| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
6 |
thebajarunner
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3687
Registered: 9-8-2003
Location: Arizona....."Free at last from crumbling Cali
Member Is Offline
Mood: muy amable
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by chuckie  | | We have no rights at the Border. Homeland Security will do whatever they want and after the fact we can fill out endless paperwork and whine and
complain...Canadian Customs and immigration are worse.. |
This about sums it up.
I travel with some pretty serious legal types.
Sitting just past the Tecate station waiting for our other guys to cross over a white BP rig pulls right up next to me and the guy gives me the long
evil eye.
I started to sort of wave him off, my traveling compadre says, "Our rights are basically suspended in this border zone, just let it pass"
|
|
|
bajatrailrider
Super Nomad
Posts: 2423
Registered: 1-24-2015
Location: Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
As far as pass word to your phone it takes 2 seconds .For them to figure that out as I was shown to me by a 15year old. The fastest way across border
give then your phone.Dont make hassle your on your way. Not that I like it but that's how it is,if they want to they can keep you there many hours.
Less hours if you give in.
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 984
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
One big point is missing-
Who gets asked to search their phone?
They are not searching every phone coming across the border. There's got to be some indicators for them to suspect there is a problem with an
individual before they are going to take the time and effort to do it.
I'm not a a target so I'm not worried about it but the commentary about the rules being different at the border is true. CBP does have powers broader
than local police in some arenas. Upheld by the Supreme Court.
The local police need a search warrant to dig into your phone, IOW, have to show cause to invade your privacy, the CBP does not have to go to court
first.
Like I said, I don't worry about it because I have no issues they would be interested in. Now, could I be picked at random, yup, just like going to
secondary at random.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Obviously BP can ask to search your computer or phone and you can say yes or no. Here are US court decisions supporting the requirement for warrant to
search phones and computers during border crossing including pf foreigners. Many more cases exist supporting the requirement of warrant signed by
judge based on evidence of reasonable suspicion.
U.S. v. Saboonchi
Riley v. United States
http://www.zdnet.com/article/border-laptop-search-unreasonab...
https://thinkprogress.org/judge-sets-limits-on-invasive-sear...
The problem is not good people, the problem is there are bad people some of them work in border patrol and could plant evidence or lie and they do it
all the time.
http://bordercorruption.apps.cironline.org
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/august/s...
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-border...
http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-na-border-pa...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/study-finds-corru...
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/mexico-cartels-us-...
[Edited on 2-20-2017 by gnukid]
|
|
|
Cliffy
Senior Nomad
Posts: 984
Registered: 12-19-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
The warrant requirement was narrowly defined because they cloned the drive and then "searched" it days later and 150 miles from the border. Thus, not
being a border search in the immediate time frame. Also. if read carefully, it didn't dispute what was found it only disputed the way it was found.
The subject did raise flags so he was looked at.
They still have the authority to search a device. Nothing in the cited case disputes what I wrote. If you're not doing something that raises a flag
you won't get searched. I cross the border quite often and have never had a problem but then again I don't have a background that anyone would want to
investigate. I'm basically a dull person to investigate.
You chose your position in life today by what YOU did yesterday
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
This post is fear mongering at it's best....or worst
If they want your electronic device at the border, they will get it
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
I would take any advice on this thread with a grain of salt, or do what I always do on "Baja Nomad" and that's to the opposite of what the crowd is
saying on just about any issue. And this goes my my posts here too, because on this issue, the laws, polices, and court room rulings are fluid and
are always changing.
On top of this we have a new Presidential administration that wants to bring gestapo aggressive tactics to border searches, and DHS Secretary John
Kelly, has already put out memos, he wants Americans at the border to give up cell phones and passwords, so his jackbooted thugs could look through
your smart phone, and possibly your photos in the cloud. It's not only Trump's fault, because under Obama, 4000, to 6000 Americans had their cell
phones searched according to different sources/articles.
Yes, there has been a few favorable court rulings the last couple of years that favored Americans, against these unreasonable phone or computer
searches, but the searches are still going on. WTF!
The law is clear away from the border, and cops need probably cause to search your cell phone. Of course, they usually get around this by simply
asking you permission to search your phone. The same thing at the border. All this tough talk, when you know if a custom agent, asks to search your
phone, 99% of the people are going to comply.
