Re:New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $...
by otterley on Tuesday October 02, 2018 @02:34AM
(#18119268)
Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice.)
The power to conduct border searches, even without probable cause, is considered well-settled under the law as not contravening the Constitution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
Re:New Zealand travellers refusing digital search now face $...
by ISL on Tuesday October 02, 2018 @09:31AM
(#18121427)
Entirely agreed that precedent accords Customs their present powers.
From the case's dissent: "If the Government is allowed to exercise he power it claims, the door will be open to the wholesale, secret examination of all incoming international letter mail. No notice would be necessary either before or after the search."
Viewed from a post-Snowden perspective, it sounds predictive.
Segregation, too, was once considered well-settled. That didn't make it right nor consistent with the Constitution, which has not changed its language on the subject since 1868.
It says so in the Constitution. "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."
That is not how it is in practice, but the Constitution is quite clear on the subject.