What's stopping this from law enforcement just claiming suspicion of crimes, if no need for a warrant? It seems this is referring to probable cause, for which I don't see how a border agent would...
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that U.S. border agents need “reasonable suspicion” but not a warrant to search travelers’ smartphones and laptops at airports and other U.S. ports of entry, a practice that has been growing in recent years.
What's stopping this from law enforcement just claiming suspicion of crimes, if no need for a warrant?
It seems this is referring to probable cause, for which I don't see how a border agent would reasonably be able to dictate in a span of few minutes in customs.
I've never been to the states so I know very little about the legal system. Setting a legal precedent by having a judge decide a case is great for other people to later refer to in their cases ......
I've never been to the states so I know very little about the legal system. Setting a legal precedent by having a judge decide a case is great for other people to later refer to in their cases ... in a court.
My guess is the vast majority of people who have forcibly had their devices seized/unlocked will have just been refused entry and never even reached a court case. They will have simply have been refused entry (in which case what recourse have they got?) or they will have been allowed in to enjoy their holiday / meeting / business trip / whatever and never even consider taking the government to court.
What's stopping this from law enforcement just claiming suspicion of crimes, if no need for a warrant?
It seems this is referring to probable cause, for which I don't see how a border agent would reasonably be able to dictate in a span of few minutes in customs.
I've never been to the states so I know very little about the legal system. Setting a legal precedent by having a judge decide a case is great for other people to later refer to in their cases ... in a court.
My guess is the vast majority of people who have forcibly had their devices seized/unlocked will have just been refused entry and never even reached a court case. They will have simply have been refused entry (in which case what recourse have they got?) or they will have been allowed in to enjoy their holiday / meeting / business trip / whatever and never even consider taking the government to court.