GUWonder

Plenty of government contractors in the IT sector don't fancy having the government seizing their equipment and have no contractual obligation to decrypt seized equipment unrelated to the specific contract.

Often1

We're not talking about "plenty" but rather OP's employer who might not even be a government contractor.

OP perhaps could shed some light on why his employer appears not to care. It's always possible that there is nothing which the employer cares about on any of the devices.

Boggie Dog

I've stayed out of this discussion, mostly because my current travels don't take me out of the country like it did so very often some years ago. I just can't help feeling that some important information is missing. OP says this isn't a LEO issue but that is exactly what it is. CBP are federal LEO's. I also have a hard time believing that CBP would single out the same person time after time without some reason, real or imagined. Surely they have better ways to spend their time.

I believe if I was in this situation and truly thought I had not violated any CBP rules I would seek out a lawyer for at least a consult. OP may be telling us all there is but my antenna are sure twitching.

GUWonder

Lots of things which are theoretically possible aren't necessarily applicable for a given circumstance.

The OP's employer is a government contractor. And it probably has greater concerns than a single employee's lost/stolen/damaged electronics that aren't worth all that much to it.

cur

Um how is this not a LEO issue. You are being monitored. By whom is obviously unknown... fbi? cia? nsa? atf? dea? or it could just be cbp intel/investigations, which isn't really that serious, but nonetheless cbp is an agency that has and can do damage to you.

Being met at the aircraft and walked to secondary is never random. Someone from above directed the port with instructions over what it is specifically to look for.

While as a citizen your entry into the country is not to be impeded without cause and you absolutely should never ever for any reason tell cbp about your life (as your answers will and have been recorded and forwarded to who/whatever mandated that you go to secondary), your goods are subject to inspection without cause. To take your cellphone and computer means they're looking for data and that data will be kept by the government. This is being used apart of an investigation. You should call the port director and ask when you can get your property back.

You need to do foia requests, where you can hopefully get some unredacted info that can give you some clues. You also should lawyer up, ideally with one who can also advise you on counter-surveillance measures. You also need to get informed on your rights and how to deal with any LEO in the future. Having a federal agency investigate you is extremely serious, although if it's just cbp then it's nothing to freak out about (but we do not know if it's just cbp). Remember lying to a federal agent is a crime, and you don't technically even need to lie to be found guilty of that. Martha Stewart went to prison solely for statements she made in good faith with two lawyers present

honestly if i were you i wouldn't even be on ft, if this is above cbp then your posts are probably being monitored too

mmmmmmmm i actually lost my ge for a bad attitude with one officer. i did a foia request that demonstrated this and i got ge back after complaining to the ombudsman with foia'd emails attached.

nonetheless the time between losing my ge and getting it back i made multiple entries (as a non citizen) without any issues whatsoever.

um i agree op needs to educate himself over his rights but so do you

with the exception of searches of the person, 4th amendment does not apply to border searches and courts have ruled multiple times that electronics containing data are not protected by the 4th. i'm being pedantic here but what happened to him is not seizure, seizure in the cbp sense means it's taken from you and you can get it back with a penalty or it's taken from you and the govt splits the proceeds with their cronies in the parking lot. seizure requires an inspection first. these items are clearly being held for inspection.

everything else you said is true, op must remain silent, but also a recent supreme court case ruled that certain types of silence can be construed as self incrimination

cur

uh first off yes you have violated laws in the us. we all have. there are so many stupid but powerful laws out there that are to the point where we don't even know we brok them. also 'having nothing to hide' doesn't matter. especially if you're not white

to understand the point that i am trying to make over how serious federal investigations can be even (especially) if you think you did nothing wrong, read the hypothetical on the 'corrupt home healthcare agency'
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigat...for-lying.html

again, do some foia, see what you get....maybe you'll get emails demonstrating it's clearly a cbp-poe thing which you can dhs-trip and take basic counter-surveilience measures or maybe it's something murkier/redacted/disjointed. either way, get a lawyer.

jphripjah

This is untrue. The fourth amendment applies at all times when law enforcement agents want to search you or your property. That doesn't meant the fourth amendment will prohibit the search. The touchstone is "reasonableness."

Routine warrantless searches of bags are per se reasonable at the border and do not violate the fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. CBP officers can also turn on computers and phones and look through them at the border.

