Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg
This is an old law. I believe it was part of the Tariff Act of 1930, although I don't know how much it has been revised since then. Any revisions in the last four or five years have not been substantive. Of that, I am quite certain.
Nope. But you can still blame the Republicans. According to an encyclopedia, the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act was co-sponsored by a Repubican Representative (Hawley) and a Republican Senator (Smoot). It was then signed by a Republican president (Hoover).
For those of you who requested the paper I give TSA when searching my bags with documents, can you please make sure you gave me your email addy's in the PM. I will try and send them out today.
__________________
I kindly ask for your vote in the TalkBoard election. Regardless, I encourage you all to vote.
Location: Saipan, MP 96950 USA (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands = the CNMI)
Posts: 8,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
In my opinion, the statute is unconstitutional for two primary reasons. First, as you note, "immoral" is undefined, rendering the statute fatally void for vagueness. Second, and more important, however, is that the statute engages in impermissible content-based discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment.
With the time you've spent on all this writing, you could have checked out the "constitutionality" squibs in the U.S. Code Annotated for the statute in question, 19 U.S.C. § 1305.
I don't know the source of rights in Canada, nor do I know whether Canada has a Constitution that constitutes a limitation on federal power. Finally, I don't know whether Canada has the equivalent of a First Amendment.
Some quick reading for you to enlighten you on the Canadian Consitution since nobody else has bothered to find the url:
I did get a portion of a file from an oponent using this line of questioning. The BP sent to me had SSSS on it, so I knew the bag had been opened, they claimed priviledge, but TSA is not law enforcement. They had to turn it over because of the judge indicated that because the search was held in an open area where anyone could see the documents the attorney in question had failed to try and keep the priviledge. The judge indicated had he simply requested a private screening that would most likely be enough, and he suggested to all that we have form to be signed as well.
And what happens if they refuse to sign the form but search your bags?
I can't say that I think it's "just" for clients to get screwed like this because their attorneys were subject to an unreasonable search. And I suppose the same argument would thus apply to the clients themselves - if their bags were ever searched while carrying around secret documents, etc.
And what happens if they refuse to sign the form but search your bags?
I can't say that I think it's "just" for clients to get screwed like this because their attorneys were subject to an unreasonable search. And I suppose the same argument would thus apply to the clients themselves - if their bags were ever searched while carrying around secret documents, etc.
Technically speaking, depending on the mood of the judge you could have been found to have waived the privilege. What you are supposed to do is refuse the search and not fly in order to protect the privilege. Generally speaking after explaining to the supervisor why this is important I haven't run into much trouble having the supervisors sign it. Heck at MSP if I use one checkpoint (and crew) and they have to do the search they know the drill and just ask me for the paperwork. Its kind of funny when it happens, which isn't that often.
The situation isn't the best for attorneys. It is more a damned if we do, damned if we don't. We have to protect our client's interests, yet we have to go see them too.
__________________
I kindly ask for your vote in the TalkBoard election. Regardless, I encourage you all to vote.
Althought the black-letter "constitutional law" might be similar between the countries, any sort of professional interpretation on how a given situation would be treated under Canadian law is pointless without, at a bare minimum, an understanding of Canadian judicial precedents and legislative/executive interpretations (and knowledge of the degree to which they play a role in adjudicating future issues that may arise).
Althought the black-letter "constitutional law" might be similar between the countries, any sort of professional interpretation on how a given situation would be treated under Canadian law is pointless without, at a bare minimum, an understanding of Canadian judicial precedents and legislative/executive interpretations (and knowledge of the degree to which they play a role in adjudicating future issues that may arise).
"... or any lottery ticket, or any printed paper that may be used as a lottery ticket, or any advertisement of any lottery."
It is fair to say that I receive lottery spam every day, so the email (at least the spam box) on my laptop could have been deemed to have contained advertisements for lotteries!
Many do not.As an attorney, you undoubtedly know that a CBP search at the "functional equivalent of a border" is almost unlimited, while a TSA search is not. In either case, one would want to summon a supervisor -- someone chime in about the levels of TSA officer supervision -- and be sure to explain everything and document everything, including names. You might want to generally tell them about attorney-client files. It would be good to have documentation of your assertions, such as business cards, bar cards, copies of law degree, etc.
Carrying around a copy of one's diploma could look suspicious. The CBP/TSA officer might think it's part of a cover story. Besides, my J.D. diploma is framed and measures over two feet on each side, so it doesn't fit in the overhead compartment.
Business cards and bar cards, though, would be a good idea. (For that matter, I never leave home without my business cards, because I never know when I'll be asked for one by a potential client.) I've read at least one story of an attorney being asked by Customs for a business card to back up his answer to the, "What do you do for a living?" question.
I hadn't been worried about the TSA wanting to go through my files; at most, I figured they'd ask me to turn on the laptop to prove it's actually a computer and not a bomb in disguise. But I have considered the CBP issue, especially since I live relatively near the border, and here are my thoughts on it.
I don't carry my laptop across the border unless it's necessary. They can't search what I don't have.
I don't doubt that U.S. and Canadian Customs have the authority to access my hard drive... but if I'm using encryption or whatever, am I required to help them out by telling them the password?
If I'm entering Canada, the officer could simply deny me admission. In that case, I likely would explain what I do for a living and ethics Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), present my business and/or bar card if asked, and use my professional judgment to handle the situation as it develops.
Coming back into the U.S. is a slightly different matter. I'd politely decline to provide the password and explain that disclosing it could be an ethics violation that could subject me to discipline. They're welcome to haul me before a federal judge... even if the judge orders me to provide the password, I think he or she will at least understand why I initially refused and go easy on me.