However, at the border, the law if different, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's policy position is pretty much that you have little to
almost no constitutional rights at the border, and they claim they are just protecting the USA against possible foreign threats. Their written
policy hasn't really changed since 2009, despite any new court rulings.
The jackbooted thugs, supposedly, aren't supposed to stop random people at the border, and then ask to see your cell phone, so they could search it.
But the bar is so low, it might as well be a random search. They can search your phone, using the lower threshold of anywhere between "reasonable
suspicion" to probably cause. Reasonable suspicion, could be such things as you looked at the agent the wrong way, or you fit his personal profile of
a pervert who might have porn on his phone, for example, you're white, round, and just don't look like the average typical tourist. ( of course it's
against the law to racially profile, but you know they do it anyway)
The jackbooted thugs, are going to ask to search your phone, and probably everybody here will comply. If not, they could detain you, and take away
your phone, especially under this Trump administration going forward.
Good luck, citing your civil rights, and a few recent court cases, because the DHS works around those new rulings, with things like the 4th amendment
exceptions/loopholes, and other things they make up like typical corrupt cops or feds.
Again, do not trust any information on this thread, unless it's backed up by current information in 2017, with a link to credible information.
Even our US Senators aren't sure what's going on with border cell phone searches with the new administration. Thank GOD, for liberal Senators, and the
ACLU, who fights these violations to our Constitutional rights, but it often takes years to get a favorable ruling in the courts.
______________________________________
First on CNN: Senator seeks answers on border cell phone searches
Can the government demand you unlock your phone at the airport? A senior Senate Democrat is demanding the Department of Homeland Security explain
reports that it's doing just that.
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and privacy hawk, is set to send a letter to DHS Secretary John Kelly
calling reports that Americans were required to unlock their smartphones "deeply troubling," asking what legal authority allows for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/border-search-cell-ph...
[Edited on 2-20-2017 by JoeJustJoe]
|
|
|
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5815
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
If they want to search my Android phone, it will be without my help! I am not a rebel, just clueless, I don't use any data.
Seriously, I would not even have it, except my ten year old Motorola flip phone is no longer supported!
Do you think they would have a little time to show me how to access all the stuff they want to search?
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Unless there is recent a legal case that overturns the Supremes decision.....this statement should be a clue to anyone asking.
"The Supreme Court decisions have upheld the doctrine that CBP's search authority is unique and does not violate the fourth amendment's protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures"
Quote taken directly from the CBP website dot gov that has been previously posted.
6 of your links are about corruption and zero to do with legality of CBP search authority.
Anarchists love it...if one is so inclined like dandelion chomping goats.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The first four references are to court cases that upheld the requirement for warrant for search at border crossings, the second set are examples of
border corruption including FBI articles which identify systemic corruption in border patrol and example how and why.
Clearly it is not hard to see that there is a desire to promote the idea that the constitution does not apply within 100 miles of the border, however,
that type of lawless approach has been repeatedly denied in court.
If I work for a private company who does not want their intellectual property for technology shard I have a duty to not share that information whether
I am being lied to or threatened by BP.
There is no problem with saying no you can not search my phone or computer and let the process proceed. IF they have a right to search they can easily
get a warrant if they do not have reasonable suspicion they will drop the issue.
It's not complicated. What is complicated or problematic are people who will throw away their basic rights that both countries USA and Mexico have
written into the law because of the proposal that if you give up your rights you are helping your country to be secure, which could not be more false.
It is the responsibility of each citizen and those who swear to protect the law to uphold the law or our countries will become completely lawless,
which seems to the desired trend by some nomads.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Big Brother is here, and resistance is futile.
Who is really going to stand up to the jack booted thugs, also known as U.S. Customs and Border Protection(CBP) when they want your cell phone to
search? Oh you could try to put up a fight, but is it really worth the effort, seeing what they could put you through, like denying your entry into
the US, if you're a foreigner, or detaining you, and taking away your electronic toys if you're an American.
Who are you going to complain to?
The DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties? Now that's funny.
