Federal Court Rules Suspicionless Searches of Travelers' Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

[Swordsmyth]

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.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...constitutional

[TheTexan]

Suspicionless

They wouldn't be searching phones/laptops if the person wasn't at least a little bit suspicious. Have you seen people walking through the TSA's body scanners? Almost everyone in that body scanner acts nervous as hell, like they're hiding something, because they probably are.

[Swordsmyth]

They wouldn't be searching phones/laptops if the person wasn't at least a little bit suspicious. Have you seen people walking through the TSA's body scanners? Almost everyone in that body scanner acts nervous as hell, like they're hiding something, because they probably are.

Has any human ever lived who wasn't suspicious?

[TheTexan]

Has any human ever lived who wasn't suspicious?

Me.

[Swordsmyth]

Me.

Anyone who would make that claim about themselves is suspicious.

[Anti Federalist]

Some good news...that's always welcome.

Thanks.

[Swordsmyth]

Some good news...that's always welcome.

Thanks.

I find your attitude suspicious.

[TheTexan]

Anyone who would make that claim about themselves is suspicious.

They don't even have to ask to search my phone or laptop. I unlock it and give it to them as a matter of habit.

[Swordsmyth]

They don't even have to ask to search my phone or laptop. I unlock it and give it to them as a matter of habit.

Because in your heart of hearts you know that you too are suspicious.

[TheCount]

Will Trump's DOJ appeal this liberal activist judge's ruling so that they can continue their policy of warrantless searches?

[acptulsa]

Will Trump's DOJ appeal this liberal activist judge's ruling so that they can continue their policy of warrantless searches?

I don't know. But I suspect...

[TheCount]

I don't know. But I suspect...

We'll have to see.


There's something strange about the reporting on this court ruling, though. Zerohedge didn't mention the judge's name or who appointed them or anything.

[Brian4Liberty]

I get the feeling this is another example of non-citizens having more rights than US citizens.

“Search anything and everything of a citizen for no reason? Sure, that’s fine.”
“A non-citizen? No touch, no search, no look, don’t even make eye contact.”

[Swordsmyth]

We'll have to see.


There's something strange about the reporting on this court ruling, though. Zerohedge didn't mention the judge's name or who appointed them or anything.

Most of what is on ZH isn't their work:

Authored by Activist Post

There is a link if you really care about those points:

For the order:
https://www.eff.org/document/alasaad...judgment-order

[Swordsmyth]

I get the feeling this is another example of non-citizens having more rights than US citizens.

“Search anything and everything of a citizen for no reason? Sure, that’s fine.”
“A non-citizen? No touch, no search, no look, don’t even make eye contact.”

This ruling covers citizens too.

[Brian4Liberty]

This ruling covers citizens too.

Only at ports of entry? Does it apply on a domestic rapeiscan and groping flight? Would really be nice if it applied when I am driving down the road. Or even just generally to my “persons, houses, papers, and effects”.

[Swordsmyth]

Only at ports of entry? Does it apply on a domestic rapeiscan and groping flight? Would really be nice if it applied when I am driving down the road. Or even just generally to my “persons, houses, papers, and effects”.

I haven't read the details but the article says it is about suspicionless searches of electronic devices at airports and ports of entry.

[TheTexan]

Only at ports of entry? Does it apply on a domestic rapeiscan and groping flight? Would really be nice if it applied when I am driving down the road. Or even just generally to my “persons, houses, papers, and effects”.

As a strict constitutionalist, I don't really understand this ruling. A laptop is not a "person" "house" "paper" or "effect" so I don't see how searching one would be unconstitutional.

A phone could be a "personal effect" but to count as such the person would need to be "adorned" with their phone - e.g. an iWatch or something similar would count.

[TheCount]

Only at ports of entry? Does it apply on a domestic rapeiscan and groping flight? Would really be nice if it applied when I am driving down the road. Or even just generally to my “persons, houses, papers, and effects”.

It's CBP only.