SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
A Southern California man has become the latest person to sue the federal government over what he says is an unconstitutional search of his phone at the Los Angeles International Airport.
According to his lawsuit, which was recently filed in federal court in Los Angeles, Haisam Elsharkawi had arrived at LAX on February 9, 2017 and was headed to Saudi Arabia to go on a hajj, the Muslim religious pilgrimage.
After clearing the security checkpoint, Elsharkawi, an American citizen, was pulled aside from the Turkish Airlines boarding line by a Customs and Border Protection officer, who began questioning him about how much cash he was carrying and where he was going. Elsharkawi complied with the officer's inquiries and dutifully followed him to a nearby table.
"As the questioning continued and became increasingly aggressive, Mr. Elsharkawi asked if there was a problem and whether he needed an attorney," the complaint states. "Officer Rivas then accused Mr. Elsharkawi of hiding something because of his request for an attorney."
Soon after, another agent, Officer Rodriguez, began searching Elsharkawi's pockets and discovered his phone. Rodriguez asked Elsharkawi to unlock his phone, which he declined to do. He then also refused to answer further questions without having an attorney present.
Another officer told Elsharkawi that he was not under arrest and as such had no right to an attorney—at which point he asked to be released.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @06:16PM (15 children)
"...make them get some actual evidence next time before handcuffing someone."
You assume you are privy to all the facts.
There may be classified reasons this person's phone was designated to be searched. You don't know whether that is the case and you most likely never will know.
Of course that doesn't prevent your SJW knee from jerking, because you're a dumb shit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday December 21 2018, @06:26PM (6 children)
Not buying it. Go back to your masters and be sure to tell them that as soon as you finish the ritual boot licking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @08:04PM (4 children)
You might want to go see a doctor about that jerked knee you got from that jumping to conclusions accident. When you fell I think it lodged that self-righteous stick even further up your ass.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @10:50PM
Exactly what conclusions do you think he is jumping to? Please be specific. He said he is just not buying the idea that there are "classified" reasons for why this guy was being detained and searched. Not wanting to jump to my own conclusions but why are you willing to give guys with badges on a (possible) power trip a pass on observing the most basic of constitutional rights? It just seems odd (to me). Are you a US citizen? Are you, by chance, on the payroll of a foreign government? If so, which one(s). Just curious.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday December 21 2018, @11:47PM (2 children)
Sorry, no. Arrests for secret reasons and whisking people to undisclosed locations while not letting them speak with a lawyer are all things more closely associated with iron curtain countries than the United States. No exceptions.
Nobody seemed to see a need to arrest him at all until he refused to unlock his phone (which is his right). Simply not being willing to be searched does not create probable cause for searching someone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 22 2018, @10:24AM (1 child)
This person was never arrested.
He unlocked his phone voluntarily
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday December 22 2018, @06:34PM
So the handcuffs placed on him were just a gift of exotic jewelry? If you're not under arrest, you're free to go. If you're not free to go, you're under arrest. He was not free to go. He unlocked his phone under duress.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 22 2018, @05:02AM
Why don't you post your address so we can talk about this in person, you smart-mouthed faggot piece of shit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @07:21PM (2 children)
Ummmm, yeah. Uh huh. And there may be cows jumping over the moon right now. Until there is actual evidence of this I'm going to call BS. Try this as a thought experiment: I think you are a witch. There may (or may not) be any evidence to support my claim, but if there were it would be classified. Would you be comfortable about being detained under such circumstances?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday December 21 2018, @10:31PM
No, seriously, there *could* be classified reasons. The way the laws are written there's no way around that possibility. It just shouldn't matter that it's possible. It should need to be proven.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 22 2018, @07:47PM
"There may be classified reasons this person's phone was designated to be searched."
Now whether they classified those reasons before or after they seized the phone, is another question entirely.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21 2018, @07:30PM
And the fact that you seem to find this completely acceptable in a state of law makes you the dumb shit. The kind of dumb shit that actually believes a well-known and established psychopath and con-man when he says that he will fight for the little people, while having built his entire carreer out of screwing precisely those same little people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Spamalope on Saturday December 22 2018, @01:08AM
If there are classified reasons they'd like to search, they have to decide whether to reveal them in order to force an involuntary search. Secret 'we know better, you shut up' courts/police/laws are abhorrent in a free society and it's everyone's duty to resist efforts in that direction.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 22 2018, @01:40AM (1 child)
I'm not buying it either. The victim inquired about a lawyer, and that inquiry drove the agents bugfuq, so they decided to fuck him over.
Besides, this is the US of A. We're supposed to have rule of law, and all that. If you are to be accused, or charged, or incarcerated, the people who are infringing on your freedom are supposed to CLEARLY communicate to you what those charges are. AND - they are supposed to allow you access to a lawyer.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday December 22 2018, @08:40PM
We're supposed to have rule of law, and all that.
Well, we won't get it until the voters start to care enough to stop reelecting crooks. It's as simple as that.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday December 22 2018, @10:53AM
All agree that I have COMPLETE POWER to declassify. And I'll tell you the reason. It's the guy's name. "Elsharkawi." Which in Mexican means, The Pissing Shark. Officer Rivas & Officer Rodriguez -- obviously they're Mexican -- they know this. And I gave VERY STRICT orders to my Customs & Boarder Protection guys -- don't let any Sharks into our Country. ZERO. So they stopped him. A mistake, because it turned out he's not a Shark. But a very honest mistake. Which they made while protecting our magnificent Country. We're behind them 100%. Great job!!!