engaged in profiling.

BTW, the ruling by the 4th circuit, only concerns intrusive " forensic" searches, and sadly the Border Agents, can still check your cell phone manually, for no reason at all, although the ACLU is working to also stop suspicionless manual searches of your cell phone at the border.

Regarding the case of the Turkish national which this appeal case is based on.

The CPB agents first manually checked his iPhone, and then used a forensic tools that gathered up a 896 page report about the Turkish National's iPhone that included "personal contact lists, emails, messenger conversations, photographs, videos, calendar, web browsing history, and call logs, along with a history of Kolsuz’s physical location down to precise GPS coordinates."

Now Kolsuz, the Turkish National, will still do jail time based on existing law, and because they had reasonable suspicion he was doing something illegal.

The question to ask yourself is, do you really want to border agents using forensic tools on your cell phones so they could get a 900 page report on you based on nothing more than a whim?

Hell, I don't even want them to manually check my iPhone.










[Edited on 5-11-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

Alm - 5-11-2018 at 12:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  

The border is the only place we can keep bad stuff or bad people from entering the United States... so it is not unreasonable that you may undergo extra questions or searches.

Yep. They have a lot of leeway when applying the "reasonable suspicion" test. Crimes committed in the past - like those firearms parts in the luggage previously, or frequent trips to countries known for terrorist ties - half a dozen of Middle East stamps in your passport would suffice. Or pretty much anything else.

Here in Canada people "tried" to fight it, but there is a ruling by Supreme Court saying that "at the border people should have lower expectations of privacy" - in other words they can search you all they want. Relax and let it be.

David K - 5-11-2018 at 01:43 PM

True that Alm!

Oh, and JoeJstJoe ... the officers that I have come across at the border have never seemed to care about what I look like on the outside, so I don't know why you mention race/ ethnic profiling as a problem. I have been questioned by all kinds of American officials at the border who were Asian, Latino, Black, and all kinds of women, as well as the occasional white guy!

chuckie - 5-11-2018 at 05:40 PM

JJJ is full of horse hockey as usual....They will do, and should, what they think is needed....

Alm - 5-11-2018 at 09:09 PM

Racial profiling they don't do.
Citizenship, country of origin and country of habitual residence they do consider, along with tons of other factors.

This is a dumb job but it is not easy and occasionally can be dangerous. They follow manuals. Questions are cursory when there is nothing unusual about you.

When he hears or sees something that is not "average", not in the manual, or something he doesn't understand (there are tons of things that they don't know about, it's a constant learning for them) - this immediately triggers a new and different set of questions and checks aimed to elicit more info. This world is not safe anymore, BP activity is a result of this.

JoeJustJoe - 5-11-2018 at 10:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Alm  

Yep. They have a lot of leeway when applying the "reasonable suspicion" test. Crimes committed in the past - like those firearms parts in the luggage previously, or frequent trips to countries known for terrorist ties - half a dozen of Middle East stamps in your passport would suffice. Or pretty much anything else.

Here in Canada people "tried" to fight it, but there is a ruling by Supreme Court saying that "at the border people should have lower expectations of privacy" - in other words they can search you all they want. Relax and let it be.


Currently the border agents at the border do not apply the "reasonable suspicion test," when they stop you and ask you to open your car's truck or check your cell phone manually or forensically.

What they do is a suspicionless check on everybody, randomly, or just some people. They don't need a reason to make these checks at the border, and that has been the law for a long time at the border.

However, it's a new century and it's 2018, and so many of us who care about our personal privacy especially when it comes to our computers and smart phones, balk at US customs making suspicionless checks on our electronic devices especially our smart phones that hold so much private information, photos, and endless personal details about us.

I'm amazed at David K, Chuckie and others who quickly want to give away or throwaway our constitutional rights to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures because they trust the border agents.

Thank God, a few years ago, a woman took the thugs/ CBP to court over an unwarranted body cavity search, and then they took her to a hospital for even a more intrusive search!

That woman won a half million dollar lawsuit, and now thanks to her, the border agents now at least need a reasonable suspicion to do unwarranted body cavity searches on us at the border.

If David K, and Chuckie, had it their way, they would probably allow border agents to once again make random body cavity searches on anybody crossing the border back into the US, because they always trust those in the US with a badge.

