| Pages:
1
2 |
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Court Rules California Border Crosser's Computer Is Not Searchable
Court Rules California Border Crosser's Computer Is Not Searchable
Fourth Amendment Protection Applies at the Border in Western States
UNITED STATES.- The U.S. District Court has ruled that the search of a traveling businessman's laptop at the California border by the government was
unreasonable, a violation of his privacy, and therefore unconstitutional. Judge Amy Berman Jackson's ruling was a rebuke of the Obama administrations
treatment of laptops as containers that can be searched without a warrant and without time limits to protect national security as opposed to personal
effects and papers which are protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
The federal government argued that South Korean businessman Jae Shik Kim was conspiring to sell aircraft technology to Iran, and seized his computer
at the California border in order to gather evidence to prove the suspicion of arms control violations. The current administration has maintained that
people crossing into the U.S. are not protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure and has a policy of allowing intrusive
searches to prevent drugs, child pornography, and other illegal imports from entering the country.
In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Impact Assessment on border searches of electronic devices where it
stated that the "overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant is clear and long-standing, and courts have not treated
searches of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects." The assessment stated that "imposing a requirement that officers have
reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful" and would not produce any related
civil rights benefits.
- See more at: http://www.sandiegored.com/noticias/63434/Court-Rules-Califo...
|
|
|
2002maniac
Newbie
Posts: 14
Registered: 4-2-2013
Location: Cedar City, Utah
Member Is Offline
|
|
Great news!
|
|
|
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6252
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Online
Mood: Retireded
|
|
How about a Vulcan mind probe to find out what they are thinking, is that still OK?
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!
|
|
|
BajaNomad
|
Thread Moved
5-12-2015 at 10:09 AM |
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Does anyone know what this "individual" was ... and his background .. or is that NOT important 
What IF ... an individual is using this method to import "kiddie porn" ... does one get a pass on that too ... based on the 4th
and btw ... no big surprise the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, would rule in this manner .. and would imagine the final word hasn't been written
on this "issue" by the Judicial Branch of our Government
[Edited on 5-12-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
From the article: The federal government argued that South Korean businessman Jae Shik Kim was conspiring to sell aircraft technology to Iran,
and seized his computer at the California border in order to gather evidence to prove the suspicion of arms control violations.
_____________________________
He was not smuggling kiddie porn.
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
If they want to inspect your computer, they will....
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Well if they do, they better have probable cause, at least in the 9th states and the US/Mexico border in California.
The courts are putting the US Government on notice that computers, and cell phones are different, and just can't be searched randomly at a traffic
stop or at the border. The Supreme Court ruled last year, that the police cannot search a cell phone without a warrant, even during an arrest.
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
Right.....
|
|
|
Howard
Super Nomad
Posts: 2353
Registered: 11-13-2007
Location: Loreto/Manhattan Beach/Kona
Member Is Offline
Mood: I'd rather regret the things I've done than regret the things I haven't done.
|
|
What is your major malfunction?
I am trying to enjoy postings here and your cartoons do not add anything to this thread other than annoy me/us.
I/we do not care who you are chasing down.
Please refrain from this and take it elsewhere.
Thank you.
We don't stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Whale-ista
Super Nomad
Posts: 2009
Registered: 2-18-2013
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sunny with chance of whales
|
|
Without probable cause, evidence of a crime discovered during a search that is later determined to be illegal can be excluded from criminal
procedings.
So- this puts LEOs on notice: first, make up a probable cause- THEN search the _________ (name that device)
\"Probably the airplanes will bring week-enders from Los Angeles before long, and the beautiful poor bedraggled old town will bloom with a
Floridian ugliness.\" (John Steinbeck, 1940, discussing the future of La Paz, BCS, Mexico)
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe  | From the article: The federal government argued that South Korean businessman Jae Shik Kim was conspiring to sell aircraft technology to Iran,
and seized his computer at the California border in order to gather evidence to prove the suspicion of arms control violations.
_____________________________
He was not smuggling kiddie porn.
|
Are "both" Legal to do ?
"The federal government argued that South Korean businessman Jae Shik Kim was conspiring to sell aircraft technology to Iran, and seized his computer
at the California border in order to gather evidence to prove the suspicion of arms control violations. The current administration has maintained that
people crossing into the U.S. are not protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure and has a policy of allowing intrusive
searches to prevent drugs, child pornography, and other illegal imports from entering the country."
Was there probable cause. in this case ... would be the question to be answered IMHO
Or is this about NOT having probable cause ?
I understand the current position of this Administration on the issue and given current Global state of flux ... to error on the side of Public
Safety would seem to be "prudent" .... not an individuals right to transport illegal material and/or materials via a computer ....
Kinda like finding "drugs" coming across the same border at the same location or shipments of ______ illegally into the USA ?
