Thread

Second Circuit allows government to search electronic devices at the border

131 points · 79 comments · HotGarbage

jmclnx · 1789742712 · focus · HN ↗
The article is not that clear in one way. Does this only apply to non-US Citizens ?
1. weberer · 1789743181 · focus · HN ↗
  Anybody crossing the border. The justification is that the government's constitutional right to control imports overrides the 4th amendment right to privacy.
  >“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.” Id. at 620. Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004), “searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616.
  <a href="https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-960_complete_opn.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-960_complete_o...
  1. howdyhowdy · 1789744440 · focus · HN ↗
    Worse though, is that the definition of border is hella loose. CBP can be many MANY miles away from an actual border and do this.
    mingus88 · 1789746076 · focus · HN ↗
    100 miles to be clear. So many major cities are free reign. Entire counties.
    <a href="https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone" rel="nofollow">https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
    jwineinger · 1789746270 · focus · HN ↗
    from <a href="https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_US" rel="nofollow">https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1253?language=en_...
    > Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.
    from <a href="https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone" rel="nofollow">https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
    > Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
    AnimalMuppet · 1789749331 · focus · HN ↗
    Even worse: The Trump administration claimed international airports as part of the border. (I saw that once, months ago. I do not know what the legal state of that claim is, or even whether it is currently part of their theory of what they are allowed to do.)
    r3trohack3r · 1789751565 · focus · HN ↗
    Setting the “100 mile” thingamajig aside - why wouldn’t you consider an international airport part of your border? It is a port of entry.
    samus · 1789752165 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem is the 100 mile rule, which effectively puts most of the population under the purview of border control measures.
    Apart from that, an airport is a comparatively small area of land that is magnitudes easier to monitor than a border that only exists as a thousands of miles long line on the map, therefore the 100 miles rule should not be applied. And everyone getting off an international flight in the USA has already been searched multiple times.
    krunck · 1789752230 · focus · HN ↗
    I can't find any definitive information on this. Disturbing if true.
    AnimalMuppet · 1789753825 · focus · HN ↗
    I can't supply you a reference. It was... maybe 4 to 6 months ago? Border Patrol was doing something more than 100 miles from the border, and a reporter asked them what their justification was for being active that far inland, and the Border Patrol spokesperson said "international airport".
    I mean, that could have been just one person's attempt to justify them operating outside their legal authority. Or it could have been what they were told to say, meaning it was somewhat more official policy (or at least official smokescreen du jour). At any rate, it has been claimed, at least once, not in court but to the press.
    iamnothere · 1789755974 · focus · HN ↗
    If so this was an individual claim, it’s not known to be official policy, the law doesn’t support it, and it hasn’t been used as a successful argument in court. This claim comes up regularly but it’s a misinterpretation/rumor. People should stop repeating it or it will become one of those “folk truths” that eventually becomes accepted and real.
    AnimalMuppet · 1789758062 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not a folk truth that I saw it, in a mainstream news report, said by a Border Patrol employee to justify their actions more than 100 miles from the border. That's not a misinterpretation; that really happened. At least once.
    I would be delighted for it to not have been an actual administration claim, ever.
    iamnothere · 1789759709 · focus · HN ↗
    Fair, I have no doubt that someone has falsely claimed it in order to do an illegal search, but it still is a false claim and (based on current understanding of the law) would not hold up in court.
    As it is the 100 mile zone sweeps in most of the population.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.