Thread

Border agents can search cellphones without a warrant or reasonable suspicion

235 points · 198 comments · mmh0000

mmh0000 · 1789758170 · focus · HN ↗
It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.
The 4th Amendment says, exactly:
```
   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
```
I do not know how that could be unclear. My cellphone is my effect, and arguably, also a "paper". Which SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. But apparently, I'm too dumb to understand the sentence[1].
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Border_search_exception" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
1. Zak · 1789766181 · focus · HN ↗
  > It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.
  People keep misconstruing this.
  The border search exemption only applies when someone is actually crossing a border, and it does grant broad authority to search whatever they're carrying with them at the time. The authority to do border enforcement within a 100-mile zone around borders does not grant a broad authority to search. It does grant a narrow authority to do things like traffic checkpoints, but those don't permit searches for anything smaller than a person without additional evidence.
  I do think the ruling establishing the authority to run checkpoints other than actual border crossings was wrongly decided and harmful, but it's not what's at issue in this case.
  1. iAMkenough · 1789771310 · focus · HN ↗
    True, but Egbert v. Boule (2022) the SCOTUS determined there's no penalty established or monetary damages owed to you if Border Agents cross the boundary of the exemption and violate your Fourth Amendment right.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_v._Boule" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_v._Boule
    <a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/egbert-v-boule/" rel="nofollow">https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/egbert-v-boule/
    lokar · 1789773071 · focus · HN ↗
    The remedy is disallowing evidence collected. This is the same for almost every case in which law enforcement searches without proper cause or a warrant.
    And I don't know what that would be surprising. Where monetary damages are due they are because statute establishes them, or you can show some specific and direct financial harm (thus money damage is the remedy).
    iAMkenough · 1789777179 · focus · HN ↗
    Doesn't stop further action based on your private data and retribution for evidence of anti-American speech or potentially-criminal travel patterns. In terms of government surveillance, evidence doesn't need to be submitted to court. It can be provided to a government surveillance contractor like Palantir or Flock for national security purposes.
    The current Exectutive Branch has a history of keyword-search driven action, without a chain-of-command of proper review before action.
    At least one American citizen has successfully been un-deported based on bad information resulting in deportation action. DHS has a Predictive Policing division willing to conduct unconstitutional, warantless parellel construction.
    Warrantless surveillance is well established, and anti-American evidence may exist on your device depending on the reasonable suspicion provided by other Palantir-esque analysis of your online activity and your level of support of the ruling power. The law enforcement agent you encounter won't receive that context, just that the system they usually use flagged you as suspicious without your knowledge (depending on the jurisdiction you're in).
    To your point, it only needs to be justified in court if you take legal action. Per Egbert v. Boule (2022), no remedy for American citizens seeking damages for unjustified violations of the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment when it comes to immigration enforcement-related action exists unless explicitly defined by Congress (which it has not, yet).
    Edit:
    > “People in the government violated my privacy by reading my private information”, on its own, is not a harm the court can fix.
    Basically, the average American should treat Border Patrol agents like they're the Gestapo going after their private, Constitutionally protected information with no legal recourse for that potential violation of Constitutionally-protected right to privacy.
    If you're rich you can fight it, but the SCOTUS will likely determine Border Agent overreach is something that just happens until Congress establishes a penalty.
    lokar · 1789780518 · focus · HN ↗
    To seek damages in a court you must show that you have suffered specific harm that the court can remedy.
    “People in the government violated my privacy by reading my private information”, on its own, is not a harm the court can fix.
    If the legislature wants to assign a monetary value to that, they can.
    [deleted] · 1789783904 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    iAMkenough · 1789786145 · focus · HN ↗
    To seek damages in court, you must spend more than taxpayer-funded legal defendants to begin to establish the specific harm.
    Your next vote should consider an innocent-until-proven-guilty doctrine that provides potential American citizen victims of Border Patrol overreach a taxpayer-funded Consitutional lawyer in court and a trial in front of a jury of their peers.
    Your tax dollars are already being used to harass and falsely detain Americans, might as well also spend your tax dollars on defending the innocent (which might be you next year). Maybe the American Government will stop falsely detaining citizens if it becomes more expensive for taxpayers.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.