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.
No need for a warrant, and the 4th amendment doesn’t apply in this case.
Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity.
They have near autonomy to search you and your belongings for any reason upon entering the country.
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
This is no longer true. The Republican idiots on the Supreme Court have made a habit of ruling for plaintiffs with demonstrably zero standing. There is no longer rule of law in this country.
Is it true that you have to have standing to fight them in court, yes.
But to be completely honest, 99% of the people have no interest in actually going to court . they figure they can just fight them while standing in line.
I’m not contradicting myself, you’re just not understanding what’s being said there.
So let me spell it out for you. If a person thinks they can just stand at the border and just fight it. And that’s it. And win. No they’re going to fail. Damn near every single time. It’s kind of like trying to argue with a cop alongside the road. Good luck you’re basically not going to win.
Now, if your intent is to fight in court, if that is your end goal, then yes you would have to fight it at the border. You have to say something at the border so then you have legal standing.
The point of my statement was 99% of the people have no intention going into the courtroom, so therefore there’s no point in fighting at the border because they’re going to lose at the border.
My password is the text of the 4th Amendment. I don’t unlock my phone often.
No need for a warrant, and the 4th amendment doesn’t apply in this case.
They have near autonomy to search you and your belongings for any reason upon entering the country.
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
We don’t have to let them. We can fight it to make change happen.
And we should. They are no masters.
Trying to fight them when you’re re-entering the border I guarantee you will lose. If you want to fight them, you do it in court.
But you do you
If you want to fight them in court, you need standing. To have standing, you have to have been affected by the law.
You can not fight them in court until they do something. You can not sue for what someone might do.
This is no longer true. The Republican idiots on the Supreme Court have made a habit of ruling for plaintiffs with demonstrably zero standing. There is no longer rule of law in this country.
Unless you make up a case about gay people demanding you bake a wedding cake, then you can win at the Supreme Court.
Is it true that you have to have standing to fight them in court, yes.
But to be completely honest, 99% of the people have no interest in actually going to court . they figure they can just fight them while standing in line.
You’re contradicting yourself.
There’s an implied “instead” in there. You’re saying don’t fight them at the border, because you will lose. INSTEAD, fight them in court.
To fight them in court, you have to have standing. You get standing by fighting them at the border and losing.
I’m not contradicting myself, you’re just not understanding what’s being said there.
So let me spell it out for you. If a person thinks they can just stand at the border and just fight it. And that’s it. And win. No they’re going to fail. Damn near every single time. It’s kind of like trying to argue with a cop alongside the road. Good luck you’re basically not going to win.
Now, if your intent is to fight in court, if that is your end goal, then yes you would have to fight it at the border. You have to say something at the border so then you have legal standing.
The point of my statement was 99% of the people have no intention going into the courtroom, so therefore there’s no point in fighting at the border because they’re going to lose at the border.
It’s like people pretend to know the law, but don’t actually understand shit.
deleted by creator