Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Court: 4th Amendment Applies At Border, Password Protected Files Not Suspicious 194

Posted by Soulskill
from the you're-doing-it-right dept.
An anonymous reader sends this Techdirt report on a welcome ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: ""Here's a surprise ruling. For many years we've written about how troubling it is that Homeland Security agents are able to search the contents of electronic devices, such as computers and phones at the border, without any reason. The 4th Amendment only allows reasonable searches, usually with a warrant. But the general argument has long been that, when you're at the border, you're not in the country and the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. This rule has been stretched at times, including the ability to take your computer and devices into the country and search it there, while still considering it a "border search," for which the lower standards apply. Just about a month ago, we noted that Homeland Security saw no reason to change this policy. Well, now they might have to. In a somewhat surprising 9th Circuit ruling (en banc, or in front of the entire set of judges), the court ruled that the 4th Amendment does apply at the border, that agents do need to recognize there's an expectation of privacy, and cannot do a search without reason. Furthermore, they noted that merely encrypting a file with a password is not enough to trigger suspicion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court: 4th Amendment Applies At Border, Password Protected Files Not Suspicious

Comments Filter:
  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday March 08, 2013 @06:51PM (#43122271) Homepage

    If you cant host it securely online, then mail several MicroSD cards to your destination first to avoid the harassment by the TSA.

    Note: you can easily get a Micro SD through airport security without them questioning you, I forgot about one in my pocket and they did not even see it with the Naked scanners.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2013 @06:54PM (#43122303)

      If you cant host it securely online, then mail several MicroSD cards to your destination first to avoid the harassment by the TSA.

      Note: you can easily get a Micro SD through airport security without them questioning you, I forgot about one in my pocket and they did not even see it with the Naked scanners.

      I always swallow my MicroSD card before I begin travel and retrieve it after I arrive at my destination.

      Works great as long as my travel time is less than around 8 - 16 hours. I hate when my travel time is longer and I have to swallow it again.

    • by hedwards (940851)

      They can open those letters if they want to. Or at least that's been the case in the past. Not sure if this ruling would apply to that or not.

      • by Kaenneth (82978)

        Ah, but if the data on the SD card you mail consists of every even numbered byte, while the one you carry has every odd numbered byte...

        (as long as your files aren't unencrypted ASCII characters stored in UTF-16...)

        • by Dahamma (304068) on Friday March 08, 2013 @08:02PM (#43122807)

          Why bother... Just encrypt it with a random long key that you can't easily memorize and mail the key printed on a piece of paper. Then you can tell them you don't have the password even if they wanted it. I kind of doubt they are going to open up every random letter that goes through the post office.

          Though it's all kind of a silly hypothetical. No one at the border wants your actual data anyway, they just want to harass you over not being given access to it.

          • by C0R1D4N (970153)
            I thought they wanted to look at your hentai so they can send you down the river for any loli/shota you might have.
        • by dbIII (701233) on Friday March 08, 2013 @08:20PM (#43122953)

          Ah, but if the data on the SD card you mail consists of every even numbered byte, while the one you carry has every odd numbered byte...

          That sounds much better than putting it up your endian.

          • by maz2331 (1104901)

            I, for one, am not putting that in my little endian. Others who are big-endian may do so if they wish.

        • "as long as your files aren't unencrypted ASCII characters stored in UTF-16..."

          Doesn't matter. They're still stored as bytes. You'd just be traveling with the first byte of each character. Or second, as the case may be.

          That's really more obfuscation than anything, though. I have little doubt that given the least-significant bytes, they could piece together the message eventually.

        • That's actually not a bad idea. Two SD cards in RAID-0...you get better performance, and they're basically useless unless they're together, so you can ship them separately for the extra layer of security. Of course, you'd still want your data encrypted, but it wouldn't hurt.

        • by camperdave (969942) on Friday March 08, 2013 @10:16PM (#43123607) Journal

          Ah, but if the data on the SD card you mail consists of every even numbered byte, while the one you carry has every odd numbered byte..

