What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dxmnkd316

dxmnkd316

Lucia Apologist
Are you < bleep > kidding me?
A warrantless search (and seizure) of a private device and its information? Even (to extreme) one held by a US citizen returning to the US?

Uh, how does that play in light of Amendment IV?
Click to expand...

Dead serious. I'll find the link.

Link

Relevant info:
You’re receiving this sheet because your electronic device(s) has been detained for further
examination, which may include copying. You will receive a written receipt (Form 6051-D)
that details what item(s) are being detained, who at CBP will be your point of contact, and
the contact information (including telephone number) you provide to facilitate the return of
your property within a reasonable time upon completion of the examination.
The CBP officer who approved the detention will speak with you and explain the process,
and provide his or her name and contact telephone number if you have any concerns. Some
airport locations have dedicated Passenger Service Managers who are available in addition
to the onsite supervisor to address any concerns.
Click to expand...

In conducting border searches, CBP officers strictly adhere to all constitutional and statutory
requirements, including those that are applicable to privileged, personal, or business confidential
information. For example, the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1905) prohibits federal
employees from disclosing, without lawful authority, business confidential information to
which they obtain access as part of their official duties. Moreover, CBP has strict oversight
policies and procedures that implement these constitutional and statutory safeguards. Further
information on DHS and CBP privacy policy can be found at www.dhs.gov/privacy.
Click to expand...

Privacy Act Statement
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)(3), this Privacy Act Statement serves to inform you of the following concerning the
possible collection of information from your electronic device.
AUTHORITY and PURPOSE: See above, Authority to Search.
ROUTINE USES: The subject information may be made available to other agencies for investigation and/or for
obtaining assistance relating to jurisdictional or subject matter expertise, or for translation, decryption, or other technical
assistance. This information may also be made available to assist in border security and intelligence activities,
domestic law enforcement and the enforcement of other crimes of a transnational nature, and shared with elements of
the federal government responsible for analyzing terrorist threat information.
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION: Collection of this information is mandatory at
the time that CBP or ICE seeks to copy information from the electronic device. Failure to provide information to assist
CBP or ICE in the copying of information from the electronic device may result in its detention and/or seizure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

From what I can find, this was initially floated last summer and put into place in December. Politico says it's just the Department of Homeland Security adding to the paperwork people must fill out upon entry to the US.

From a Fortune.com article, the DHS and Border Patrol have some pretty unchecked power: they have a "Border Exemption" which legally allows them to skirt the fourth amendment.

Here's the kicker: border exemption doesn't just exist at the border crossings, it applies to any immigration area at mainland airports (IE: you could be detained at Millard Airport, Omaha Nebraska) and within 100 miles inland from the border/shoreline.

ACLU.org has a great map of the 100 mile Border Zone Exclusion.

*Edit* For example, Madison Wisconsin is included in the border exemption. Parts of metro Columbus, Ohio. Lynchburg, Virginia. Augusta, GA. San Antonio, TX. Phoenix is just outside the zone, but the south suburbs may not be. Fresno, CA. Sacramento, CA. Grand Forks, ND.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Further:
You may be subject to an inspection for a variety of reasons, some of which include: your
travel documents are incomplete or you do not have the proper documents or visa; you have
previously violated one of the laws CBP enforces; you have a name that matches a person
of interest in one of the government's enforcement databases; or you have been selected for
a random search.
Click to expand...

So really, those last nine words allow them to do it to anyone for any reason.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

aparch said:
Yep. And don't dare wipe the phone before entry because you could be detained even longer as a result.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you could do this before you enter. I don't think the law states anything about that. However, once you've been selected and your phone has been detained, you're SOL.

Edit: If it's a company phone, I would probably disable the fingerprint scanner and then when asked to open it, just enter the password wrong a couple times. The company has a policy on it that wipes the whole phone if you enter an incorrect password something like three or five times.

I might actually send this document up through my assigned legal counsel just to see what I should do if I'm traveling and I'm stopped. I know in the past my company has just bought disposables for people who travel internationally. We are also required to use encrypted USB drives and it's impossible to get anything off of our computers now. Everything is encrypted end-to-end.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Also, the entire state of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, and Michigan are border zone bingo "free squares."

