EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

hn_acker

The original title is: > EFF to Fourth Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

superkuh

This is even more important than it sounds because the US federal goverment considers 100 miles inland from any international border (including the great lakes, etc) as being "the border". And that is where 80% of the people in the USA live.

sowbug

This defendant was convicted of possessing CSAM. Before that fact causes you to lose sympathy for the case, note that almost every significant criminal case affirming constitutional rights involves a defendant who did something unsavory, if not reprehensible. Miranda was a kidnapper and rapist. Danny Escobedo (right to an attorney during interrogation) murdered his brother-in-law. Clarence Earl Gideon (right to a court-appointed attorney) was a career criminal. It's the same with freedom of speech cases: they often involve jerks and assholes; otherwise, they probably wouldn't have gotten arrested in the first place. You can root for the right outcome without rooting for the defendant.

harshreality

The trial court judge's take on the motion to suppress: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.55... It's a tough call. On one hand, the feds were really reaching by singling out the defendant for inspection based on: 1) a vague notion that South America is a higher risk of CSAM and sex trafficking (the government's CBP witness couldn't even say that that background CSAM rate in the countries the defendant had traveled from was higher than in Virginia, the state of the defendant's port of entry), and 2) a vague FinCEN report that there was some unspecified payment activity between the suspect and an account or accounts believed to be of underage individuals. On the other hand, the defendant consented to the initial search after being read a miranda warning and signing a waiver, and did in fact have a pattern of catfishing victims to get them to send CSAM. He also had banned coca products (doesn't sound like cocaine, probably just coca leaves or something) that they were citing him for. I'd like to think the feds or any LE should need some reasonable suspicion of a particular crime before investigating them for that particular crime. I don't think they had that. This wasn't a generic border search and enhanced questioning (to find out if there was anything specific worth investigating). I think the judge was lazy in concluding that the search was justified, and wanted to leave it to appellate courts to exclude evidence if it meant letting the defendant go. Is the current state of the law really that anyone who within the last few years ever transferred any money to a minor, and happens to be coming from any country outside the 1st world , is subject to an inspection and initial cursory search of digital devices for specific illegal material because it's "Look for CSAM month"? I find that difficult to believe, and appalling if true, regardless of any crimes that were uncovered.