‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Border agents can search cellphones without a warrant or reasonable suspicion

235 points · 198 comments · mmh0000

  1. mmh0000 · · 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:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Border_search_exception" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

    1. rtkwe · · focus · HN ↗
      So the main argument is that in the time that was written and immediately afterwards we can look to see what they mean by that by how it was implemented. At the time it was understood that the government could and would search goods as they enter the country without warrants to enforce things like tariffs. I think that&#x27;s a fairly reasonable interpretation of the meaning. Where I think this goes wrong (and maybe deviates from history?) is the conflation of papers and other digital records now with physical goods, historically were people&#x27;s papers searched as they entered the country (beyond say looking through them to find hidden goods, I mean reading and examining letters and records)?
      1. eli · · focus · HN ↗
        I think they should have to pass a new amendment to fix or clarify when the Constitution seems to say something contradictory. Court shouldn&#x27;t be able to just decide the 4th Amendment means something weaker than what it plainly says.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.