Court: 4th Amendment Applies At Border, Password Protected Files Not Suspicious 194
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."
It's still smart to look clean... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
100 mile border (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re:Allow? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the public can challenge the "constitutionally dubious laws and regulations" if charged with a crime. However venting outrage online or on the street over a law is not going to just make the government say OK were sorry and we will trash the law you are complaining about.
There have been search-and-surveillance activities such as the case brought against Dr Arian, a former University of South Florida professor. His defense successfully challenged the Patriot Act and got the evidence collected using the Patriot Act excluded from the proceedings. To change bad laws or policies you need to challenge the validity of such laws or policies in open court. It might be a long haul but the judicial branch of the government has the last word on whether you were denied your rights. They are also empowered to invalidate Legislation created by the government. Any law such as the Patriot Act can only be really scrutinized for it's legality when it is actually used against someone. The government already thinks the Patriot Act is iffy. They use Gitmo to avoid following any laws in the US. The US government may be cumbersome and outright idiotic at times but it is not a static organization. It is constantly being scrutinized and changed. It is by no means perfect but it could be worse. Governing 350 million people and trying to make sure everyone's interests are satisfied is damn near impossible but can be entertaining at times. No matter what changes the government makes there will always be people complaining about something. People talk about US decline and I wonder when did the US ever get to pinnacle of righteousness and prosperity to they are supposed to declining from? Just take a look at US history and point out where the US had no flaws were not committing idiotic and sometimes dangerous and brutal acts in the domestic and international spheres.
Re:It's still smart to look clean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget, Homeland security doesn't just claim the right to search like this at the borders, but even if you just happen to live and/or travel within 100 miles of the border, regardless of whether or not you have or plan to cross the border. And at all major transportation methods such as planes, buses and trains [both inter and intra-city], and at large public gatherings such as major sporting events like the Superbowl.
I think if you combine all these area's together where Homeland Security believes the constitution doesn't cover you, there may be a few hundred square yards Wyoming which you still may have those rights.
Re:Hazzah! (Score:5, Interesting)
The TECS hit indicated that Cotterman was a sex offender--he had a 1992 conviction for two counts of use of a minor in sexual conduct, two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child, and three counts of child molestation