For all those that think the Constitution has been deconstructed with this administration, the following should send a chill down your spine:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The most ironic part is that the 9th circut court of appeals upheld this!  Yes, the 9th.  The MOST LIBERAL COURT WE HAVE!  I guess they see no problem with invasion of privacy, confiscation of private property.   I'm sure if there was a way to read your mind they would see no problem with it.  They could weed out people that didn't have the same political philosophy as they have.

<<Shakes head, wounders what this country is doing to it's self>>

-P.

;D ;D Paul,
       Your an intellegent man, if your traveling out through the borders, just ship your laptop UPS to your destination?  John

One more level of "bend over and take it?" I think not. DHS has absolutely no reason to acquire any information from me or my laptop unless I have given them reason.

Just another step closer to becoming a jack-booted thug form of government.

When 911 happened, the congress was only too eager to sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of homeland security.  It's a slippery slope, my friends, and the only way we can fall is down....

*sigh*

Ray

"The policies cover "any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form," including hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover "all papers and other written documentation," including books, pamphlets and "written materials commonly referred to as 'pocket trash' or 'pocket litter.' "

The revolution is getting closer!  >:(

Had me going there for a minute.  That is the year I graduated from HS and got married to my sweatheart of 25 years.  Oh the memories.  

wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 5:36pm:

[b] The revolution is getting closer!  >:(

Amen brother

On top of that, our fun-loving Senate, thanks again to the lack of a veto-proof vote, blocked the latest jounalist protection bill. Nothing new here.

Throughout history despots have delighted in using events like 9-11 to grab tighter control. It's not new. Sad though.

Charlie

Consider the source--and for what it's worth:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

I dunno.  Maybe I'll walk to wherever I'm going from now on.
Best,

George

This from the WashingtonPost link:


Quote:

In April, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the government's power to conduct searches of an international traveler's laptop without suspicion of wrongdoing. The Customs policy can be viewed at: http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/travel/admissability/ search_authority.ctt/search_authority.pdf.

Quote:

Officials said such procedures have long been in place but were disclosed last month because of public interest in the matter.

It has seemed the basic duty of a judge to uphold the law.  What the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did was to uphold a Supreme Court ruling and a 4th Circuit Court ruling.

from this link:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Quote:

...the Supreme Court has called for a reasonable-suspicion standard for certain types of border searches such as those that could cause exceptional damage to property or those conducted in a "particularly offensive manner."  Neither of those situations applied in Arnold's case, he said. He also pointed to a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the warrant-less search of a vehicle that was entering the U.S. from Canada. As a result, the Fourth Circuit Court held that warrant-less searches were OK because requiring otherwise would have imposed an "unworkable standard" on customs officials. "We are persuaded by the analysis of our sister circuit," O'Scannlain wrote.

This was the case brought to the 9th Circuit Court:


Quote:

The case involves a man named Michael Arnold, who was arrested in 2005 on charges of transporting child pornography on his laptop. According to a description of the case in court records, Arnold was returning home from a three-week vacation in the Philippines in July 2005, when he was pulled aside for secondary customs screening at Los Angeles International Airport. A customs officer who was inspecting Arnold's luggage asked him to start his computer and had it examined by colleagues who found several images of what they believed were child pornography on the computer and in several storage devices that Arnold was carrying with him. A grand jury later charged Arnold with knowingly transporting child pornography in interstate and foreign commerce, and for knowingly possessing a hard drive and CD-ROMs containing more than one image of child pornography. Arnold filed a motion asking for the evidence against him to be suppressed, arguing that the search of his computer and storage devices by customs officers had been unreasonable and unwarranted. The district court ruled in his favor on the grounds that reasonable suspicion indeed needed to have existed for customs officials to have conducted the search. The government filed an appeal against that decision essentially arguing that reasonable suspicion standards did not apply to searches at the border. In concurring with that view, the Ninth Circuit yesterday rejected Arnold's arguments that reasonable suspicion was needed to search a computer...