Customs and Border Patrol is also allowed to freely enter private property within 25 miles of shoreline/border (except for dwellings). CBP cannot pull over people in the border zone without "reasonable suspicion."

Per the ACLU, these acts stem from changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1946, and a federal review in 1953.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Well, I think you could do this before you enter. I don't think the law states anything about that. However, once you've been selected and your phone has been detained, you're SOL.
Click to expand...

Leave the country for week vacation and return to the border for re-entry with a freshly wiped phone? Pretty sure even my lilly white a** is going to be sitting in a dark room for a couple hours.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

aparch said:
Also, the entire state of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, and Michigan are border zone bingo "free squares."

Customs and Border Patrol is also allowed to freely enter private property within 25 miles of shoreline/border (except for dwellings). CBP cannot pull over people in the border zone without "reasonable suspicion."

Per the ACLU, these acts stem from changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1946, and a federal review in 1953.
Click to expand...

This is so crazy to me. Has this been challenged in court yet?
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

dxmnkd316 said:
This is so crazy to me. Has this been challenged in court yet?
Click to expand...

What should scare you is the Republicans and Trump don't think that's enough. Hell, Obama put extreme vetting in and they don't think that's enough. At some point liberty goes away for security and then we're all doomed.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

dxmnkd316 said:
This is so crazy to me. Has this been challenged in court yet?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure; it probably has given the related issues around where I grew up. However, in these cases you ARE in the country, so you can legally deny their warrantless "searches" as a violation of the 4th amendment.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
This is so crazy to me. Has this been challenged in court yet?
Click to expand...

Further searching on Google (because now I'm getting interested in finding out more on this) yields that the Supreme Court has 'clearly and repeatedly confirmed that any 'border shenanigans' applies only at border crossings or functional equivalent s (IE: airports). (Via Wikipedia, cites US vs Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543, 562-563 (1976))

But... He who rules the Supreme Court, rules the rulings.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

FlagDUDE08 said:
Regarding Amendment IV, if you're not yet in the country (i.e. at the border), you don't have that protection.
Click to expand...

An American citizen is protected by the Constitution relative to the American government no matter where he is in the world.

There is a border search exception but that is a formal statutory exception that, somehow, passed judicial review. Absent formal exceptions, the USG can't suspend your rights just because you're in the customs line at the f-cking airport. And even the exception:

is not actually an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather to the Amendment's requirement for a warrant or probable cause.[1][2] Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of entrants. Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior,[2][3] the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the Government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the Government at the border.[4] This balance at international borders means that routine searches are "reasonable" there, and therefore do not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against "unreasonable searches and seizures".
Click to expand...

In other words, the border changes the height of the "unreasonable" bar. But the 4th Amendment protection is inviolate. It applies EVERYWHERE.

I thought you types were supposed to know something about the Constitution? Or is that only window dressing when you want to engage in a partisan diatribe?
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

dxmnkd316 said:
This is so crazy to me. Has this been challenged in court yet?
Click to expand...
It's what I call "fear of the needle in the haystack."

We permit ourselves to be subjected to this, without a second thought, many times each year. Every time one of us flies, we let people dig through our bags and luggage, empty our pockets, even x-ray us, all without a warrant. Why, because enough of us are freaked out about the possibility that someone might try to blow up the plane or hijack the plane, etc...

Could it happen? Sure, but pretty darn unlikely. But apparently people are willing to sacrifice certain liberties to lessen the risk. Me, I'm willing to take the chance.

The border searches are the same principle.

The cellphone search is just an extension of it. The only difference is that to people of a certain age/generation, the cellphone is the holy of holies.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Are you < bleep > kidding me?
A warrantless search (and seizure) of a private device and its information? Even (to extreme) one held by a US citizen returning to the US?

Uh, how does that play in light of Amendment IV?

Sic, I would just move your "Are you kidding?" comment down below your comment on the 4th Amendment, and add, in Jim Mora voice, "Fourth Amendment?? Fourth Amendment?? Are you kidding me?? Fourth Amendment??"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top