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, Informative) by CortoMaltese on Saturday May 09 2015, @05:18PM
The 9th Circuit court case is United States v. Cotterman, It said that the examination of the defendant's electronic devices "required a showing of reasonable suspicion, a modest requirement in light of the Fourth Amendment" without defining what "reasonable suspicion" includes, and commenting that password protection is not enough for reasonable suspicion, according to the circumstances it might indicate criminal behavior. Judge Callahan concurring in part and dissenting in part wrote that the new rule hamstring USGOV ability to protect borders.
Judge M. Smith dissented in what I believe was the best opinion, that with the new rule the border agents are left to guess on an ad hoc basis what is warrant enough for reasonable suspicion and the fact that it could be used arbitrarily to undermine liberties.