          I go one step better. I break it down to bits and store all the 1s are on one card, and all the 0s are on the other.

    • by dorfed (2860881)
      I see it now: sd-card sniffing dogs!
    • I don't know about mailing micro SDs, but I was recently involved in trying to send a USB HDD through the mail from the US to Canada. Unsuccessful several times. USPS returned with no explanation.
      • by hawguy (1600213)

        I don't know about mailing micro SDs, but I was recently involved in trying to send a USB HDD through the mail from the US to Canada. Unsuccessful several times. USPS returned with no explanation.

        Did you attach the correct customs form and accurately declare the contents?

        I've purchased server hard drives from Canadian eBay merchants without a problem, but haven't tried the other direction. But you'd think if the USPS was worried about information crossing the borders, they'd stop it in both directions.

      • by drsmithy (35869)

        Might be a Canadian problem. I've had numerous hard disks shipped from the USA to Australia (via USPS) without a problem.

      • I was recently involved in trying to send a USB HDD through the mail from the US to Canada. Unsuccessful several times

        Odd. We frequently ship hard drives in both directions between our American and Canadian offices. Never had a problem. Granted, we rarely use USPS or Canada Post... Almost always FedEx or UPS.

    • by supersat (639745) on Saturday March 09, 2013 @02:06AM (#43124325)
      You can say a lot of bad things about the TSA, but the TSA does not give a crap about your data. That's Customs and Border Protection.
  • Hazzah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 08, 2013 @06:51PM (#43122275)

    About time the courts refute the absurdity of the state security paranoia.

    • Re:Hazzah! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosyna (80334) on Friday March 08, 2013 @06:56PM (#43122325) Homepage

      Do not worry, Scalia will save us from the Tyranny of the 9th Circuit!

    • Re:Hazzah! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maz2331 (1104901) on Friday March 08, 2013 @10:02PM (#43123521)

      And they upheld considering someone suspicious if they are a proven pedophile. The defendant didn't win - the evidence will still be used. They keyed on him because he has a long record of molesting kids and went back-and-forth to Mexico on a regular basis.

      The good thing about this case is laying out some parameters barring random suspicionless running a full-blown forensic exam on a device while still allowing known shady characters to be given a digital anal exam.

      • by tqk (413719)

        And they upheld considering someone suspicious if they are a proven pedophile.

        Please explain why you have a problem with that. Conversely, why should anyone NOT consider them deserving of increased suspicion?

  • by scottbomb (1290580) on Friday March 08, 2013 @06:51PM (#43122285) Journal

    If you are attempting to smuggle in drugs and they catch you at the border, you still get arrested and charged with a crime. It's nice to see the court side in favor of liberty for a change.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)

      by dgatwood (11270) on Friday March 08, 2013 @06:58PM (#43122339) Journal

      This is, of course, the 9th circuit, where you'd pretty much expect this result from an en banc review (which for the 9th circuit probably means a limited en banc review by 11 judges, because I don't think all 29 judges have ever reviewed anything). The only way I could see them going the other way is if it were merely a three-judge panel with some of the most conservative judges on that court.

  • by DugOut (824998) on Friday March 08, 2013 @07:00PM (#43122353) Homepage Journal
    the 9th circuit is to the left of most courts, so there's a good chance that this will be overturned.
    • by rujholla (823296)

      This would be one of the few times that I agree with the 9th circuit, and I'm not that far left. Maybe SC will leave this one be.

    • by hedwards (940851)

      I'm pretty sure that's not true. These are Federal courts appointed by whoever the President is at the time that the seat vacates, so for that circuit to get out of whack with the other ones by that degree would be rather unlikely.

      More likely, they see more cases that the right goes nuts about and people see that as evidence that they're further to the right. What's more, courts can only hear cases which are brought to them, they can't go out there and look for cases that they want to rule on.