I think at the very least the border agents should have at least reasonable suspicion to make manual or forensic searches on our smart phones at the border.

mtgoat666 - 5-11-2018 at 11:02 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
True that Alm!

Oh, and JoeJstJoe ... the officers that I have come across at the border have never seemed to care about what I look like on the outside, so I don't know why you mention race/ ethnic profiling as a problem. I have been questioned by all kinds of American officials at the border who were Asian, Latino, Black, and all kinds of women, as well as the occasional white guy!


Well, you are white,... you are unable to see bias, perhaps reflecting your own bias, eh?

wilderone - 5-12-2018 at 07:46 AM

"I think at the very least the border agents should have at least reasonable suspicion to make manual or forensic searches on our smart phones at the border."

Read the whole decision - makes routine, non-routine; reasonable suspicion, probable cause; border exception -- very clear. A manual cell phone check is routine. That's a fact - accept it.
I don't think you appreciate the magnitude and types of international crimes that transpire at our borders. Yes, it is a new century and it is 2018. All kinds of new ways to commit crimes - so all facets of society shift with the times. I guess the whiz-bang of techno gadgets are a double-edged sword - accept that too. Hence, new laws, new case law, new analysis. Good for you that you're trying to keep up on nuances of the law - but you rewind the clock. If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have to worry about your constitutional rights being infringed upon. Personally, I don't want sex and child trafficking occurring cross-border; child porn and exploitation; exporting of firearms or parts of firearms to enemy factions; importing of drugs dangerous to society and younger generation; illegal immigration; foreign conspirators taking flying lessons in the USA and then leaving to plan to blow up New York, and so on. And if routine border searches can stop those crimes or assist in apprehending those criminals, then I support that. Have you actually ever been asked by a border agent to search your cell phone?

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/kols...

the forensic examination of Kolsuzs phone must be considered a nonroutine border search, requiring some measure of individualized suspicion. What precisely that standard should be whether reasonable suspicion is enough, as the district court concluded ..
government agents may conduct routine searches and seizures of persons and property without a warrant or any individualized suspicion. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 27273 (1973); United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985).
While suspicionless border searches generally are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616 .
As a nonroutine border search, the court went on to hold, the forensic analysis of Kolsuzs phone required particularized suspicion, in the form of the familiar reasonable suspicion standard. The court rejected the more demanding requirement of a warrant based on probable cause, noting that no reported case has held a border search to that standard.


SFandH - 5-12-2018 at 08:35 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone  

If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have to worry about your constitutional rights being infringed upon.


That's a common argument used to not worry about government surveillance.

But, it is certainly debatable. My favorite example of this attitude causing problems occurred in the early 20th century. Back then it was standard procedure for residents of western European countries to register their name, address, and other info with "city hall". One piece of data recorded was the individual's religion. What's the problem with that? Well, when the N-zis invaded western Europe and within Germany itself, when they decided to round up the Jews all they needed to do was go to city hall to find out where they lived. I know, it's an extreme example, but so were the results of simply saying you were a Jew when there was no reason to hide the fact.

If you don't like my example, OK. I don't want to debate whether or not it is a good one. I'm just using it to make a point. You may not think you have anything to hide today. But will that be true tomorrow even though nothing about you has changed?

Someone said: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

Also, "reasonable cause" is embedded in our search and seizure laws for a good reason. The concept should not be watered down for any reason.

4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

If the police want to know anything about me they don't already know, they should convince a judge there is a reasonable cause and get a search warrant.

IMHO, of course.

DaliDali - 5-12-2018 at 09:43 AM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Quote: Originally posted by wilderone  

If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have to worry about your constitutional rights being infringed upon.




4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."



In the example that the resident anarchist used.....a Turkish man, now a three time loser for attempting to smuggle gun parts, would the classic example of "probable cause" to dig deeper, including electronic devices and any other means as deemed necessary.

In addition, why would this Turkish man, twice before busted for smuggling, even be allowed to set foot on a plane bound for the USA.
And how did this Turkish man even get passed the security check points with a bag full of gun parts........

[Edited on 5-12-2018 by DaliDali]

JoeJustJoe - 5-12-2018 at 11:40 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone  


Read the whole decision - makes routine, non-routine; reasonable suspicion, probable cause; border exception -- very clear. A manual cell phone check is routine. That's a fact - accept it.