However, some courts have ruled that if CBP wants to detain or seize a device for an off site forensic search, they need reasonable suspicion. This is the trend of where these cases are going in modern times, especially in light of what the US Supreme Court recently said about the privacy interests we all have in our electronic devices.

cur

i'm on the eff side but at the present time with regards to any device that holds data one has to assume that 4th does not apply, reasonableness not applicable

https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-arnold

also you present a valid point that in a way holding is a type of seizing, he's deprived of his work tools, not to mention that if his 2 iphones are held for a long time they're losing value, which in a way is a type of taking/stealing

jphripjah

With all you respect, you keep saying "the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply" when you mean "the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit the search."

The Fourth Amendment and the reasonableness requirement apply to all searches by law enforcement officers, some searches are permissible because they are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, some are impermissible as unreasonable searches that violate the Fourth Amendment.

The link you offer contains a cite to a 2008 case, United States v. Arnold. That case held that a CBP officer can look through a computer on the spot without reasonable suspicion.

You should read the 9th Circuit's later ruling in US v. Cotterman, which held that, under the Fourth Amendment, reasonable suspicion is required before CBP officers can detain a device and perform a forensic search off site. That case is more applicable to what the OP went through.

Again, some searches by CBP officers are reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and some are unreasonable and thus impermissible under the Fourth Amendment. They don't need a warrant to open your suitcase, but it's incorrect to say "the 4th Amendment doesn't apply" to their searches.

sbrower

Let's look at this logically (and we don't need to refer to anyone's shaving implements to be logical).

Have there ever been instances in which Federal LEO's (CBP div. of DHS is Federal LEO) have inappropriately harassed an individual because they were a person of color or because they were a member of some other minority group (including, but not limited to, the minority group who feels that the best way to protect their rights is to refuse to answer any questions)? Yes, I believe that has happened.

However, what is described here by the OP (and I am crediting his description of what happened, rather than his assumptions about the underlying causes) is not a bad interaction with one officer, followed by a note in the "file" leading to a couple of questionable interactions with other officers who didn't realize that the original note was inappropriate harassment. What is described here is a SERIOUS issue in which a federal law enforcement agency, at levels higher than the few individuals with whom OP has interacted, have made a unique determination that they are "investigating" the OP.

I think that the advice "not to waste money on a lawyer" is very bad advice (see the example about symptoms showing serious cardiac problems, above). I think that the fact that the OP hasn't already spent $50,000 on legal fees is a bit unusual and casts doubt on the rest of the story.

Section 107

In response to JayFriphJah's comment about application of the 4th Amendment:

For some persons engaged in certain behavior/activities it is also important for them to be aware that while certain information obtained by law enforcement might not be allowed to be used by prosecutors at trial as evidence against the traveler, that same information might still be useful to, and used by, security (e.g. intelligence) services.

And information that cannot be used at trial by law enforcement/prosecutors is still known to investigators and can be used them to confirm, develop or guide other avenues of investigation that might be allowed to be used as evidence at trial.

ajeleonard

Hire a lawyer. The opinions of people on an internet forum aren't going to help you in this situation.

At worst a lawyer will help you draw scrutiny to the actions of the officers.

cur

yeah all very good points, you are right. i should have shepherdized
arnold!! but i thought the border search doctrine means that any good coming thru can be search without cause? ie: cbp can arbitrarily search anything. or am i incorrect, there needs to be some sort of indicator?

the interesting thing about cottermann is that encryption + flagged for past conviction of child pornography wasn't reasonable suspicion? although the feds didn't argue reasonable suspicion

anyways what is pretty obvious is that they (any federal agency) are investigating him or some-one/thing he is associated with

i don't think it casts doubt more than it's an example of the "i have nothing to hide, why would i (worry about domestic spying?)(hire a lawyer?)(not volunteer info to a leo?)" fallacy

i think that would be the best case scenario.

either way he should file a dhs trip request and ask for his stuff back now, neither won't do any harm and dhs trip takes 6-12 months at least. after all this could be some ridiculous glitch-i was flagged as a violator (automatic walk from primary to imm secondary) for a year simply cause they misplaced my i94 around the time of the expiration of a visa i had...yet my global entry wasn't revoked.

but yeah holler at a lawyer, how much is your liberty worth?

airplanegod

The OP certainly is not telling us everything. Having possessions seized and being escorted from the aircraft is not random.

jphripjah

It's not random, but CBP officers often lie and tell passengers that non-random searches are random.

I agree that there's more to this. Officers aren't going to detain computers and waste their specialist geeks' time searching them unless the officers have a good reason to think their is evidence of criminal activity on the devices. I think they need supervisory approval to detain computers, they're not going to do this just to mess with the OP or give him a hard time.

The OP says he's been sent to secondary 12 times but more or less claims that he's never gotten a non-routine question.

I find myself wondering what the 12 destinations were, what he was doing in Brazil, etc.

I hope the OP updates us on whether he gets his stuff back.