Is This The Best Homeland Security Can Do In Defending Laptop Searches At The Border?

from the probable-cause-is-so-last-millennium dept

The courts have said that US Customs officials do not need probable cause to search laptops. While some Senators are questioning why Department of Homeland Security is searching laptops without probable cause, the administration is working hard to defend such searches at the border as reasonable. However, they're not making very much sense. The article trots out James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation with a couple of interesting statements. Let's take them in order. First:
"The idea that we would create some kind of sanctuary for criminals and terrorists to carry things across the border to me is absolutely ludicrous."
Well, that's not just an exaggeration, it's wrong. Does Carafano actually believe that someone manually walking a laptop across the border is the only way that data gets across the border? Of course that's not true. Data flows across borders via the network all the time -- with no customs review whatsoever. No one is walking across the border with a laptop thinking that's the best way to get some data across the border. Then there's this statement:
"It's also unrealistic to require probable cause when you think about the millions of people a day who come in and go out of the country."
Let's just change a few words in that statement and see how Carafano feels about it: "It's also unrealistic to require probable cause when you think about the millions of people a day who walk up and down the streets of America." Yet, we don't hear Carafano pushing for a removal of probable cause for searches on the street, do we?

The border searches of laptops issue is a ridiculous one. Yes, it makes sense to search through what physical goods you might be bringing into the country -- because you specifically chose to bring those goods into the country. But the digital things you have stored on your laptop are an overall archive. You didn't choose to bring those specific things across the border -- and it's not like going through a border crossing is the best way to move that content across the border. There's simply no reason for why laptop searches should be allowed without probable cause.

Filed Under: border searches, customs, homeland security, laptops

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Overcast, 11 Jul 2008 @ 7:47am

    > the law clearly states that the 4th amendment
    > operates differently at the border.

    Yeah - perhaps - but this law, again, makes no question of how this is to be applied. Any law to the contrary is simply illegal - regardless of what various Government thugs say.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Again - it doesn't say anything about it being different at the border. It CLEARLY states this right "shall not be violated" - period. Regardless of what other bullshit the courts and congress want the sheep in this country to believe. That's clear and concise. I don't believe where it takes place matters - I think it means ANY US LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL that's doing his job this applies to.

    Don't believe the lies you hear in the media and from the politicians of today - it's illegal, end of story - it's in direct violation of the 4th amendment.

    The US constitution applies to all US Citizens when they are in contact with law enforcement based in the US.

    It's not silly or paranoid - those who say it is, are just sugar coating the shit they try to feed us anymore to make yourself feel better when you know well they are violating our rights.

    I like how some of you people believe that this law and that law - or this constitutional right and another aren't applicable because of 'certain' conditions.

    What part of 'shall not be violated' don't some people get? Isn't that clear enough?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.