    • by Zcar (756484) on Friday March 08, 2013 @10:13PM (#43123597)

      The 9th Circuit's rate of getting overturned by the Supreme Court is not unusual among the circuits. Every year some have a higher rate than the 9th and some lower. They just hear the most cases at the circuit level and generate the most appeals.

      All the circuits have a pretty high rate of getting overturned since there's some selection bias in the cases which are appealed to the court. First when deciding to file an appeal since you're not going to unless you think you can win. Second, in granting cert which only occurs when the justice responsible for the circuit thinks there's something to the appeal, else he or she would deny cert.

      • And for when the "the 9th circuit is overturned more times than any other" talking point comes up: well duh, they hear more cases than any other circuit too. IIRC by a significant margin...
        • by tqk (413719)

          They just hear the most cases at the circuit level and generate the most appeals.

          And for when the "the 9th circuit is overturned more times than any other" talking point comes up: well duh, they hear more cases than any other circuit too.

          Department of Redundancy Department, Batman?

  • 100 mile border (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hawguy (1600213) on Friday March 08, 2013 @07:01PM (#43122361)

    Now if we could get the Supreme Court to roll back their validation of DHS's declaration that the "border" actually extends 100 miles [polymontana.com] inland from the actual border. Half the population of the USA lives within this extended "border zone".

    • The extended border region doesn't obviate the need for reasonable suspicion. It is only in ports of entry that suspicion is not required to justify search.

      • Re:100 mile border (Score:5, Informative)

        by hawguy (1600213) on Friday March 08, 2013 @09:03PM (#43123233)

        The extended border region doesn't obviate the need for reasonable suspicion. It is only in ports of entry that suspicion is not required to justify search.

        The ACLU seems to think otherwise:

        http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone [aclu.org]

        • * Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
        • * The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
        • * But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
        • * As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
        • * Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
        • * However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.

        And the DHS doesn't seem to be afraid to stop and question motorists far from the "real" border even if there's no reasonable suspicion at all:

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef3_1361978936 [liveleak.com]

        • Re:100 mile border (Score:5, Insightful)

          by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Friday March 08, 2013 @10:10PM (#43123575)

          Notice I used the word 'search', not the word 'stop'.

          The Border Patrol is allowed to set up checkpoints within the 60-100 mile region where it can conduct routine stops as part of its mission to control illegal immigration. At such places it is not allowed to conduct suspicion-less searches. They may ask you questions which you can respond to voluntarily.

          http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol300b.htm [usborderpatrol.com]

          The only places that the Border Patrol is allowed to conduct suspicion-less searches is at ports of entry. Not generally along the border. Not 100 miles from the border. Only at ports of entry. Ports of entry include international airports that may be in the interior of the US.

          It is not a long-standing 'view'. It is the result of laws passed by the FIRST Congress of the United States, actually their 5th bill, known as the Tariff Act which was signed into law July 4 1789 by George Washington. For nearly 100 years tariffs were the chief source of funds for the operation of the Federal Government. Obviously to enforce and collect tariffs it is necessary to search people and goods entering the US.

          Since Congress is granted the power to regulate commerce by enumeration in the Constitution they can define reasonable search under the 4th Amendment to include inspecting everything that enters the country at a port of entry.

          Hope this clarifies the law for you.

          • Re:100 mile border (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hawguy (1600213) on Friday March 08, 2013 @10:57PM (#43123759)

            Notice I used the word 'search', not the word 'stop'.

            You may think it's ok for the government to stop you at any time and question who you are, where you came from, and where you're going, but fortunately many people (including myself) do not.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by mdielmann (514750)

            Yes, this isn't unusual. I think the common phrase used in TVLand when this was done in the Eastern Bloc was, "Papers, please!" An excellent role model.

            Sad to think there are countries that were in the Eastern Bloc that now have freedoms that Americans don't.

          • by Kjella (173770)

            Notice I used the word 'search', not the word 'stop'. The Border Patrol is allowed to set up checkpoints within the 60-100 mile region where it can conduct routine stops as part of its mission to control illegal immigration. At such places it is not allowed to conduct suspicion-less searches. They may ask you questions which you can respond to voluntarily.

