Judge Allows Bradley Manning Supporter To Sue Government Over Border Search

Fluffeh writes "David Maurice House, an MIT researcher and Bradley Manning supporter, was granted the right to pursue a case against the government on Wednesday after a federal judge denied the government's motion to dismiss. 'This ruling affirms that the Constitution is still alive at the US border,' ACLU Staff Attorney Catherine Crump said in a statement. 'Despite the government's broad assertions that it can take and search any laptop, diary or smartphone without any reasonable suspicion, the court said the government cannot use that power to target political speech.' The agents confiscated a laptop computer, a thumb drive, and a digital camera from House and reportedly demanded, but did not receive, his encryption keys. DHS held onto House's equipment for 49 days and returned it only after the ACLU sent a strongly worded letter."

Re:Not held in contempt?

[DaHat]

Being held in contempt would require a judge making such an order that was violated... in this case, it was simply CBP/DHS.

Re:Not held in contempt?

[koan]

Try to keep up:

In United States v. Doe a federal appeals court 11th circuit ruled on feb 24 2012 that forcing decryption of ones laptop violates fifth amendment.[20][21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States [wikipedia.org]

Re:Inconsistent?

[PatPending]

Oh, for goodness sake, RTFA:

Under the "border search exception" of United States criminal law, international travelers can be searched without a warrant as they enter the U.S. Under the Barack Obama administration, law enforcement agents have aggressively used this power to search travelers' laptops, sometimes copying the hard drive before returning the computer to its owner. Courts have ruled that such laptop searches can take place even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Re:Inconsistent?

[the eric conspiracy]

Warrantless, causeless border searches of closed containers by customs agents have been permissible since the beginning of the Republic under an act passed by the First Congress on July 31, 1787, merely 4 weeks after the ratification.

What makes this act constitutional is the power granted to Congress under the Constitution to regulate commerce between nations and enforce immigration laws.

It is VERY unlikely that the Supreme Court will touch this principle that has been in force for 230 years.

Re:Strongly worded letter

[solarissmoke]

Here it is:

http://aclum.org/sites/all/files/legal/re_david_house/fong_robles_vincent_re_david_House_12-21-10.pdf [aclum.org]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not Inconsistent...

[SuricouRaven]

Long been commonplace. It's standard practice in computer crime to count the cost of securing the computers as damages - that's how a hacker (Or more often, script kiddie with luck) can break into a system, do nothing, leave, and still do enough 'damage' to make it a felony.