- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CBP Says Americans Have No Fourth Amendment At The Airport
Posted on 12/16/25 at 12:41 pm to PeleofAnalytics
Posted on 12/16/25 at 12:41 pm to PeleofAnalytics
The cases you posted pre-edit weren't entirely relevant, but you're right that electronic device searches are complicated.
LINK
As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has never ruled on electronic searches of a citizen's device at a border entry (or equivalent). That's why I said in my first post that it'd be interesting to see where this goes
LINK
quote:
Lower courts have considered whether the routine border search exception authorizes warrantless searches of cell phones and other electronic devices at the border. For instance, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that manually inspecting the contents of a computer or cell phone at the border is permissible given the government's broad authority at the border, and that such searches are no less routine than scanning the contents of a traveler's luggage. But lower courts have disagreed over whether more intrusive searches of electronic devices require particularized suspicion of criminal activity. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have both held that the forensic examination of a device (e.g., using software to copy a computer's hard drive and analyze its contents entirely, or recording information from a cell phone for further processing) exceeds the scope of a routine border search because of its comprehensive nature and the enhanced risk of exposing private information. In doing so, both courts relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Riley that cell phone searches implicate greater privacy concerns than searches of most other physical items. Thus, the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that forensic searches of electronic devices require reasonable suspicion of a crime. Conversely, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the Fourth Amendment requires no suspicion of criminal activity for intrusive border searches of electronic devices or any other type of personal property (as opposed to intrusive searches of a person's body), and that Riley does not apply to searches at the border, where there are diminished privacy expectations.
As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has never ruled on electronic searches of a citizen's device at a border entry (or equivalent). That's why I said in my first post that it'd be interesting to see where this goes
Posted on 12/16/25 at 12:42 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
Funny how it’s always blamed on someone else, like the authoritarian red flags weren’t there from the start.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 12:54 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
This is what they voted for...
sadly, you are correct. Stephen Miller gots to round up them 'Spanics to make America safe!
Posted on 12/16/25 at 12:54 pm to VOR
quote:
. Stephen Miller gots to round up them 'Spanics to make America safe!
Naw Voice of Retard just the illegals.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:11 pm to 4cubbies
This sounds like an obvious fake news story to me.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:27 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
What are people allowed to post here without offending your sensibilities? Apparently, people shouldn't post things that the government does that the person disagrees with. What are you OK with seeing posted here?
You are an emotional trainwreck.
I never mentioned my sensibilities - only that a reasonable person would look at that article and say "well, that sounds a little fishy. Maybe I should do a quick search to see what the actual law is in this situation before I run to post it on a message board."
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:34 pm to LSURussian
quote:
This sounds like an obvious fake news story to me.
I have no doubt he was detained and questioned. I also have no doubt if he would've just answered some basic questions he would've been done in 10 minutes.
For a Vermont school superintendent over only 800 students, he sure does have a shite ton of professionally posed pictures across the internet.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:34 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
You are an emotional trainwreck.
Am I? for attempting to gatekeep what is posted here?
quote:
only that a reasonable person would look at that article and say "well, that sounds a little fishy. Maybe I should do a quick search to see what the actual law is in this situation before I run to post it on a message board.
I thought "Well, this is insane. I'm going to post it on a discussion board full of bored lawyers who can 'well ackshually' me."
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:36 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Am I? for attempting to gatekeep what is posted here?
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:39 pm to Tigerdew
quote:The fake news part is a Border Patrol officer telling an American he has no 4th amendment rights at the airport.
I have no doubt he was detained and questioned.
I highly doubt that happened.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:40 pm to Jbird
And F the citizens that have their rights stomped on in the process, am I right?
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:40 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
CBP's powers are pretty broad when it comes to international travel and re-entry, but there probably needs to be some clarification on what the boundaries are
Their powers certainly should not override the rights of a CITIZEN who is on US soil.
I hope that guy sues the crap out of them.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:42 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Until processed the are not legally in America
Has that ever been challenged to the SC? I would think a US citizen standing on US soil inside the borders of the USA would have full protections of the constitution. It’s kind of how like if you live outside the USA you still have to pay income tax. How can commerce be regulated and you be subject to it outside the USA and be treated as a citizen but someone inside the USA borders on US soil is not?
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:45 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
You are an emotional trainwreck.
Must be a day that ends in "Y".
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:46 pm to Antonio Moss
Houston Airport is considered the border by law. You are not in the USA until you clear Customs Since you are not in the country by law, CBP has powers affirmed by law.
You can be searched, questioned and detained. CBP can detain but ICE or Houston police will arrest and then you will be given your rights. Once you are released or cleared by CBP then due process begins.
You can be searched, questioned and detained. CBP can detain but ICE or Houston police will arrest and then you will be given your rights. Once you are released or cleared by CBP then due process begins.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:47 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The blind trust of the government is horrifying.
So why do you people want the government running everything? fricking healthcare are you kidding me? Nutjobs
Posted on 12/16/25 at 1:51 pm to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
Has that ever been challenged to the SC? I would think a US citizen standing on US soil inside the borders of the USA would have full protections of the constitution.
There is about 75 years of Supreme Court precedent on the subject - pretty much since international commercial flight became a thing.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 2:30 pm to PeleofAnalytics
Coming back from overseas you are processed, until that is done you have the ability to be questioned, all baggage checked and little different that any other person
Posted on 12/16/25 at 2:48 pm to 4cubbies
Were you this upset when J6 prisoners were required to do this? If not, please explain
Popular
Back to top



0