The "Electronics Frontier Foundation," usually has up to date information on this subject, here is one of their articles, about DHS, secretary, John
Kelly, wanting to crack down on foreigners, and even Americans. He wants those phones and passwords.
________________________________
Border Security Overreach Continues: DHS Wants Social Media Login Information
Now more than ever, it is apparent that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are
embarking on a broad campaign to invade the digital lives of innocent individuals.
The new DHS secretary, John Kelly, told a congressional committee this week that the department may soon demand login information (usernames and
passwords) for social media accounts from foreign visa applicants—at least those subject to the controversial executive order on terrorism and
immigration—and those who don’t comply will be denied entry into the United States. This effort to access both public and private communications
and associations is the latest move by a department that is overreaching its border security authority.
read the rest here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/border-security-overre...
[Edited on 2-20-2017 by JoeJustJoe]
|
|
|
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | The first four references are to court cases that upheld the requirement for warrant for search at border crossings, the second set are examples of
border corruption including FBI articles which identify systemic corruption in border patrol and example how and why.
Clearly it is not hard to see that there is a desire to promote the idea that the constitution does not apply within 100 miles of the border, however,
that type of lawless approach has been repeatedly denied in court.
If I work for a private company who does not want their intellectual property for technology shard I have a duty to not share that information whether
I am being lied to or threatened by BP.
There is no problem with saying no you can not search my phone or computer and let the process proceed. IF they have a right to search they can easily
get a warrant if they do not have reasonable suspicion they will drop the issue.
It's not complicated. What is complicated or problematic are people who will throw away their basic rights that both countries USA and Mexico have
written into the law because of the proposal that if you give up your rights you are helping your country to be secure, which could not be more false.
It is the responsibility of each citizen and those who swear to protect the law to uphold the law or our countries will become completely lawless,
which seems to the desired trend by some nomads.
Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
|
Of course you, or anyone for that matter, have the absolute right to say no to any and all obstacles that may present themselves to you......however,
as with most things in the life, there are consequences to your actions.
At the border, one of the consequences of saying no to a CBP agent, when asked to present your personal goods for inspection, is to lose your right to
free movements, every aspect of your person and goods within your control to move freely and the Supreme court has upheld that decision that the right
to unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.
People may or may not like it but that lawful exercise of searching electronic devices exists for a reason.
I don't know real numbers on the amount of people who have their electronic devices searched ,but just a wild guess, I suspect very very few.
If you or anyone presents yourself to the CBP agents as if carrying a chip on your shoulder and coming across as obnoxious and argumentative "I know
my rights" sort.....that may trigger a reasonable suspicion of attempting to conceal something. You may know how that goes from then on.
Several years ago, I flew into LAX from Bangkok, Thailand after playing tourist.
Yes I spent some time with prostitutes and had the time of my life for a single man.
CBP at LAX sent me to secondary, went thru my bags, asked me to open my camera and turn on my laptop.....which I did willingly and without getting all
pumped up. I had nothing to hide.
They were looking for images of underage girls who I might have come into contact with. I fit the profile of a pedofile sex tourist.
Sure enough I had sex with some very slinky, raven haired beauties, but zero of insufficient legal age. Search away.
If ONE laptop or ONE phone search by border agents unveils serious criminal activities....I fully support their duties.
Your second to the last sentence could not be any more wrong.
For the 3rd or 4th time......it is NOW current legal law, upheld by the Supremes that the 4th amendment does NOT apply in the border region.
Until that law is reversed by these same Supremes, it IS the law of the land and your duty, along with every other citizen, to obey, like it or not.
Superior court judges, State Supreme court judges, Federal circuit court judges or panels of judges, Federal appeals court judges or panel of judges
CANNOT overturn the US Supreme court decisions. ONLY the SCOTUS can reverse their own decisions.
|
|
|
motoged
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6481
Registered: 7-31-2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gettin' Better
|
|
Well, I have more than 2 seconds.....care to let us all know how to do that? 