If any one of us were to judge this case, would suppressing the evidence and letting this man go also sit right?  

It all may make the issue ever so complex framing the situation as below.


Quote:

...the Fourth Circuit Court held that warrant-less searches were OK because requiring otherwise would have imposed an "unworkable standard" on customs officials.

It may seem also though that unwarranted searches and seizures are an unworkable standard for law-abiding citizens.  I'm confused.

Buffalo and Niagara Falls is taking a beating with this kind of thing. Also, a fifty year old tradition of Canada-American kids baseball games around Erie, Pennsylavania every year may be a victim of this too. God I hate the 21st century

Charlie

If the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had not upheld the government's position, in this day of news sensationalism we would have been reading, "Ninth Circuit ignores Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit Court to let child pornography into CA"


I don't recall any warrant ever needed to search a car at the border between the U.S. and Canada.


Quote:

the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the warrant-less search of a vehicle that was entering the U.S. from Canada. ..the Fourth Circuit Court held that warrant-less searches were OK because requiring otherwise would have imposed an "unworkable standard" on customs officials. "We are persuaded by the analysis of our sister circuit," O'Scannlain wrote.

Quote:

CBP Authority to Search A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer’s border search authority is derived from federal statutes and regulations, including 19 C.F.R. 162.6, which states that, "All persons, baggage and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof are liable to inspection by a CBP officer." CBP officers may, unfortunately, inconvenience law-abiding citizens in order to detect those involved in illicit activities. Although CBP does use information from various systems and specific techniques for selecting passengers for targeted examinations, a component of our risk management practices is the use of a completely random referral for a percentage of travelers. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

They've inspected buttholes in the past, are laptops out of bounds?  I don't visualize law enforcement having the power of a "limited" search only.

  The man at the border has been searching our goods and persons, since who flung the chunk. So this should come as no surprise to anyone.
  Although I must admit, I thought as a US National that I had some rights under the 4th amendment to prevent them from going very far without reasonable suspecion (sic) of wrong doing. I thought there was some standard point at which, I would be advised of my rights, and I could have legal counsel before they went any further.
  When do the rights of the many overcome, the rights of the idividual in a free society?
  Their rationalizations ring hollow to me.
[smiley=smokin.gif]

As it stands presently concerning the 4th:


Quote:

Border search exception Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the "border-search" exception.[47] Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to Customs' plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, including strip and body cavity searches must be supported by 'reasonable suspicion.' START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

the gov's story on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case:


Quote:

And on July 17, 2005, an individual arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Manila, Philippines. He was selected for a secondary examination and exhibited nervous behavior when questioned about the purpose of travel to Manila. After failing to provide consistent answers about his occupation and purpose of travel, a declaration was obtained and the individual’s luggage was inspected. Upon inspection of his laptop and CDs found in the individual’s luggage, officers found images of child pornography. Similar to our efforts with respect to vehicles, suitcases, backpacks, hard-copy documents, and conveyances, our examinations of laptops and other digital devices are consistent with longstanding constitutional authorities at the border... START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

As stated in the case:


Quote:

...the Supreme Court has called for a reasonable-suspicion standard for certain types of border searches such as those that could cause exceptional damage to property or those conducted in a "particularly offensive manner."  Neither of those situations applied in Arnold's case...

from a previous link in the thread:


Quote:

In February, the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), two San Francisco-based civil liberties groups, filed a lawsuit in California citing complaints from travelers of excessive screenings at border entry points, including inspections of the data on laptops, cell phones and other electronic devices.

While unsurprising as to how many are aligned in thought with the San Fransisco-based civil liberty groups about this, a good enough case hasn't been made.  Until someone can,  EFF's United States vs Arnold seems to have been the latest case on appeal:


Quote:

The Ninth Circuit panel rejected our argument that the privacy invasion resulting from searching computers is qualitatively different from, and requires higher suspicion than, searching luggage or other physical items. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE