jphripjah

In what way did the feds lose? The article just says the case settled.

Ari

They lost in the early stages. That's why they settled.

Blogndog

The settlement included a stipulation that the CBP desist from the practice, and obliged the CBP to retrain its officers to understand that such targeting of individuals is not consistent with the 4th Amendment.

jphripjah

Can you send me that? I've got slow wifi in the Solomon Islands this week.

I could see a constitutional argument that targeting individuals for secondary inspection based on their political affiliations or journalistic practices violates the First Amendment.

I can't imagine any court ruling (or CBP agreeing) that the Fourth Amendment prohibits sending people to secondary inspection based on unsupported suspicion that they are criminals. That's the very essence of why most people get sent to secondary inspection.

If they ask me at the border why I went to Peru and who paid for the trip, and I get all tongue tied, they can search all my bags, even thought that's not enough for a warrant or criminal charges. That doesn't offend me or the Fourth Amendment.

If a month before my trip to Peru, police interview me about drug dealing in my neighborhood, and I get all nervous and tongue tied and mention an upcoming trip to Peru, but they don't have enough for a warrant or criminal charges, I don't see why they can't then flag me for secondary inspection and search my bags when I return.

Search laptops requires a heightened level of suspicion of course, at least in the in Ninth Circuit under the Cotterman decision. Recall in that case there was an alert on Cotterman as someone who might be bringing kiddie porn into the country, even though they didn't have enough for a warrant to search his house they took the opportunity of him crossing the border to search his stuff for evidence of deviant sexual activity/kiddie porn. I don't recall the courts expressing concern with this.

Again, if you have a copy of the stipulation or an article discussing it I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks.

Blogndog

It's probably on the ACLU web site. Obviously, the Feds can use all the normal bases for choosing someone to search, the Constitutional questions come in when there is evidence that this wasn't the reason for a secondary search, particularly if they have already been denied a request for a search warrant to conduct the same search for lack of probable cause. The essence of the decision is that you cannot use the border search exemption to skirt the 4th Amendment. Also, I believe the stipulation also acknowledged that House's First Amendment right to freedom of assembly had been violated, in addition to the 4th amendment unreasonable search issue.

DonCarpenter

Being a known associate of someone that's wanted for espionage? Whether you agree or not, it's reasonable to expect to be bothered by the authorities.

jphripjah

What decision are you referring to? Have you read a decision from a judge or read the stipulation? My understanding is that it's perfectly legal for cops to pull someone over when they witness a minor traffic violation even if their intention
is to have a look at what's in plain view in their car, or ask them for permission to search, or run a sniffing dog around around the car. It's lawful for police to ask someone to come to the station for questioning, offer him a Coke, then send the can his lips touched out for DNA testing.

I think that using the pretext of a stop at the border to poke around the luggage of a suspected criminal is just good police work that doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment, and I've never seen a court decision that says otherwise.

Here's the settlement agreement:

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/house_settlement.pdf

It seems to say that House will drop his lawsuit and in exchange the government will cancel the particular November 3, 2010 lookout that was the basis for his repeated inspections and also that the government would give him back his stuff.

I don't see anything about the government stopping the use of such lookouts for House or any other passengers in the future, nor do I see anything in the agreement suggesting that the lookouts violate the Fourth Amendment, not do I see any decision from anyone saying that you can't use the border search exception to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

GUWonder

She was being harassed by USG years before Snowden was a public figure. Was Snowden even engaged in espionage against the US? Not in any traditional sense.

Millions of Americans are a known associate of people engaged in espionage. To harass innocent people at US POEs is not a great use of taxpayer money unless you fancy a wasting of resources and governmental intimidation of those exercising First Amendment rights.

Ari

I think that's precisely the sort of thing that the government wanted to avoid and that's why they settled, if I recall correctly. The fact that the case was allowed to proceed past the initial stages is what scared the government into settlement, IMO.

Blogndog

Manning wasn't engaged in "espionage," he leaked information to the press. If the grounds for a search of House's property were so "reasonable," why couldn't they get a judge to issue a search warrant?

Worcester

He downloaded thousands of documents which related to all aspects of the security of the USA and allies before leaving the country and ending up in Russia. Only a minority of these documents related to intelligence gathering of US citizens, most were traditional intelligence gathering, against people such as ISIL, AQ and North Korea.

Russia has far far dodgier record on spying including assassinations. Why then did he end up there?

GUWonder

He didn't download documents related to all aspects of the security of the USA and "allies". All the swiped documents downloaded related to intelligence gathering of US citizens or intelligence shared with US citizens.

He ended up in Russia because the U.S. electronically invalidated his passport while he was in Hong Kong and on his way to seek aslyum elsewhere, as Hong Kong wouldn't work out and the other places being sought for asylum weren't anywhere close to finalized. When he got to Russia, he was stuck in transit as he had no visa and no asylum arrangement worked out anywhere. While in transit in Moscow, arrangements were being made by Wikileaks/Assange to get him asylum in Latin America and a travel document as his U.S. passport had been flagged -- in multiple ways -- by the USG as being invalid. Russia wasn't a bad place for him to get stranded but it wasn't where he or Wikileaks/Assange expected him to get stranded and stay. And when the NSA caught drift that he may be flying on a private plane being used by a sovereign head of state to go from Russia to Latin America, do you know what happened? The plane was forced to land in Europe to make sure Snowden wouldn't end up being delivered with political asylum in Latin America.

As the NSA knows, Putin has never been a fan of Snowden and still doesn't like him; Putin does tolerate Snowden if only because Putin likes to see egg on the face of those who annoy him strategically and advocate for sanctions against Russia -- prime examples of such being the U.S. and the UK.

Worcester

Have a look at this then.

http://www.economist.com/news/intern...yle-human-sort

Snowden was a criminal and a traitor and has helped repressive regimes such as Putin's Russia. I think it is reasonable to have a suspicion that he has been paid a lot of money for his treachery.

If he was worried about state surveillance why did he go to China (with a surveillance program which makes the US one look insignificant, just try using a VPN in China) if not to sell his secrets?

GUWonder

That Economist article is not news to me.

Snowden has not been convicted as a criminal; and your claim of treason being applicable in this matter is unlikely to hold up or go far if there was a fair and open trial in the U.S on the matter.

He didn't go to mainland China and went via Hong Kong because of what he thought he knew about extradition arrangements and the restrictions on PRC governmental activity in the Hong Kong SAR. Whether you know it or not, Hong Kong still operates with a separate body of law than mainland China/PRC.

[I've used a VPN from mainland China, so not sure what your point is about that, other than that China tries to frustrate such activity. Hong Kong has plent of VPN use.]

There has been no evidence discovered indicating Snowden to have any culpability in seeking to sell the swiped data and line his pockets with money from that. There certainly has not been any documented payment of money or other transfer of financial assets from Russian or Chinese governmental actors/agents into his pocket.

China's surveillance programs are rather extensive but they are more limited in global footprint and depth than the U.S. surveillance operations.