I don't think you appreciate the magnitude and types of international crimes that transpire at our borders. Yes, it is a new century and it is 2018. All kinds of new ways to commit crimes - so all facets of society shift with the times. I guess the whiz-bang of techno gadgets are a double-edged sword - accept that too. Hence, new laws, new case law, new analysis. Good for you that you're trying to keep up on nuances of the law - but you rewind the clock. If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have to worry about your constitutional rights being infringed upon. Personally, I don't want sex and child trafficking occurring cross-border; child porn and exploitation; exporting of firearms or parts of firearms to enemy factions; importing of drugs dangerous to society and younger generation; illegal immigration; foreign conspirators taking flying lessons in the USA and then leaving to plan to blow up New York, and so on. And if routine border searches can stop those crimes or assist in apprehending those criminals, then I support that. Have you actually ever been asked by a border agent to search your cell phone?

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/kols...



I read it, and I'm also well aware of the international crimes at occur at the border and elsewhere, but I fail to see how letting the CBP make suspicionless checks on smart phones on mostly minorities and Muslims will make America safer, especially under this current administration that is openly racist to people of color and immigrants.

If you really care about making America safer, you should join me and advocate increase gun control, like better background checks in all 50 states, and you should be for outlawing of assault weapons, and their equivalent.

What's this Wilerone when you write:" Personally, I don't want sex and child trafficking occurring cross-border; child porn and exploitation"

If you ask me your statement sounds a little sexually repressive. Who cares if someone crosses the border for sex? Yes, child trafficking, child porn and exploitation is a serious crime, but I think much of this talk is about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I do read the sensationalized headlines, and follow some of these new bills, and they make it sound like all "sex workers" are both underage, and sex slaves.

BTW, the ACLU is not only looking out for minorities with dark skin and Muslims, but they are looking out for old white men who make up the majority of foreign sex tourists. Anecdotally, you just know the border agents, are profiling creepy looking white dudes, and manually looking through their cameras, and smart phones in hopes of finding illegal images or getting their jollies.

I also disagree with Wilerone when he writes, "A manual cell phone check is routine. That's a fact - accept it."

It may now be pretty routine, just like opening up your car's truck or your suitcase, but I don't have to accept it.

Thanks to the EFF and ACLU, they can proceed with their legal challenge against warrantless searches of travelers at the border. This case extends "Alasaad v. Nielsen" where the CBP and ICE, stopped mostly Muslim-Americans returning to the US, and demanded to make warrantless searches of their cell phones, and at times the CBP kept their cell phones for weeks and even months for no reason, other than they could. I doubt any of these 10 people were guilty of anything other than having dark skin, or being Muslim.

If the EFF and ACLU wins, this will be a win for the digital rights of all international travelers.
_____________________________

EFF and ACLU Can Proceed With Legal Challenge Against Warrantless Searches of Travelers' Smartphones, Laptops


https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-and-aclu-can-proceed-...

wilderone - 5-12-2018 at 02:01 PM

"If you ask me your statement sounds a little sexually repressive. Who cares if someone crosses the border for sex ...."
Sex trafficking. Maybe you'd sing a different tune if YOU were kidnapped, drugged, raped and made a sex slave. And if you read the Published Decision, you would know that "routine" in its legal sense applied to border searches (vs. nonroutine) has firm footing in the law. So non-acceptance, or failure to understand, or failure to adapt, only leaves you with a weak and unsubstantiated position should the time come to defend yourself.

Those of you who have something to HIDE ......................

MrBillM - 5-12-2018 at 03:42 PM

.................. Should be CAUGHT !

DaliDali - 5-12-2018 at 03:45 PM

The anarchist blew it big time...
Using a Turkish national, a two time loser no less, and pulling off a third arms parts smuggling again for a third, as an example of unwarranted electronic searches.

Perfectly legit and totally warranted.

Great job CBP

JoeJustJoe - 5-12-2018 at 04:51 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
The anarchist blew it big time...
Using a Turkish national, a two time loser no less, and pulling off a third arms parts smuggling again for a third, as an example of unwarranted electronic searches.

Perfectly legit and totally warranted.

Great job CBP



DaliDali, the Fourth Circuit’s ruling isn't just about the Turkish National, who was caught smuggling arms parts a few times.

This is a court precedent ruling that now extends to to international travelers regarding digital right that some of us applaud.

I'm shocked, just shocked, there are not more liberals, and/or civil libertarians who are enjoying this ruling as much as me. Thanks you, Goat, and SF and H, but is this it?