            While that is partially true, it doesn't really reflect the reality of it. I've read a few cases and during a "stop" they can search your vehicle well enough to ensure there are no other occupants without any suspicion. This means looking in your trunk, under your back seats and anywhere else at their discretion they decide is large enough to conceal a person. Anything they see in "plain sight" within this context - that is when they've opened the trunk to check there's no one there - is fair game to be use

        • by tipo159 (1151047)

          Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland ... ferry terminals in Washington State ...

          Huh? How do you have inland ferry terminals? The relevant WA state ferry terminals (Port Angeles, San Juan Islands/Anacortes) are Ports of Entry. I think they are talking about the CBP agents picking up undocumented aliens from south of the border out in Forks (which is a bit of a drive from the ferry terminal in Port Angeles).

      • "The extended border region doesn't obviate the need for reasonable suspicion"

        If its you and the cops word, I guarantee that the judge will trust the cop unless you have overwhelming evidence. And negative bonus points if the reason you are before this judge is that they found something in the officers illegal search.

        Dhs is I think american federal government, the state of washington just legalized marijuana. Is just one of the many examples of what could go horribly wrong for a law abiding citizen when you

    • by nothings (597917)
      What SC validation? According to Wikipedia, it's the opposite: "the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent" and there's a link to such a ruling from 1973.
      • Re:100 mile border (Score:4, Informative)

        by hawguy (1600213) on Friday March 08, 2013 @10:58PM (#43123767)

        What SC validation? According to Wikipedia, it's the opposite: "the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent" and there's a link to such a ruling from 1973.

        http://voices.yahoo.com/supreme-court-checkpoint-rulings-diminish-fourth-8598639.html [yahoo.com]

        In Martinez-Fuerte the court went on to add that while the stop does infringe upon a motorist' right to free passage without interruption, it is a minimal infringement. They also went on to state that a warrant for such a minor infringement was not necessary, despite the Fourth Amendments declaration that no search or seizure of a person or thing occur without a warrant issued by a detached neutral magistrate.

        • by Kjella (173770)

          They also went on to state that a warrant for such a minor infringement was not necessary, despite the Fourth Amendments declaration that no search or seizure of a person or thing occur without a warrant issued by a detached neutral magistrate.

          Except it doesn't explicitly say that, it says no "unreasonable searches and seizures" then lays out conditions for when a warrant makes it reasonable but doesn't explicitly say that is the only way. If a police officer chases a pickpocket, catches him "in the act" but together with the wallet also finds drugs in his pockets, is that then an unreasonable search? It is certainly made without a warrant. The courts have never interpreted the fourth amendment as strictly as that.

  • Update, 10 May 2013 (Score:3, Informative)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Friday March 08, 2013 @07:11PM (#43122441)

    Reuters - In a multi-agency action described by Homeland Security as "necessary for the public good", the United States Ninth Circuit Court was raided by U.S. Marshalls. All members of the judiciary were handcuffed and taken away for processing as "enemy combatants". A White House spokesman declined comment, other than to note the judges were being transported to Guantanamo Bay.

    • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Friday March 08, 2013 @07:51PM (#43122753) Homepage

      Mommy! Grandpa dumped all of his medications in the goldfish bowl again!

      • What's even more amusing is that it was moderated up as "informative." I fail to see how something can be informative when it is pure fantasy. It's also somewhat ridiculous fantasy for anyone who knows law enforcement, as they'd know that the marshals service are actually the ones who protect federal judges.

        While I'm certainly not a fan of many of the recent more authoritarian changes the US has undergone, the paranoid ramblings that come out of some people on Slashdot are quite ridiculous.

        What's even funni

        • Re:No kidding (Score:4, Insightful)

          by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Saturday March 09, 2013 @06:54AM (#43124977) Homepage

          While I'm certainly not a fan of many of the recent more authoritarian changes the US has undergone, the paranoid ramblings that come out of some people on Slashdot are quite ridiculous.