If there is "probable cause" I don't have a problem with it
But, I've had a number of disagreements with the 9th's rulings perviously ... Not a big surprise as stated
[Edited on 5-12-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
And? How have your "disagreements" worked out for you? Did they apologize for violating a constitutional right? Hold your breath.....
|
|
|
Bob and Susan
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8813
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Mulege BCS on the BAY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Time Residents
|
|
you take it in the "back"...you check it
if there's "bad stuff"
you bring it back out and get the warrant
there are no rules...you make them up as you need them
it's been that way forever
[Edited on 5-12-2015 by Bob and Susan]
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup | | Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe | From the article: The federal government argued that South Korean businessman Jae Shik Kim was conspiring to sell aircraft technology to Iran,
and seized his computer at the California border in order to gather evidence to prove the suspicion of arms control violations.
_____________________________
He was not smuggling kiddie porn.
|
Are "both" Legal to do ?
"The federal government argued that South Korean businessman Jae Shik Kim was conspiring to sell aircraft technology to Iran, and seized his computer
at the California border in order to gather evidence to prove the suspicion of arms control violations. The current administration has maintained that
people crossing into the U.S. are not protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure and has a policy of allowing intrusive
searches to prevent drugs, child pornography, and other illegal imports from entering the country."
Was there probable cause. in this case ... would be the question to be answered IMHO
Or is this about NOT having probable cause ?
I understand the current position of this Administration on the issue and given current Global state of flux ... to error on the side of Public
Safety would seem to be "prudent" .... not an individuals right to transport illegal material and/or materials via a computer ....
Kinda like finding "drugs" coming across the same border at the same location or shipments of ______ illegally into the USA ?
If there is "probable cause" I don't have a problem with it
But, I've had a number of disagreements with the 9th's rulings perviously ... Not a big surprise as stated
[Edited on 5-12-2015 by wessongroup] |
A Federal judge would disagree with you:
A federal judge determined the search of a traveler’s laptop without a warrant as he was leaving the country was unreasonable, in a ruling
that could derail the government’s long-held search criteria for international travelers.
It also appears there was also no probably cause when they seized his laptop, kept it, copied everything, and then went on a fishing expedition while
looking at all the guys emails. Since the Supreme Court, ruled favorable in the case of cell phone searches, there is no reason to expect they will
overturn this ruling.
----------------
There was little or no reason to suspect that criminal activity was afoot at the time Kim was about to cross the border, and there was little
about this search — neither its location nor its scope and duration — that resembled a routine search at the border. The fundamental inquiry required
under the Fourth Amendment is whether the invasion of the defendant’s right to privacy in his papers and effects was reasonable under the totality of
the circumstances, and the Court finds that it was not.
I'm quoting from this blog:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/11/3657248/judge-se...
[Edited on 5-12-2015 by JoeJustJoe]
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by chuckie | | And? How have your "disagreements" worked out for you? Did they apologize for violating a constitutional right? Hold your breath.....
|
Custom agent, or regular police can do what they want. But if they conduct a deeply invasive search on your computer, without good probably cause,
with is different than reasonable suspicion, which cops abuse all the time.
The only thing you need to do now is keep your mouth shut, and hire a defense attorney, who will get back your computers, and get the US Government
off your back.
Hanni Fakhory, senior staff attorney for Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, said the opinion wasn’t “binding” like an Appellate
or Supreme Court decision that requires other courts have to follow suit. “But it’s persuasive because it adds to the growing body of case law that
says digital devices are different,” he said.
That means the next time the government searches someone’s phone, tablet or laptop on suspicion of criminal activity, a defense attorney can use the
case as an example of an invalid forensic search, a deeply invasive search that reveals old emails, call records and other information that can’t be
obtained just browsing through one’s device.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/11/3657248/judge-se...
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
AND? Who pays for that defense attorney? You? Get realistic....
|
|
|
sancho
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2524
Registered: 10-6-2004
Location: OC So Cal
Member Is Offline
|
|
Curious, has this ever been an issue with anyone here? That is the confiscation, browsing of a personal computer? Just by crossing
back, don't you give up your rights the search of your vehicle,
person? I don't believe CBP needs a warrant or probable cause
for that
|
|
|
bajabuddha
Banned
Posts: 4024
Registered: 4-12-2013
Location: Baja New Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Always cranky unless medicated
|
|
This is all azz/u/ming the border boys play by the rules. There's also rules about not shooting someone unless you have to; that ain't working out
well for the shoot-ees lately.
I don't have a BUCKET LIST, but I do have a F***- IT LIST a mile long!
86 - 45*
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Never effected me directly ... just didn't agree with their "interoperation" of the Law ... That's still allowed, isn't it ?
Being anonymous does have its draw backs …. HUH …. Pete
btw "one swallow does not a summer make”
look it up
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Sure, you're damn right if it happened to me.
Where have you been, the real estate market has rebounded. There is equity in the homes, including my home.
There is also the public defenders, if you get charged with a crime, and even public defenders knows how to file motions to dismiss.
You can file "Pro Per" which I have before, but I don't recommend it for something like this.
In San Diego, and other cities they are legal advocates that will help you for free or low cost, depending on your income level.
The only reason why I bring up this topic is not to have people defend themselves in court, but rather to let you know your legal rights at the
border.
The Customs agents might ask to search your laptops, and now you have a right to tell them no, and previous to this court ruling, the customs
agents searched laptops the same way they searched suitcases, and at times they kept them for days, weeks or longer, in order to make a thorough
search, when they didn't have probably cause.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
