SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We have all read about the seizure of computers and cell phones by Customs and Border Protection officers when people cross into the US from other countries. Some have sarcastically called the the region within 50 miles of the border a Constitution Free Zone, as the 4th Amendment doesn't seem to apply there.
Today The Associated Press is reporting that one US District Court Judge is putting the brakes on this practice by suppressing any evidence from such a search.
In an opinion posted Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson suppressed evidence obtained from the computer of South Korean businessman Jae Shik Kim, undercutting the government's case that he conspired to sell aircraft technology illegally to Iran. Jackson said that federal law enforcement improperly used Kim's border crossing as an excuse to seize his computer and gather evidence it needed to prove suspected arms control violations.
The ruling was a sharply-worded rebuke of the Obama administration's treatment of laptops as containers like any other that can be searched without a warrant and without time limits to protect national security.
This search had all the ear marks of a case of Parallel Construction, as the seizure and search of the laptop "was supported by so little suspicion of ongoing or imminent criminal activity" and "was so invasive of Kim's privacy," according to the Judge. The laptop in question was transported 150 miles from Kim's port of entry, and was held indefinitely.
The search of the laptop went beyond routine border inspection. The Justice Department claimed that Kim was suspected of conspiracy to buy US navigation technology, but apparently did not have enough evidence for a warrant. Instead, the warrant-less border crossing seizure was used as a ruse to gather additional evidence,
In spring 2013, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government should have reasonable suspicion before conducting a comprehensive search of an electronic device.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 09 2015, @03:49PM
Any legal beagle should have seen that this nonsense is unconstitutional before it was even implemented.
It doesn't even take a legal background to see that it is wrong.
WHY HAVE JUDGES BEEN SILENT FOR SO LONG?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2015, @04:55PM
Judges interpret the law within the context of standing precedent.
If a ruling that 1+1=2 stands, then a judge will have to rule that 2 + 2 == 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
It is wrong to think that judges can just pretty much decide anything on a case in front of them with whatever they feel like that day. If they were doing that, then they'd get overruled by higher courts all the time (because those would likely not 'feel' the same way as the lower judge).
You may not need a legal background to see that the case in the article is wrong, but having legal knowledge at least explains something...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Dunbal on Sunday May 10 2015, @03:01AM
within the context of standing precedent.
If precedent has any weight on court cases we should do away with the "justice" system entirely. The whole POINT of a trial, judge and jury is to try each case individually. Precedent is a, well, dangerous precedent, and is part of many of the wrongs plaguing court systems around the world.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Saturday May 09 2015, @05:03PM
Historically, its been due to stretching the envelop sort of government creep.
Border control, and the searches and seizures used at borders, is an implied obligation of the government in Article 4.
Therefore routine searches and seizures are not seen as "unreasonable". They have always been the expected norm around the world, even at the time of the framing. Probable cause, or a warrant have never been requirements for boarder searches.
Without the search being unreasonable, the 4th amendment prohibition on unreasonable search or seizure doesn't come to bear.
So the test that has to be applied is NOT one of simply being a search or a seizure, but rather it becomes a much more vague test of "reasonableness".
The judge in this case found the seizure Unreasonable. (Because it was a fishing expedition), which had no element of protecting the country. Rummaging through ones papers at a border inspection station is equally unreasonable.
Wiki has a good article on this, and the abuses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception [wikipedia.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 09 2015, @05:04PM
Judges don't have the power to just pipe up every time they see something legislative or executive they don't agree with, and make a ruling against it. They have to have a case come across their bench in which the issue comes up. Different judges have different opinions as well, so if some pro-authoritarian judge had gotten this case instead, we wouldn't be seeing this headline.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 10 2015, @12:49AM
It is the job of someone with standing to make a complaint.
I once met an Oregon State Appellate Court judge. I said his work must be quite challenging, what with all the life-or-death decisions he must make.
"No," he said, "I'm more of a gatekeeper."
Consider the story here at Soylent a while back, that some woman was found guilty of possessing an electric stun gun, because the judge held that electric stun guns had no military uses. A number of military veterans posted here that in reality, it is common for the military to use them.
However it was beholden upon that women to demonstrate that stun guns have military use. If she didn't make the argument during the trial, then the judge has to use the arguments that were actually presented.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]