Originally Posted by
Global_Hi_Flyer
Before anyone celebrates, there is still a gaping hole in the decision that DHS can drive a truck through:
Link to article
A prior conviction for a different crime should not translate into reasonable suspicion that triggers a search. Under that judgement, a prior DUI conviction could, in theory, trigger a search of a hard drive for information related to growing marijuana.
"One strike and you're out".
+1
Exactly.
This judgment may have the force of law in the 9th district for now, but unless you have a corporation with a deep legal bench behind you, CBP can (and most likely will) continue to do as they please. This was one court case, and the judge still (IMHO) gave them them too much credit for making an 'honest' mistake about the plaintiff's criminal background that gave them grounds for their search.
'Reasonable suspicion' will continue unchanged, but for the few rare individuals (corporate backing, ACLU involvement, etc.), it may be easier to pursue redress after the fact (assuming your computer/camera/etc hasn't been destroyed in the process of examination and that you can afford to be without them for months).
I thought the court's definition of 'border' was somewhat inconsistent with other CBP practices. IIRC, CBP can stop people anywhere at any time within 100 miles of the border and ask for proof of citizenship. Failure to provide that proof can (and has) led to bogus claims (sometimes including alleged dog alerts) of reasonable suspicion, usually resulting in retaliatory actions. IIRC, the courts have upheld these Constitution-free border zone searches way past the border.