Don't forget -- paper can be a fearsome weapon!

This touches upon one of the things I find most perverse about the search: It appears to be utterly pointless to me.

I can upload data from my home to the USA any time I want, before or after travel or, indeed, without ever visiting the US. I can upload securely, with zero chance of anyone searching the data. Yet some Customs guy can search my laptop. Clearly, the best thing to do is have no data (of any significance) on my laptop and upload data from elsewhere as needed.

Not sure of what you meant by that....the paper is not the issue...it's the contents of someone's personal information that is none of the government's business (except where expressly permitted, like a border search).

My opinion is that many people, as evidenced here, simultaneously overestimate their own intelligence while underestimating that of the various forms of law enforcement they may encounter. Not to mention sloppiness in hiding that which you don't want seen, etc. Call it hubris, if you like.

Interestingly, this characterisitic is one of the principal reasons criminals are caught.. they aren't stupid people, but they are arrogant and believe themselves to be intellectually superior to LEOs. Which works fine until it doesn't.

As a matter of practicality for not-so-special (electronic) files, I increasingly store nothing on my computers and just use a "virtual harddrive" kind of set-up occassionally with an encrypted USB-drive.

This way if there is a physical theft, it's not as big a deal.

Wow and what are showing here with your remarks? How prophetic or pathetic depending on our point of view.

If the best you have to challenge my opinion is a typing error, you might wish to keep your own counsel.

Yeah, the purloined letter technique.

I was thinking of putting it into some sort of password-protected archive, finding a program that has a bunch of large data files integral to it (games are good candidates), put it in that directory with a name similar to the real files. No customs inspector would have a hope of finding something like that. It would take a careful forensic examination to find it.

I agree with you. My post was an attempt at sarcasm. I was talking about paper cuts and how the TSA had better ensure your paper isn't a threat.

I agree very much with the above post. In addition to arrogance, I think there is also a certain complacency that begins after you have "gotten away with" a crime a few times. This often makes a repeat criminal sloppy and easier to catch.

"Start", "search", "pictures,movies, or video." That'll catch the careless amateurs. Can't imagine someone importing material for sale carrying it physically through customs. Still, the number of news stories which mention that "obscene material with underage models was found on so and so's computer" means there's a lot of people out there with such material for "personal use".

Interestingly enough I have a form letter here at the office that I use in these situations. It probably is more of an issue in my field of law than others. I am less concerned with attorney client priviledge than I am with public disclosure of the information (not that I don't care about AC priv. It is just the public disclosure ends my clients case). If you would like you can PM me and I will send you a copy of the letter I use in these situations. Most of the time the TSA folks won't sign the documents, but the LEO's will as will most supervisors. You just have to ask for supervisor. The other thing I do is when ever they even go to open my bag I demand a private room. I always push for a room with a door. Part of it is that you never know who can see though the tops or the walls of the "private screens" and part is when they are in a room, they tend to loose a lot of the authority stuff, because you asked for it.

As for getting called out on it by opponents it happens. I have now seen interogtories that ask has any person traveled through and airport with any documents associated with......, If so identifiy those persons and produce all reciepts, boarding passes and other travel documents associated with any travel answered in the affirmative above. Were any of the above identified persons subjected to security screening? Were at any time any of the travelers possessions out of their imediate controll? If so identify all persons who had contact with the possessions during this time. Were any of the possessions ever handled by a person other than the traveler? If so identify and produce those items.

You can see how this type of questioning can create a real problem for attorneys. 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.

Hence why we have this form.

I had no idea that a security screening could waive privilege like that. Doesn't seem right.

Out of curiosity, what is on that form you mentioned? The only two problems I can think of that some employees might have in signing it would be a). obligating the government when they are not authorized to do so, and b). disclosure of their own personal information.

Yes, I'm an actual frequent flyer, and have been since the 80s. Unlike some, I'm not obsessed with TSA to the extent that I've memorized the myriad acronyms that this administration has come up with to justify abrogations of Constitutional rights.

Ah, once again, a non-lawyer knows better. Fine. Let me be very clear, since you seem to have missed the point:

The question is not whether the government has the power to inspect anything crossing the border, but whether it has the power to preclude the importation of material that is non-obscene, as a matter of law, but nonetheless deemed "immoral" and excluded solely on that basis.

The federal government is a government of limited powers, meaning it only has those specific powers that were ceded to it by the states and the citizens at the formation of the nation. It can not exercise powers that it does not have -- doing so is a usurpation of sovereignty, a violation of the Constitution, and simply illegal.

The Bill of Rights, consisting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is a reiteration of specific powers denied to the federal government, i.e. it is a limitation on federal power. The First Amendment precludes restrictions on speech. Two hundred plus years of consistent jurisprudence has held that the restriction, in part, prelcudes the ability to restrict protected speech on the basis of its content. "Obscenity" has a legal meaning, and is specifically defined as "not speech." For that reason, the federal government does not exceed its authority when it precludes importation of obscenity. "Immorality" has no legal meaning, and precluding importation of expression based on its supposed "immoral," but non-obscene, character constitutes impermissible content-based speech regulation.

Customs can look at whatever it wants. It cannot seize "immoral," but otherwise non-obscene and protected speech.

I hope this is sufficiently clear.

Uhh, SPN Lifer is a former AUSA in Saipan. I'm certain that he is, in fact, a lawyer.