Posted on 11/25/2019 1:31:56 PM PST by bkopto
In a major victory for privacy rights at the border, a federal court in Boston ruled today that suspicionless searches of travelers’ electronic devices by federal agents at airports and other U.S. ports of entry are unconstitutional.
The ruling came in a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and ACLU of Massachusetts, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.
“This ruling significantly advances Fourth Amendment protections for millions of international travelers who enter the United States every year,” said Esha Bhandari, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “By putting an end to the government’s ability to conduct suspicionless fishing expeditions, the court reaffirms that the border is not a lawless place and that we don’t lose our privacy rights when we travel.”
“This is a great day for travelers who now can cross the international border without fear that the government will, in the absence of any suspicion, ransack the extraordinarily sensitive information we all carry in our electronic devices," said Sophia Cope, EFF Senior Staff Attorney.
The district court order puts an end to Customs and Border Control (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asserted authority to search and seize travelers’ devices for purposes far afield from the enforcement of immigration and customs laws. Border officers must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of illegal contraband before they can search a traveler’s device.
The number of electronic device searches at U.S. ports of entry has increased significantly. Last year, CBP conducted more than 33,000 searches, almost four times the number from just three years prior.
International travelers returning to the United States have reported numerous cases of abusive searches in recent months. While searching through the phone of Zainab Merchant, a plaintiff in the Alasaad case, a border agent knowingly rifled through privileged attorney-client communications. An immigration officer at Boston Logan Airport reportedly searched an incoming Harvard freshman’s cell phone and laptop, reprimanded the student for friends’ social media postings expressing views critical of the U.S. government, and denied the student entry into the country following the search.
That's a terrific start, no kidding. Did they happen to mention suspicionless searches of travelers' crotches?
Next they’ll say suspicion-less drunk driving stops are unconstitutional.
Yeah, that may take awhile
“An immigration officer at Boston Logan Airport reportedly searched an incoming Harvard freshman’s cell phone and laptop, reprimanded the student for friends’ social media postings expressing views critical of the U.S. government,”
You mean hatred for Trump and America?
America’s robed mullahs again. Extending constitutional protections to non citizens?
They’ll just always make sure to be suspicious now.
Suspicionless search == “random” search?
I hope this gets overturned in the SCOTUS!.........
Even if you aren't drunk they can still haul you in. Just because. It happened to me and I had not even been drinking. Made me do the breathalyzer, passed and told me I was good to go. Bastard wouldn't even give me a ride back to my car which was 20 miles away. So yes, they will do whatever they want for any reason.
Obama District Court Judge, of course.
I disagree.
They are - and appropriately so.
A cop needs reasonable suspicion that one is driving drunk in order to stop them for that. Weaving, driving too slow, etc., can provide reasonable suspicion. Leaving a bar and driving away without more, such as staggering to the car, does not constitute reasonable suspicion and if stopped for nothing but that a drunk driver having a decent lawyer will - and should - get off. Of course, most drunks do things like not using turn signals, speeding, etc., that give cops legitimate reasons to stop them. Once it's a legitimate stop, a cop can use breath, eyes, slurred speech, etc., to develop probable cause for a DUI arrest.
No mention of citizenship status of the people given the 33,000 “electronic device” searches in the article...could have been primarily U.S. citizens returning home.
Should be stated as:"Suspicionless searches of travelers’ electronic devices by federal agents at airports and other U.S. ports of entry are unconstitutional only if the "travelers" are U.S. citizens...
Already done. That's why they have roadblocks that stop everyone now.
-PJ
Not an attorney, but I’m quite sure that isn’t Constitutional either.
This is an interesting women. It implies that a person has some level of “right” to travel into our country, and that with those rights comes the presumption of a right to privacy.
But we still seem to be allowed to force travelers to go through metal detectors, and to prohibit them from having certain items that are otherwise legal, under the guise that travel is NOT a right, it is a privilege, and we are allowed to force you to give up certain rights to obtain that privilege.
It is the same argument that allows government to require you have a “driver’s license” to drive a car, and a dog license to own a dog.
I doubt this ruling will be upheld.
The limitation of rights at the border has long been upheld by U.S. Courts.
Still waiting for huma and wieners laptop
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.