          The problem is that over time all the many tiny bits of authoritarianism add up. Sure, it's pure fantasy to say things are like that now, or will be like that next month, year or even decade. But let things pile up over 50 or 100 years and see the result.

          In fact, some political theorists, Antonio Gramsci being the most known although the members of the Frankfurt School also have dwelt in this line of reasoning, have proposed that a slow method doing small changes of decades is the correct way to go about doing a revolution in any country with a decentralized power structure. That's because such countries, differently from those in which power is strongly centralized, cannot be changed overnight by "merely" replacing the all powerful central power structure via a violent revolution and starting giving new orders. Decentralized ones, on the other hand, have from hundreds to many thousands of power centers, up to and including at the individual level, so that violently overcoming one results in merely upsetting all the others, who then rebel and fight back. Thus, the "revolution" (supposing this term is even valid in this context) must be done very slowly, below the pain threshold that'd cause a majority of the different power centers to rebel, letting their natural leaders die their natural deaths all the while the new generations grow already used to the slightly changed cultural landscape, and going through this cycle as many times as needed until generations down the line the end result is achieved.

          The problem with thinking this possible is that it'd require conspiracy-level dedication from generations of revolutionaries too, not to mention their goals would also change wildly over time. Very unlikely, to say the least. In any case, the core of the argument, that things can turn 180 if you let them go their way 1 at a time, remains valid even if there's no one actively directing it, as most probably there isn't. Give things the right push at the start and some kind of political inertia (the proverbial "I don't care, it isn't my problem") can very well keep them going just because.

  • Sanity prevails. How uncommon, and how good for it to occur. I'll have to read the details of the case that made it this far up the chain. Will this circuit court ruling have repercussions and applications outside of its jurisdiction, or is the rest of the country on its own still? IANAL, BIYAAL, WYCTC? (but if you are a lawyer, would you care to comment?)
  • >But the general argument has long been that, when you're at the border, you're not in the country and the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

    If I shoot the border guard then the US laws don't apply?

  • Wouldn't the Supreme Court have to rule for this to apply? Couldn't the DHS just accept this ruling and not appeal, thus keeping the status quo because the border is a national issue and this hasn't been ruled upon by a body with national jurisdiction?

    • Sorry to break this to you, no matter what Rush Limbaugh thinks, the Ninth Circuit [uscourts.gov] is still** part of the United States.

      ** Yes, Virginia - California, Washington, Hawaii and Oregon are included within the legal and political boundaries of the United States. We're not so sure of Alaska, but since the Canadians don't want it and you can't see Russia from there, it appears we're stuck with it.

      • by meerling (1487879)
        Actually you can see Russia from there. Well, specific parts of course, it's not like you get ultravision or anything. :)
    • Nope.

      The decision of this court is binding on all the lower courts in its district. It covers pretty much the western 1/5 of the United States as the 9th is the largest district (at one time it even covered part of China). It's possible courts in other districts will use it as precedence as well unless a different circuit court rules the opposite way.

      Conflicting appellate rulings are one of ways to trigger Supreme Court interest.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Type_of_precedent [wikipedia.org]

  • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Friday March 08, 2013 @07:27PM (#43122581) Journal

    Great! Now we need to apply it in the interior of the country.

  • I am glad to see a judge actually take a stand against the tidal wave that has been eroding our liberties.

  • by fuego451 (958976) on Friday March 08, 2013 @07:43PM (#43122691) Journal
    Another confirmation of our constitution by the courts that the TSA, the DOJ and any law enforcement officer can completely ignore.
  • Now if only we could get the constitution to be applicable to the rest of the country we would be golden.

