A U.S. citizen has asked a court to throw out the government's claim that he gave over a passcode to border authorities that wiped his phone's data, opening up fresh questions about a person's constitutional rights at the U.S. border.
I’m not convinced this applies here as it’s discussing traffic stops to look for illegal immigrants and contraband near land border crossings. The article is referencing an American citizen getting detained and having his phone searched in the Atlanta airport without probable cause or a warrant.
This is exactly describing that if you read the part that I quoted it specifically quotes upon entering the United States. At an international border. And air flight at an international airport is an international border. And they do not require a warrant. It’s already been settled in a court of law although as we can see that can be overturned however it would be very difficult to do so
That doesn’t mean agents have a free-for-all to do whatever they want at the border. Would you assume agents can just imprison anyone or perform warrantless searches at homes along the border too? There’s a lot more nuance to this than what you think and seizing a device chock full of personal information and private communication is a lot more invasive than someone performing a routine, (from your quote) fairly non-invasive visual inspection of a vehicle looking for entire human beings.
There isn’t nuance. You are bringing up things beyond the scope of the conversation and article to try to prove something you can’t.
Article states: man enters country. Border patrol requests search of phone. Man is accused of wiping phone.
Person states: 4th amendment says you cannot search me for no reason!
Court says: yea, actually they can.
Person states: nuh uh. You can’t, I’ll take it to court, we can fight this!
I state: sorry, already been to court. The law says, yea, they can.
Person states: nuh uh! Cause what if this, or what if that! Random bullshit that doesn’t have anything to do specifically with this situation, or anything.
Whatever dude. You want to win. Go ahead. You win. Keep moving your own goal posts to try to prove something unprovable.
I’m not convinced this applies here as it’s discussing traffic stops to look for illegal immigrants and contraband near land border crossings. The article is referencing an American citizen getting detained and having his phone searched in the Atlanta airport without probable cause or a warrant.
This is exactly describing that if you read the part that I quoted it specifically quotes upon entering the United States. At an international border. And air flight at an international airport is an international border. And they do not require a warrant. It’s already been settled in a court of law although as we can see that can be overturned however it would be very difficult to do so
That doesn’t mean agents have a free-for-all to do whatever they want at the border. Would you assume agents can just imprison anyone or perform warrantless searches at homes along the border too? There’s a lot more nuance to this than what you think and seizing a device chock full of personal information and private communication is a lot more invasive than someone performing a routine, (from your quote) fairly non-invasive visual inspection of a vehicle looking for entire human beings.
There isn’t nuance. You are bringing up things beyond the scope of the conversation and article to try to prove something you can’t.
Article states: man enters country. Border patrol requests search of phone. Man is accused of wiping phone.
Person states: 4th amendment says you cannot search me for no reason!
Court says: yea, actually they can.
Person states: nuh uh. You can’t, I’ll take it to court, we can fight this!
I state: sorry, already been to court. The law says, yea, they can.
Person states: nuh uh! Cause what if this, or what if that! Random bullshit that doesn’t have anything to do specifically with this situation, or anything.
Whatever dude. You want to win. Go ahead. You win. Keep moving your own goal posts to try to prove something unprovable.