Often times there are people like Ernesto Arturo Miranda, caught up in the legal system, that are later convicted, but their court case is precedent setting case, that later extends to all of us. Now because of Ernesto Miranda, cops have to give us everybody their "Miranda" rights when they are arrested. I don't know about the rest of you, but I like the fact that cops have to give read you your Miranda, rights when anybody gets arrested in the US. ( it evens the law, since cops are allowed to lie to you)

But back to the Turkish National, I don't think what he did was that bad. It's not against the law to carry your gun in your luggage, as long as it's not carry on, and it's in hard-sided container that's lock. The same thing with gun parts.

The problem with the Turkish National, is that Turkey, has some tough gun laws, and if the Turkish National, is not a gun dealer, and therefore, it's against the law for him to put gun, and gun parts in his luggage back to Turkey.

So slap him on the wrists, which looks like exactly what the CBP did twice, before they got tough on the 3rd attempt. ( I bet the guns, and gun parts were for personal use, or he was a black market gun dealer in Turkey)

BTW, personally I believe the CBP did have both reasonable suspicion, and probable cause in this case, and I'm not sure what the Turkish National's lawyer, was trying to do, but I'll enjoy the ruling just the same, because now the CBP will need at least reasonable suspicion if they decide to do intrusive
forensic searches on our cell phones.



[Edited on 5-13-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

DaliDali - 5-12-2018 at 07:27 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  
Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
The anarchist blew it big time...
Using a Turkish national, a two time loser no less, and pulling off a third arms parts smuggling again for a third, as an example of unwarranted electronic searches.

Perfectly legit and totally warranted.

Great job CBP





But back to the Turkish National, I don't think what he did was that bad. It's not against the law to carry your gun in your luggage, as long as it's not carry on, and it's in hard-sided container that's lock. The same thing with gun parts.


BTW, personally I believe the CBP did have both reasonable suspicion, and probable cause in this case, and I'm not sure what the Turkish National's lawyer, was trying to do, but I'll enjoy the ruling just the same, because now the CBP will need at least reasonable suspicion if they decide to do intrusive
forensic searches on our cell phones.



[Edited on 5-13-2018 by JoeJustJoe]


This is the underlying problem with an anarchist.....not do they (you) object to all things law enforcement, they object to and use as an example, the very people who SHOULD get searched.

Had you not brought the Turkish man's predicament into the game, as the basis of your interpretation of the "unwarranted" search, you might get the support of more people.
No one WANTS to be searched, not guilty and guilty. It is that some people DO need to be searched completely and the Turk was a classic example of that need.

To bring firearms on an international flight to the US...any passenger must declare to the airline, in advance of them bring any arms or parts on board, either carryon or checked. This even applies to flights within the USA........hunters, off duty LEO and or others MUST declare their firearms to the airline.
For crying out loud.......you can't even carry a battery in your carry on much less parts to a gun......and triple down on that when the person is from that part of the world known to be a cesspool of terrorist activities.

By any reasonable measure, the Turk put himself right smack dab in the middle of a criminal and civil bind.
During the detention of the Turk......low and behold, it's discovered he has attempted to smuggle arms parts TWICE before.

I am stunned the man is not pounding rocks.

For anyone to even suggest that the Turk got a raw deal when agents cracked his phone is beyond any rational comprehension.





[Edited on 5-13-2018 by DaliDali]

JoeJustJoe - 5-12-2018 at 09:09 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone  
"If you ask me your statement sounds a little sexually repressive. Who cares if someone crosses the border for sex ...."
Sex trafficking. Maybe you'd sing a different tune if YOU were kidnapped, drugged, raped and made a sex slave. And if you read the Published Decision, you would know that "routine" in its legal sense applied to border searches (vs. nonroutine) has firm footing in the law. So non-acceptance, or failure to understand, or failure to adapt, only leaves you with a weak and unsubstantiated position should the time come to defend yourself.


Wilderone wrote:" Maybe you'd sing a different tune if YOU were kidnapped, drugged, raped and made a sex slave."

Aren't you getting a little bit dramatic?

The way the stories go, the Mexican pimps/padrotes, use invisible chains, not real chains, and they get the girls to fall in love with them, and then the so-called abusive is suppose to start. That's if you believe all these stories that all girls are sex traffic victims.