Don't believe everything you think....
|
|
|
bajatrailrider
Super Nomad
Posts: 2423
Registered: 1-24-2015
Location: Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
If I go dirt bike riding with you then more then happy to show you. I cant post it because
then my wife will use all my minuets. I forgot the pass word to my new Smart phone. The Kid I know young boy Mexican. Took 2 seconds its so easy. So
much for smart phones.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The topic is computer and phone warrantless search at the border
I suppose this topic is relevant and it's informative that people may be giving this some thought today. Apparently DHS head John Kelly will be
talking with the Senate about this topic as well, since border patrol lawlessness is "deeply troubling." Apparently the number of warrantless searches
are few ~5000 a year and very few reveal criminal activity and therefore there are few court cases that are decided on the topic so expect more
clarifying information forthcoming from DHS head John Kelly in senate discussion and upcoming federal cases.
Senator Ron Wyden's Letter to DHS head John Kelly today 2/20/17
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/letter-to-dhs-re-borde...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/border-search-cell-ph...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/wyden-letter-dhs-passwords...
The BP claims there is a 100 mile exclusion from the constitution at any border which would therefore include all coast lines as well, a vast majority
of the country is constitution free for them, or in other words lawless the country is lawless for border patrol and LE. More than 200 million
citizens of the population are affected by the fuzzy border lawless constitution free interpretation.
The legal issue being argued is that computers and phones at the border are connected to cloud services not at the border (more than 100 miles) and
not in the constitution exclusion zone, therefore, the BP warrantless search doesn't apply to suspicionless travelers even if border warrantless
search was legal, but is not legal anyway since you can't grant a constitutional exclusion under such broad terms without an established need or
requirement.
While it is clear that BP and LE say that the laws do not apply to them it doesn't make it so. Many cases exist in federal court, some of which are
noted previously, more below, or anyone can do a search on the topic, and discover the number of cases where courts have ruled BP warrantless search
interpretation is unlawful and presents concern since "constitution free zone" across the 100 mile border zone affects vast majority of populated
centers affecting 200 million citizens as well as millions of foreign travelers while the number of crimes discovered by BP warrantless search is very
very small.
Imagine yourself at the border, and a BP says you have to give me all your passwords because I said so. What if you didn't feel safe or secure doing
so because of the fact that BP has a history of systemic corruption and so you decided to say no, what will happen? They would squirm and threaten you
but eventually they would let you pass and they would give your devices back because of the lack of reasonable suspicion and they would acknowledge
the risk to them for the cost of the lawsuit and damages.
Dali's anecdote is interesting, for example, you setup your story as though you were under reasonable suspicion of a crime and are open about stating
that as you were involved in activity that has a high probability of being illegal namely prostitution in an area known for underage prostitution
often associated with human trafficking and therefore you gave up the right to be free from unreasonable search of your computer and phone, however,
that doesn't apply to everyone or anyone for that matter except those that are involved in reasonably suspicious activity and admit it like you did
which by the way is suspiciously weird way to phrase your argument?
Here's my anecdote, I was in a large city in the USA, I noticed the Police Chief breaking into vehicles in the parking lot of a social club, I called
witnesses. We waited and watched until I saw him break into my vehicle. Afterward I confronted him and his crew and threatened me and he said he
didn't have to follow the law because of the 100 mile constitution exclusion zone for 4th and 5th amendment. He eventually backed down as a crowd
gathered.
I learned more about this by pursuing a case against him. The lawyers argued I suffered no damages from him breaking into my car and he had to do it
for my security to look for bombs-every cell phone charger could be a bomb so he can break into any car he wants. Perhaps I didn't suffer badly so I
dropped it. BP and LE can say the law doesn't apply to them, but that doesn't make it so, while in fact the people who are taking DHS to court and
winning cases are winning big time $.
It depends what type of world you want to live in, a slippery lawless world where LE and BP infringe on your basic rights and freely break in to cars
and and demand your passwords to personal items for no reason, where BP and LE systemic corruption reigns and goes unpunished, or do you want to live
in a world which respects individuals basic rights and holds LE and BP to the law we codified into our way of life, in order to protect good people
from overbearing lawless abuses by government "for your own safety".
This dialogue is helpful to understand the dichotomy of opinion from Nomads, some of whom are pleased to give up every basic human right either
because they are admittedly involved in suspicious behavior or because someone from the systemically corrupt BP said the law doesn't apply to them.
