Since when does a person carry their email account across the border?

If a lawyer crosses the border, can he/she be forced to reveal the password to the law firm's server to give the customs inspector access to legal files?

Not so fast - Customs has the right to inspect anything being brought into the US, but they do not have the right to read private correspondence of a US citizen who is not presenting themselves for entry into the US. In fact, hopefully the Feingold initiative will pass into law and prevent Customs from these types of random infiltrations into people's privacy.

That's assuming you're coming to see family. I would be partially cautious about that, since they may think that if you have family here, you may stay illegally - this depends on where you're coming from.

Main point is, people should never say more than they have to, and should never say they're coming here to see a girlfriend/boyfriend or a fiance. That's a big red flag for CBP. It shouldn't be, but it is.

The US gov't (State Dept. et al.) is pretty insane when it comes to this kind of thing. As an example, they will refuse someone a tourist visa to visit family in the US (as the person might stay with the family), even though the family is in a position to sponsor the person for a green card.

Again, and from a Canadian perspective, this is caught when the VISA is issued, not by some random officer at the airport. The VISA officer should address these issues. Otherwise, what's the point of the visa?

Because the DoS isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

The officer was not reading the emails of a US citizen, he was reading the emails of a Thai citizen attempting to enter the US under suspicious circumstances. The fact a US citizen may have sent emails to her or received emails from her is not a violation of their rights. If you don't want anyone to ever read your communications, do not send them. The government can and does read your posts, emails, and listen to your phone calls.

I really find it suspect and doubt this story as written.

..in violation of the law.

For a single woman coming from Southeast Asia the third degree is unfortunately the norm. Even a SE Asian woman married for years to a US citizen (which describes my sister in law) comes in for attention - all because there is a perception that they "might" be coming for the sex business, or they "might" overstay. The thought is that insulting and harassing a thousand visitors is better than letting one hooker into the USA.

Especially since 9/11 the focus is on keeping people out. As long as no CBP person is at any risk of losing their job for being rude, intrusive and abusive, some number of them (fortunately it seems to be a minority) will be exactly that. Most just do their job but some ought not be in contact with the public, or perhaps, anyone.

I see no reason to doubt any of the post- it is an old story and unfortunately, one likely to be repeated until and unless CBP's management sends a different message as to what behavior and judgments are and are not acceptable. I have myself come in for extended "questioning" at DFW when returning from Southeast Asia. One of the questions was "Why would you go to Cambodia?" That question says at lot about who works for CBP.

Bad apples + bad management = bad service.

I think it's the fluff and the unnecessary drama of the story that make it unbelievable to some: "She was brought into a small room where she saw a camera peering down. The officer conducting the shakedown...." Ooooh!

Your legal analysis is way off here.

The US citizen suffers from a significantly reduced expectation of privacy when the e-mail is sent to another person. The case law (don't ask me for references since I'm going from memory here) suggests that the sender accepts the risk that the recipient will share that e-mail with other people. Therefore, the expectation of privacy is reduced.

If we change the facts slightly...suppose I am investigating you for some federal crime. Perhaps I believe you have sent letters to a friend in which you confess to said crime. Should I not have the right to go and ask your friend for the letters? Of course. And, should I have probable cause, I could even obtain a search warrant and get them without your friend's consent.

It is the same situation as making consensually monitored phone calls. If the CBP officers had asked the Thai woman to call the US citizen and allow the call to be recorded (without the US citizen's knowledge or consent) it would have been perfectly legal, without any court order. The reasoning is the same: when having a phone conversation, you take the risk that the other party is sharing the conversation with others. If that other party chooses to share the conversation with the government, you have no recourse.

As to coercing the e-mail password, it doesn't bother me much. The way our immigration law is written, the burden of proof is upon an alien seeking admission to prove that they are admissible to the country. The alien was given the option of providing access to e-mail in order to meet that burden. And it was successful. She could have refused, but then would have been unable to meet the required burden of proof.

What if a CBP officer "asks" for the key or password to your home (say it's a keypad entry), and then calls the local cops and asks them to search the home. Would this be any more or less legal than the email thing?

Why would searching a home on US soil be any different than searching a server on US soil?

What about the fact that certain states make it illegal to record a call without informing both parties? Do such laws not apply to CBP officers?

You are forgetting wiretap law.

Correct. Such laws do not apply to federal law enforcement personnel.

Edited to add: state laws would apply to state law enforcement personnel attempting to do the same thing. In those states in which one-party consensual recordings are not allowed, state officers would have to obtain a court order while a federal officer would not.

Not at all. It's a technique I (and my colleagues) use very frequently. I've used such recordings in plenty of criminal trials. Never had a suppression problem. And here's the reason...

The Federal Wiretap Act (commonly called "Title III") can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This is the federal law that makes wiretapping illegal. It has the following provision, found at 18 USC 2511(2)(c):