But this is cell phone/border search thread, so I'll try to stay on topic.

When you Wilderone say, " And if you read the Published Decision, you would know that "routine" in its legal sense applied to border searches (vs. nonroutine) has firm footing in the law."

I think you are confusing the issue when taking about " warrantless searches" of your luggage or car's truck that have been law for a long time with the CBP at the border. Yeah, when I'm at the airport, or driving back into the US I know the routine and open my car's truck, or open my luggage if asked.

However with new computers, and especially the latest smart phones, that are fairly new, especially with all the information smart phones can carry. What the CBP and ICE have being doing is applying the same laws of warrantless searches to your smart phones with manual and forensic, the same way the CBP checks your luggage at the border.

But now because of these court cases successfully fought by the ACLU and others, the appeals courts are telling the CBP and ICE, not so fast, because of the intrusive nature of cell phone searches. That now with forensic searches, you're going to need at least reasonable suspicion to do that forensic search, and hopefully down the line, the courts will say the same thing about manual cell phone searches.

BTW, the way the court cases are going, it's a very good bet, the ACLU will win on the manual cell phone searches too, and will soon require at least reasonable suspicion on the part of the CBP and ICE, before you turn over your cell phone for a search.

Reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold than probable cause, so I don't understand the mentally around here to let the CBP, ICE, and police do whatever they want?

[Edited on 5-13-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

norte - 5-12-2018 at 09:16 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
True that Alm!

Oh, and JoeJstJoe ... the officers that I have come across at the border have never seemed to care about what I look like on the outside, so I don't know why you mention race/ ethnic profiling as a problem. I have been questioned by all kinds of American officials at the border who were Asian, Latino, Black, and all kinds of women, as well as the occasional white guy!


Occasional white guy? Your prejudice is showing. All kinds of women? How many kinds are there?

DaliDali - 5-13-2018 at 07:02 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  


Aren't you getting a little bit dramatic?

[Edited on 5-13-2018 by JoeJustJoe]


It is YOU anarchist Joe who is pulling the dramatic thing here.

If one were to put faith in your assertions, CBP, as a matter of routine, hacks phones and other devices willy nilly and on a whim.
This is simply not the case, but anarchists like you eat it up and go on to revel in denting the authority of law enforcement, not only at the border and other ports of entry, but in their everyday activities......terrorism related or not.

Unlike you, the CBP officers are trained to spot furtiveness and outward signs of deception.

It is these signs of deception that trigger further inquiry.
You know....the truth. Such a concept yes?



norte - 5-13-2018 at 08:26 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Quote: Originally posted by norte  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
True that Alm!

Oh, and JoeJstJoe ... the officers that I have come across at the border have never seemed to care about what I look like on the outside, so I don't know why you mention race/ ethnic profiling as a problem. I have been questioned by all kinds of American officials at the border who were Asian, Latino, Black, and all kinds of women, as well as the occasional white guy!


Occasional white guy? Your prejudice is showing. All kinds of women? How many kinds are there?


You quoted my reply. If you read what I was replying to then you would see the racism I was countering. There are all kinds of men and all kinds of women and none should be judged on skin color.


The reason I quoted you was so you could see your own prejudice. Guess it went over your head.

David K - 5-13-2018 at 08:31 AM

But why do you not see the racism I was responding to? It's one thing to call people racists, like you do. But, it is quite another to live with respect for all people, like you don't.

JoeJustJoe - 5-13-2018 at 08:50 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
True that Alm!

Oh, and JoeJstJoe ... the officers that I have come across at the border have never seemed to care about what I look like on the outside, so I don't know why you mention race/ ethnic profiling as a problem. I have been questioned by all kinds of American officials at the border who were Asian, Latino, Black, and all kinds of women, as well as the occasional white guy!


I seem to get mostly the Filipino agents at the border, and for some reason besides being mostly Catholic, Filipinos tend to be ultra conservative, and is probably one of the reasons in the Philippines they voted for that crazy guy, Rodrigo Duterte, who practices extrajudicial killings of their citizens suspected of being involved in drugs.

I mention race and ethnicity because the CBP and ICE are some of the few federal agencies that can still use racial profiling at the border and within 100 miles of the border, although they claim to use other factors, but nobody actually believes them, especially when they refuse to say what factors they use for screening at the border.

