Thread

Returning from vacation? The government can search your phone without a warrant

411 points · 378 comments · rbanffy

Tangurena2 · 1790856629 · focus · HN ↗
> “In [Fiscal Year] 2025, out of the over 419 million travelers CBP processed at ports of entry, CBP only searched the electronic devices of 55,318 international travelers,” the agency wrote, or 0.0013%.
The harassment is targeted at critics & opponents of the current regime. The message is very clear: Be afraid of us. Be very afraid
There are 33 days remaining until election day. Vote out all the incumbents.
1. harikb · 1790864585 · focus · HN ↗
  Technically the law applies to '100 miles of a port of entry' [1] so they can use it to come into your home too, obviously selective homes. Most population of US lives within '100 miles of a port of entry' [2]
  [1] <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_...
  [2] <a href="https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_zone" rel="nofollow">https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_z...
  1. wang_li · 1790867145 · focus · HN ↗
    They cannot enter a home without probable cause or a warrant. And outside of an actual port of entry, say at a random checkpoint they set up, they can only check IDs and look into cars the same as regular police. To perform an actual search of a vehicle in those circumstances still requires a warrant. From your first link at the cbp.gov website:
    >Border Patrol checkpoints do not give Border Patrol Agents carte blanche to automatically search persons and their vehicles, other than in the manner described above. To conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, the agents must develop particularly probable cause to conduct a lawful search. Probable cause can be developed from agent observations, records checks, non-intrusive canine sniffs, and other established means. Motorist's may consent to a search but are not required to do so.
    pessimizer · 1790867815 · focus · HN ↗
    Your quote makes clear that no warrant is required, or even likely to ever be used, as long as "agent observations," "records checks," and "canine sniffs" are an option.
    I'm sure that "other established means" are a very restrictive requirement if they fail to have an "observation."
    wang_li · 1790868421 · focus · HN ↗
    These are criteria that any police officer can use, a dog sniff outside your vehicle, a big bag of pills labeled "methamphetamine" sitting on your dashboard, an outstanding warrant when they run your id after a lawful stop. If they abuse them you have the right to argue for dismissal of evidence in court and if appropriate you can sue for damages and collect lots of cash from whatever level of government was the abusive one. Tort liability is a thing.
    Sure, they can lie about probable cause, but they would then have that evidence thrown out in any case that derived from the search. Similarly, I can kick in your door and search your house and your only recourse is violence or the legal system. The whole question here is not whether a search is possible, but whether there is any legal consequences of it.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.