Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airport by border cops

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by Zak on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @12:07PM (#19564519)

"Reasonable suspicion" is a legal term. In this context, a CBP officer would need to have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe the item to be searched is illegal to bring into the country, or contains something that is illegal to bring into the country. A hunch is not sufficient; it requires objective evidence.

Reasonable suspicion is not required for every search at a border crossing, and the Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing. The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case, and has ruled that it is required.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by jandrese on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:17PM (#19565159)

That only applies if the case goes to trial though. Border guards frequently assume that they have near unlimited power regardless of what the law says.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by Zak on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @01:43PM (#19565409)

The fundamental problem is that there are rarely consequences for border guards exceeding or misusing their power. The incentives support them trying to exceed legal limits on their authority.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by maximilianroos on Thursday April 04, 2019 @12:35PM (#19574272)

> Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing

Did Cotterman 2013 clear this up? How does are circuit courts split yet the 9th assumed jurisdiction?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by Zak on Thursday April 04, 2019 @06:55PM (#19577923)

The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case because it happened in California. US v. Cotterman is the relevant case, and the 4th circuit made a similar ruling in US v. Kolsuz, but the 11th circuit held differently in US v. Touset.

So in some parts of the US, reasonable suspicion is required. In some parts, it isn't. In some parts, there is no binding precedent on the issue. It's likely that the supreme court will hear a case on the issue eventually.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ex-Mozilla CTO: I was grilled for three hours at US airpo... by mamon on Wednesday April 03, 2019 @12:47PM (#19564887)

Exept borders (and anything within 100 miles from it) are basically a zone where US Constitution does not apply. You can be detained and sent to Guantanamo for made up "terrirst threat" and there's no really a legal recourse.

[ Parent | on HN ]