  • by Freddybear (1805256) on Friday March 08, 2013 @08:19PM (#43122951)

    Volokh has a somewhat more thorough summary of the decisions here:

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/interesting-ninth-circuit-en-banc-on-computer-searches-of-course-citing-orin/ [volokh.com]

            [A] border search of a computer is not transformed into an “extended border search” requiring particularized suspicion simply because the device is transported and examined beyond the border.... [T]he fact that the forensic examination occurred 170 miles away from the border did not heighten the interference with the defendant’s privacy, and the extended border search doctrine does not apply, in this case in which the defendant’s computer never cleared customs and the defendant never regained possession....

            [T]he forensic examination of the defendant’s computer required a showing of reasonable suspicion, a modest requirement in light of the Fourth Amendment.... [I]t is the comprehensive and intrusive nature of forensic examination — not the location of the examination — that is the key factor triggering the requirement of reasonable suspicion here.... [T]he uniquely sensitive nature of data on electronic devices, which often retain information far beyond the perceived point of erasure, carries with it a significant expectation of privacy and thus renders an exhaustive exploratory search more intrusive than with other forms of property....

            [In this case,] the border agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an initial search at the border (which turned up no incriminating material) and the forensic examination. The en banc court wrote that the defendant’s Treasury Enforcement Communication System alert, prior child-related conviction, frequent travels, crossing from a country known for sex tourism, and collection of electronic equipment, plus the parameters of the Operation Angel Watch program aimed at combating child sex tourism, taken collectively, gave rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. ...

            [P]assword protection of files, which is ubiquitous among many law-abiding citizens, will not in isolation give rise to reasonable suspicion, but ... password protection may be considered in the totality of the circumstances where, as here, there are other indicia of criminal activity.... [T]he existence of password-protected files is also relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the scope and duration of the search of the defendant’s computer.... [T]he examination of the defendant’s electronic devices was supported by reasonable suspicion and that the scope and manner of the search were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

    • by jthill (303417)
      Volokh's great, but techdirt embedded the full summary and opinion, which volokh merely excerpted (and imho they missed the best part, where the 9th bypassed both parties' arguments and re-addressed the limits on reasonable suspicion of their own accord.
    • by Kjella (173770)

      Unfortunately after reading the dissenting opinion, I'm more inclined to agree with that one.

      1) It makes an entirely illogical and unprincipled distinction between digital and regular information. If you carry a personal diary with your most innermost and intimate thoughts it would now be stronger protected on an iPad than a paper diary, which is still subject to border search because it doesn't require forensics to examine.

      2) It makes a strange argument on quantity of information on digital devices, which

  • The "Elite" factor (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Friday March 08, 2013 @08:45PM (#43123121) Homepage

    Why is my first reaction to this article, "I wonder what the name was of the politician/judge/rich guy who had his device grabbed by the DHS because it had a passworded file on it?"

    Because, sadly, recent court rulings have left me so jaded and cynical that I can't believe that they would side with the people on a matter of rights unless one our Elite masters had been affected by it first.

    Of course, not that it matters much. Cops have been known to ignore unfavorable rulings. Just look how often cops still get in a snit when they catch somebody filming them doing their job, despite repeated rulings that it is perfectly legal. Who watches the watchmen? Increasingly, nobody.

    • I like how tripe like this gets moderated up as insightful. It is nothing of the sort. If you go and read the actual decision, which you can easily find, and other people have linked to you will see that indeed it was just a normal person. It gets rather tiring to see this continual whining on Slashdot that is completely unfounded and gets moderated up as "insightful."

      If you wanted to criticize this decision, there are some legitimate grounds. It still allows for quite wide latitude in searches at the borde

  • The district court ruled that the evidence obtained by the search should be suppressed and not admissible as evidence, which means the defendant could not be convicted. The Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit reversed that decision and held that the search was permissible:
    For the above reasons, we conclude that the examination of Cotterman's electronic devices was supported by reasonable suspicion and that the scope and manner of the search were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Cotterman's motio

    • by jthill (303417)
      Are you seriously arguing that it's unreasonable to suspect someone with seven convictions for various flavors of child molestation of involvement with child porn?

How many Unix hacks does it take to change a light bulb? Let's see, can you use a shell script for that or does it need a C program?

Working...