Giving up your basic rights "just because they said so" is idiotic, no one in the right mind would support a lawless LE or BP that doesn't respect
basic human rights which is the very reason why courts often side against BP when they are sued for failing to get a warrant to search when cases are
taken to court and they require costs and damages to be paid to individuals.
Here is more info - I'm not the author - these are references- do your own research on "warrantless search border patrol" or "border constitution free
zone" apparently its very topical.
U.S. v. Gabriel
Sanchez et. al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol
United States v. Venzor-Castillo
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detai...
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/11/30/bo...
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2016/11/30/aclu-sues-border-patr...
[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid]
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17332
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
In these early days of trump authoritarianism, it is especially important to voice dissent about the police-state.
Stand up for your rights!
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17332
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid |
Here's my anecdote, I was in a large city in the USA, I noticed the Police Chief breaking into vehicles in the parking lot of a social club, I called
witnesses.
[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid] |
Sounds like a tall tale. If it was a "large city," then doubtful the popo chief would be in the field breaking windows.
Big city chiefs don't get their hands dirty with run of the mill auto-vandalism-harassment at social clubs, they tell their underlings to do dirty
work.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The police chief used a slim jim, he was with Secret Service, some of the people at the party were heads of state. I still disagree he should break
into cars in the parking lot but everyone is welcome to their opinion, the question is it legal and what are the limits. He was eventually removed
from office. It was an anecdotal example...
|
|
|
DaliDali
Super Nomad
Posts: 1132
Registered: 4-21-2010
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | The topic is computer and phone warrantless search at the border
Imagine yourself at the border, and a BP says you have to give me all your passwords because I said so. What if you didn't feel safe or secure doing
so because of the fact that BP has a history of systemic corruption and so you decided to say no, what will happen? They would squirm and threaten you
but eventually they would let you pass and they would give your devices back because of the lack of reasonable suspicion and they would acknowledge
the risk to them for the cost of the lawsuit and damages.
[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid] |
Have you personally seen or have been involved, as a suspect, the squirming and threats, then they let you go?
If you were a suspect, what was it that set the officers off that wanted to further exam you and or your possessions, including the phone?..
Do you routinely get directed to secondary? If you do, what is your assessment on why?
Out of XX number of times crossing, how many times have you been directed to secondary?
Out of the times you did go to secondary, how many times were you directed to hand over your phone with a password?
In your mind, what was it that got the officers involved with wanting to look into your phone?
Did you comply without fuss when officers in secondary wanted to look into your cooler, under the seats, in boxes, in a briefcase?
Was any contraband or other prohibited items confiscated?
Do you have a criminal record and or been convicted of a felony?
Is your name in any way publicly associated with various known anarchy groups or associations with anti government groups that advocate the overthrow
of the government?
Do you believe that the US Supreme court decisions are settled law?
Do you believe that the US Supreme court can make decisions regarding the various elements of the 4th amendment?
Do you believe that you can disregard any US Supreme court decision you feel is not right?
Do you believe the US Supreme court has jurisdiction on matters of search and seizure at the border?
Should CBP officials ignore the decision from the US Supreme court in matters of search and seizure without warrants or probable cause in the border
area?
Should you, as a matter of your rights, ignore decisions that you feel are wrong?
Do you believe that only the US Supreme court can reverse their decisions and not some lower court?
Do you approve of allowing in criminals, felons, miscreants, undesirables, drug smugglers, people smugglers and possible terrorists from outside of
Latin America into the USA?
If you do not, what methods of enforcement would should the CBP be allowed to thwart those attempted entries?
Would you agree that examining a person's electronic devices is one of many tools the CPB uses to interdict crime, criminals and other undesirable and
prohibited persons from entering any POE?
On edit, you do understand that criminals, miscreants, smugglers and other nefarious people do not usually sport a black star on their forehead
denoting their criminal ways or history don't you?
[Edited on 2-21-2017 by DaliDali]
|
|
|
motoged
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6481
Registered: 7-31-2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gettin' Better
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | The topic is computer and phone warrantless search at the border......
[Edited on 2-21-2017 by gnukid] |
Yeah, yeah......but all this is going in circles.....speaking of which....at this point I am far more interested in hearing more about Dalidali's Thai
trip. 
As for the politics.....it's all in the toilet these days....
Don't believe everything you think....
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
6 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