Sadly, this was allowed during the Obama administration in 2014, and this is yet another reason why we need to hold the CBP and ICE accountable at the border.

Racial Profiling

The Justice policy, however, contains a footnote appearing to exempt DHS with respect to “interdiction activities in the vicinity of the border.

https://holdcbpaccountable.org/racial-profiling/

JoeJustJoe - 5-13-2018 at 09:22 AM

Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  


It is YOU anarchist Joe who is pulling the dramatic thing here.

If one were to put faith in your assertions, CBP, as a matter of routine, hacks phones and other devices willy nilly and on a whim.
This is simply not the case, but anarchists like you eat it up and go on to revel in denting the authority of law enforcement, not only at the border and other ports of entry, but in their everyday activities......terrorism related or not.

Unlike you, the CBP officers are trained to spot furtiveness and outward signs of deception.

It is these signs of deception that trigger further inquiry.
You know....the truth. Such a concept yes?



So you think I'm an anarchist? Well, you are welcome to your opinion, and I rather be an anarchist, than a closed border Trumpster, like you. It's just too bad that wall doesn't look like it will ever be built.

DD, does that gentleman look like a terrorist to you?

Well, him and 10 other Americans who mostly also happen to be Muslim, had their electronic devices searched and taken from them without a warrant, and really no reason at all, except perhaps their religion.

This family man and 10 other Americans with the help from the ACLU are suing Homeland Security see ALASAAD V. NEILSEN.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU of Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without warrants at the U.S. border.




The American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU of Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without warrants at the U.S. border.

The plaintiffs in the case are 10 U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who hail from seven states and come from a variety of backgrounds. The lawsuit challenges the government’s fast-growing practice of searching travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant. It seeks to establish that the government must have a warrant based on probable cause to suspect a violation of immigration or customs laws before conducting such searches.

The plaintiffs include a military veteran, journalists, students, an artist, a NASA engineer, and a business owner. Several are Muslims

https://www.aclu.org/cases/alasaad-v-neilsen-challenge-warra...

[Edited on 5-13-2018 by JoeJustJoe]

wilderone - 5-13-2018 at 09:23 AM

"But back to the Turkish National, I don't think what he did was that bad. It's not against the law to carry your gun in your luggage...."
That's not what he was arrested for.

"I'm not sure what the Turkish National's lawyer, was trying to do...."
Really? And you said you read the Decision? He was trying to suppress the evidence (the resulting data from the forensic search which lead to his conviction) based on his allegation that the search did not constitute a border search.

OMG I'm done here.



DaliDali - 5-13-2018 at 10:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  


I seem to get mostly the Filipino agents at the border, and for some reason besides being mostly Catholic, Filipinos tend to be ultra conservative, and is probably one of the reasons in the Philippines they voted for that crazy guy, Rodrigo Duterte, who practices extrajudicial killings of their citizens suspected of being involved in drugs.

I mention race and ethnicity because the CBP and ICE are some of the few federal agencies that can still use racial profiling at the border and within 100 miles of the border, although they claim to use other factors, but nobody actually believes them, especially when they refuse to say what factors they use for screening at the border.

Sadly, this was allowed during the Obama administration in 2014, and this is yet another reason why we need to hold the CBP and ICE accountable at the border.

Racial Profiling

The Justice policy, however, contains a footnote appearing to exempt DHS with respect to “interdiction activities in the vicinity of the border.

https://holdcbpaccountable.org/racial-profiling/


Well well....lookie here.......the anarchist Joe is revealing his true colors.

Not only are you an anarchist, you're a flaming racist yourself.
Filipinos. brown skin, Catholic...Trump voters.......
Brown skinned Arabs ok.....brown skinned Filipinos not so much

If you're offended by brown skinned Catholics.......what the hell are you doing crossing the border into Mexico.......the country that is chock full of the exact people you're now crying about at the gate. The truth be known, you're just a hater of all things Trump and will do anything in your power to weaken him.
That is not IMO.......the very fact you brought politics and religion into the fray proves it.

I KNOW you're an anarchist Joe........based on years of reading your drivel of everything anti LE. And you know it.


TMW - 5-13-2018 at 11:02 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  


I mention race and ethnicity because the CBP and ICE are some of the few federal agencies that can still use racial profiling at the border and within 100 miles of the border, although they claim to use other factors, but nobody actually believes them, especially when they refuse to say what factors they use for screening at the border.

