seems suspicious. they won't just randomly ask a returning traveling US citizen for his phone password. what did they already know of this guy and what did they think he was up to in Nicaragua?

NM the fourth, invoke the fifth. You cannot force me to testify against myself and I will not unlock my electronics. Do your job and gather your evidence on your own.

It's called intel?

Lots of confusion about the 4th Amendment on this thread and in general.

The 4th Amendment does NOT require a warrant for a search.

A search under the 4th Amendment must not be unreasonable. It is well established that random searches near the border are not unreasonable.

I have to disagree with you that no warrant is required.
This is the 4th Amendment from my PowerPoint. The last part, in red print, specifically states "no WARRANT shall issue, but upon probable cause…."

No specific form is required but a "warrant" is specifically required.

You are misreading the Amendment.

It does NOT say a warrant is required for every search or seizure. There a numerous situations when a warrant is not required.

Those exceptions have been carved out by case law post the US Constitution being written. Obviously the automobile exception did not exist in the 1700s. That exception was created by case law in 1925.

There were no exceptions written into the Constitution.

Waiting on a Natty said:

---

Those exceptions have been carved out by case law post the US Constitution being written. Obviously the automobile exception did not exist in the 1700s. That exception was created by case law in 1925.

There were no exceptions written into the Constitution.

---

The Constitution AS WRITTEN does not require a warrant in every search.

There are two phrases.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Searches and seizures cannot be unreasonable.

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.

when a warrant is issued, it must be upon probable cause.

Now, no one disputes that generally warrants must be obtained. But that depends on the circumstances. And conservatives believe you look at the circumstances as they existed in 1791!

BTKAG97 said:

---

The SC has repeatedly made judgements that 4A rights are limited at a POI though not sure if a person can be ordered to disclose personal passwords. I'm guessing it is doubtful but I'm not a lawyer.

---

You are right that Port of Entries provide fewer constitutional protections than check points.

The ol' body cavity search threat was mighty effective when we were kids crossing the border.

At land borders, long before x-rays, dogs, and density sensors the threat of them taking a vehicle apart (and it actually wasn't a threat as they did it often and with great prejudice back then) usually elicited great cooperation. Contrary to popular myth they really didn't have to put the vehicle back together, at least not with much care and in a reasonable time frame.

When crossing a border US Customs is basically the game warden equivalent in the federal LEO realm.

What they can do, if they so choose, to commercial shipments is pretty wild as well.

UntoldSpirit said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Anyone that's ever been within 75 miles of Mexico knows this. They do random searches at the checkpoints. I've been randomly searched 3 times.

---

So you saying if I go to a border town and don't cross the border, and then on my way back, I go through a check point, which usually isn't right at the border, they can force me to give my password to my phone and then search everything in it?

I go through checkpoints like that a few times a year and I've never seen it.

---

You know the 4th amendment isn't just for phones right?

techno-ag said:

---

https://liveandletsfly.com/cbp-fourth-amendment-airport/

So this citizen flew into Bush Intercontinental from Nicaragua and CBP flagged him, demanding he give over his passwords for phone and laptop.

He said it's a 4th Amendment violation. They said there essentially is no 4th Amendment at the border. He stood his ground for about 4 hours before giving in and they searched all his stuff. He is suing.

It'll work its way through the court system but for now looks like you pretty much have to hand over your digital stuff when crossing back into the homeland.

I give it 5 years to be heard by SCOTUS.

And if you're that worried about it leave your phone at home and buy a burner overseas.

---

Been happening for a long time. I heard from a friend that Saudis really like their porn.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Anyone that's ever been within 75 miles of Mexico knows this. They do random searches at the checkpoints. I've been randomly searched 3 times.

---

Yes and no. Those checkpoints are specifically looking for drug and human trafficking. You're not going to find drugs or humans on a phone. That seems beyond the scope of normal border inspection.

Jeeper79 said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Anyone that's ever been within 75 miles of Mexico knows this. They do random searches at the checkpoints. I've been randomly searched 3 times.

---

Yes and no. Those checkpoints are specifically looking for drug and human trafficking. You're not going to find drugs or humans on a phone. That seems beyond the scope of normal border inspection.

---

You may find histories of interesting websites or pictures of "things".

RGV AG said:

---

The ol' body cavity search threat was mighty effective when we were kids crossing the border.

At land borders, long before x-rays, dogs, and density sensors the threat of them taking a vehicle apart (and it actually wasn't a threat as they did it often and with great prejudice back then) usually elicited great cooperation. Contrary to popular myth they really didn't have to put the vehicle back together, at least not with much care and in a reasonable time frame.

When crossing a border US Customs is basically the game warden equivalent in the federal LEO realm.

What they can do, if they so choose, to commercial shipments is pretty wild as well.

---

I had my back seat removed on several occasions and not put back. (Thanks guys)

ts5641 said:

---

Don't do anything nefarious on your phone and you'll be fine. Non issue.

---

Like perhaps making posts on Texags that the current ruling party would disagree with?

I know plenty on here are cool with turning foreigners away for their social media posts, but everything is in place to also punish Americans for their views. Which might seem a lot more disturbing to F16 come January of 2029.

Worth reminding that even though SCOTUS said it's not unconstitutional for these invasions to occur, it doesn't mean we have to actually accept it. Mere legislation from Congress could limit these searches.

It's interesting that what seems like a significant majority of citizens on both sides of the spectrum don't like the government having such broad search powers against citizens at or near the borders, but we continue to allow it and don't hold our leaders accountable.

Seems to me that if the two sides could sometimes put aside their differences and come together on issues like these, we could make things a lot better.