Bipartisan Bill Would Require A Warrant To Search Americans' Devices At The Border

from the would-be-a-start dept

As we've discussed for many years, Homeland Security and the Justice Department have convinced too many courts that there is some sort of 4th Amendment "exception" at the border, whereby Customs and Border Patrol agents (CBP) are somehow allowed to search through your laptops, phones, tablets and more just because, fuck it, they can. Now bipartisan pairs in both the Senate and the House have introduced a new bill that would require that CBP get a warrant to search the devices of Americans at the border. On the Senate side, the bill is sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul, and in the House, it's Reps. Blake Farenthold and Jared Polis. Honestly, it's absolutely ridiculous that this kind of bill is even needed in the first place, because the 4th Amendment should just take care of it. But with DHS and the courts not properly appreciating the 4th Amendment's requirment for a warrant to do a search, here we are. Here's a short summary of the bill as well, that notes:

The government has asserted broad authority to search or seize digital devices at the border without any level of suspicion due to legal precedent referred to as the “border search exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause or a warrant.

Until 2014, the government claimed it did not need a warrant to search a device if a person had been arrested. In a landmark unanimous decision, the Supreme Court (in Riley v. California) ruled that digital data is different and that law enforcement needed a warrant to search an electronic device when a person has been arrested.

This bill recognizes the principles from that decision extend to searches of digital devices at the border. In addition, this bill requires that U.S. persons are aware of their rights before they consent to giving up online account information (like social media account names or passwords) or before they consent to give law enforcement access to their devices.

That last part is especially important, given how eager Homeland Security has been to start demanding social media passwords as you deplane. Unfortunately, the bill as written only applies to "US Persons" as defined here, meaning that it may not be of much help for a new DHS proposal, also revealed this week, to more aggressively pursue phone and social media searches of foreigners. This is a bad idea for a whole host of reasons we've already discussed, but the short version is that it's bad for security, it's bad for tourism, it's bad for Americans' safety (because other countries will reciprocate). It's just a bad, bad idea.

At the very least, this new bill would block this from happening for American citizens or otherwise legal aliens, but it should go much further. And, of course, who knows if this bill will get any traction, or get signed by the President.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, blake farenthold, border search, border search exception, devices, jared polis, rand paul, ron wyden


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Eldakka (profile), 7 Apr 2017 @ 3:38am

    This bill is on the wrong track

    what they should be proposing is a bill that states something along the lines of:

    1) The US constitution, including, but not limited to, all clauses, articles and amendments, apply in full force to:
    i) Any place that is part of US Territory;
    ii) Any place that is administered as part of US Territory;
    iii) Any place that is under the control of US civil or military personnel
    iv) Any place US civil or Military personnel claim or exercise jurisdiction, or appear to claim or exercise jurisdiction, in full or in part.
    v) Any personnel acting in the capacity of or under the authority of US civil or military authority or direction.

    2) There is no border exception to the constitution.

    3) there is no place that US civil or military personnel can exercise authority or jurisdiction in any civil or military matter that is not subject to the full constitution, including, but not limited to, all clauses, articles and amendments.

    4) SCOTUS has full legal jurisdiction in any and all cases covered in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause, and can make binding rulings on any such situation that apply to all US citizens, including, but not limited to, the US congress, executive, military and POTUS and to all locations covered in clause 1.

    5) SCOTUS is the sole arbitor of whether any clauses in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause, apply.

    6) POTUS must not:
    i) make any Executive Order; or
    ii) issue an order as the Supreme Commander of US military forces; or
    iii)make any other direction;
    that is not compliant with any clause in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause.

    6) The Congress of the US can make no law abridging any clause in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause.


    Even better, Something like the above should be added as an amendment to the constitution.

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
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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