Sadly, this was allowed during the Obama administration in 2014, and this is yet another reason why we need to hold the CBP and ICE accountable at the border.

https://holdcbpaccountable.org/racial-profiling/


What's wrong with racial profiling? Wouldn't you find it odd for a Black man to be at a KKK rally or a Chinese at a Texas BBQ cookoff or a White Klansman at a NAACP convention.

JoeJustJoe - 5-13-2018 at 11:21 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wilderone  
"But back to the Turkish National, I don't think what he did was that bad. It's not against the law to carry your gun in your luggage...."
That's not what he was arrested for.

"I'm not sure what the Turkish National's lawyer, was trying to do...."
Really? And you said you read the Decision? He was trying to suppress the evidence (the resulting data from the forensic search which lead to his conviction) based on his allegation that the search did not constitute a border search.

OMG I'm done here.





Well, I'm done with you too, since you obviously don't know the difference between a warrantless search of your luggage and a personal cell phone that has a trove of personal information on, and therefore should be treated differently, and privacy rights should not be ignored even at the border.

The courts have now ruled warrantless forensic searches as unconstitutional, and hopefully the way these court cases are going, it's only a matter of time manual searches require at lease reasonable suspicion before you have to turn over your phone to the CBP thugs.

You also seem to have missed Perry Mason shows.

The objective of an attorney is to win their case for their client. Sadly, the Turkish National was still convicted. What I was wondering about is even if the attorney was successful of suppressing the evidence of the forensic case, the CBP still had probably cause that a crime has been committed. There was little chance this guy was going to walk no matter what his lawyer did.

However, that's OK, because what happens from time to time, the appeals court notices some unfairness or unconstitutional aspect of a case, and later that court case sets a precedent as to what happened in this case with the Turkish National. Now for now on or until this case goes to the Supreme court, if the CBP wants to do a forensic search of a cell phone, they better at least have reasonable suspicion do to the intrusive search.

Now DD might jump up and down and say, but but the Turkish National, was as guilty as sin, and the CBP was only doing their job.

My answer to that is, while what about those 11 Americans in the up coming ALASAAD V. NEILSEN case? Those 11 Americans were not guilty of anything, except perhaps praying to Allah.

DaliDali - 5-13-2018 at 01:09 PM

You're flailing into the wind Anarchist Joe......

The anarchist is now outed into hating brown skinned Catholics and anyone who might have voted against Hillary.

But hey........a brown skinned Arab no problem.

Looks like Eli the Investigator has you pegged down about right.

Don't ask.......were done


.

motoged - 5-13-2018 at 02:29 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
Y

Looks like Eli the Investigator has you pegged down about right.
.


:o Now THAT is a frightening frame of reference :!:

grizzlyfsh95 - 5-14-2018 at 09:06 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
True that Alm!

Oh, and JoeJstJoe ... the officers that I have come across at the border have never seemed to care about what I look like on the outside, so I don't know why you mention race/ ethnic profiling as a problem. I have been questioned by all kinds of American officials at the border who were Asian, Latino, Black, and all kinds of women, as well as the occasional white guy!


Well, you are white,... you are unable to see bias, perhaps reflecting your own bias, eh?



You must understand DK, that if you do not march in lock step with the SJW,s, you are a racist.

del mar - 5-14-2018 at 10:58 AM

St. Johns Wort?

joerover - 5-14-2018 at 02:42 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  


Federal appeals court says there must be some reason to suspect a particular traveler has committed a crime



This could mean anything, any reason. They think jjj is a suspicious character, and he is, so follow the electronic trail he posts behind.

Do you think those fat ladies are texting constantly to overwhelm the system? Ten agents can not search 500 million texts.

joerover - 5-14-2018 at 02:49 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  
[ CBP thugs.



Those thugs are lazy. They need to get up and do some more searches.

joe want privacy for drug smugglers and arms smugglers.
What they are not guns unless you transport the whole gun all in one bag?

Heroin continues to poor across the border. We pay guys to stop it, but joe wants them to allow privacy to the criminals.

JoeJustJoe - 5-14-2018 at 05:14 PM

Quote: Originally posted by motoged  
Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali  
Y

Looks like Eli the Investigator has you pegged down about right.
.


:o Now THAT is a frightening frame of reference :!:


It speaks volumes that DaliDali, believes Trump, and now he believes E, who looks like he went MIA.