| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Land of the Free | |
| Fed judge Upholds Government's Right to Seize Electronics at Border | |
| 2014-01-01 | |
| NYT: The government's right to search travelers' electronic devices at the border and to apparently hold these devices for an unlimited amount of time, hence the word "seize" I put into this headline. was upheld in a ruling released by a federal judge on Tuesday, which dismissed a lawsuit challenging this policy. In his opinion, Judge Edward R. Korman of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the plaintiffs did not have standing for their lawsuit because such searches occur so rarely that "there is not a substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion." I don't follow his reasoning there, but IANAL. Even if the plaintiffs did have standing, Judge Korman found that they would lose on the merits of the case, ruling that the government does not need reasonable suspicion to examine or confiscate a traveler's laptop, cellphone or other device at the border. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Press Photographers Association were also plaintiffs in the case, arguing that their members travel with confidential information that should be protected from government scrutiny. In rejecting this argument, Judge Korman cited the rarity of electronic device searches and questioned whether travelers need to carry computers containing sensitive data when they travel abroad. "While it is true that laptops may make overseas work more convenient," he wrote, "the precautions plaintiffs may choose to take to 'mitigate' the alleged harm associated with the remote possibility of a border search are simply among the many inconveniences associated with international travel." IANAL, but this is a crock
| |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #6 Another problem with Constitutional Free Zones - 2/3 of our population live within these zones. ACLU: Constitutional Free Zones |
| Posted by: mossomo 2014-01-01 21:39 |
| #5 More typical of US Customs (today's Boston Globe): Virtuoso’s flutes destroyed by US Customs Before you whine about an airline temporarily losing your luggage, think of poor Boujemaa Razgui. The flute virtuoso who performs regularly with The Boston Camerata lost 13 handmade flutes over the holidays when a US Customs official at New York’s JFK Airport mistook the instruments for pieces of bamboo and destroyed them. Razgui, a Canadian citizen who lives some of the time in Brockton, had flown last week from Morocco to Boston, with stops in Madrid and New York. In New York, he says, an official opened his luggage and found the 13 flutelike instruments — 11 nays and two kawalas. Razgui says he had made all of the instruments using hard-to-find reeds. “They said this is an agriculture item,” said Razgui, who was not present when his bag was opened. “I fly with them in and out all the time and this is the first time there has been a problem. This is my life.” When his baggage arrived in Boston, the instruments were gone. He was instead given a number to call. “They told me they were destroyed,” he says....Razgui, who’s been performing with The Boston Camerata since 2002 and is scheduled to play with Camerata Mediterranea in February, says there are perhaps 15 people in the United States who play these sorts of instruments. “And now they’re gone,” he said. “I’m not sure what to do.” |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2014-01-01 21:23 |
| #4 Shut up, peasants! Customs never confiscates my laptop... |
| Posted by: Judge Edward R. Korman 2014-01-01 18:42 |
| #3 plaintiffs did not have standing for their lawsuit because such searches occur so rarely that “there is not a substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion.” You want to explain that, in English. Thought not. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2014-01-01 18:19 |
| #2 The general idea is that Constitutional rights don't apply within about 100 miles of the border. Reasoning behind this rule is the self-evident need of any nation to control its borders. The obvious problem with that reasoning is that our government has demonstrated no interest whatsoever in controlling our borders. Since the government is not interested in controlling the borders it should not be permitted to rely on a rule established for that purpose. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2014-01-01 13:57 |
| #1 What about guns for the cartels? Those are still fully protected from seizure, right? |
| Posted by: charger 2014-01-01 12:46 |