Crossing the border with a laptop. Can they force you to reveal password?

[Fear_Itself]

@Duckster

It is my understanding a US citizen cannot be denied entry into their own country.

They can make it conditional on surrendering your laptop and password so it can be inspected:

1. No evidence needed to take your laptop

Border agents do not need any evidence or suspicion of illegal activity to examine a laptop or other electronic device.

Every time you cross the border, customs officials have the right to look at anything in your possession, including the content on your laptop, handheld device, cell phone, USB memory stick and digital cameras, Gurley said. They have the right to both view that information and to download or mirror it if they think it’s necessary, she said.

2. Anything can be searched

Everything on an electronic device is open to search. This includes personal photographs, personal banking, any business documents and stored or unopened e-mail, Gurley said.

3. Your PC might not be returned right away

Seized devices may be kept for an indefinite period of time. Carry only a laptop or electronic device you can afford to lose or hand over for an unspecified period of time.

Sensitive data should be sent by e-mail before crossing the border in case the data becomes unavailable if the device is seized, she said.

[Amasia]

@Koxinga

Yes.

Is there any example of this actually happening? Can you clarify what the zone is/where the source for the ACLU’s claim is? Also, this is still totally different from anyone, anywhere can be stopped. They are talking about voluntary border crossings, as far as I can tell.

[Koxinga]

@Amasia

Is there any example of this actually happening? Can you clarify what the zone is/where the source for the ACLU’s claim is? Also, this is still totally different from anyone, anywhere can be stopped. They are talking about voluntary border crossings, as far as I can tell.

It gives me a bit of a headache when people demand a CITE! when it’s clear they didn’t read through the one I just gave them.

[Amasia]

@Koxinga

It gives me a bit of a headache when people demand a CITE! when it’s clear they didn’t read through the one I just gave them.

What you posted seems to suggest only that DHS has the ability to set up a checkpoint at any point within 100 miles of the border, without specifically identifying where that authority is described

@Sunspace

So you could be walking down the street in New York City and they could do a border-guard search on you?

It does not describe the above situation which is why I asked you for more detail.

[Sunspace]

@Amasia

It does not describe the above situation which is why I asked you for more detail.

Eh? I was asking whether it was true.

[Amasia]

@Sunspace

Eh? I was asking whether it was true.

Sorry, I messed up the multi quotes on that- I was trying to ask Koxinga if he’s trying to say that that ACLU link addresses the situation you raised.

[Boyo_Jim]

The link doesn’t say they can search anyone, or seize anyone’s property. But they do have the right to ask your questions, presumably about your citizenship, within 100 miles of the border, and request an ID. If at that point they suspect you are not in the country legally, they can detain you and your property. And generally speaking, if police personnel detain you they also have the right to search you.

This actually sounds quite a bit like Arizona’s “papers please” law but on a federal level.

[Koxinga]

@Boyo_Jim

The link doesn’t say they can search anyone, or seize anyone’s property. But they do have the right to ask your questions, presumably about your citizenship, within 100 miles of the border, and request an ID. If at that point they suspect you are not in the country legally, they can detain you and your property. And generally speaking, if police personnel detain you they also have the right to search you.

This actually sounds quite a bit like Arizona’s “papers please” law but on a federal level.

In the link, it doesn’t sound like Vince Peppard’s case had anything to do with suspicions over his citizenship:

In a video shown to reporters at a national press conference event Wednesday, retired San Diego social worker Vince Peppard complained that he and his wife were stopped at a checkpoint on a road east of San Diego on I-94, many miles after crossing back into the United States with tiles he’d bought in Mexico.

When he refused to let the Customs and Border Protection officer search his car, the officer led him to a bench, called in the contraband dog and then “ransacked” his car.

“I didn’t feel like I was inside the U.S.,” Peppard said, calling the search on the side of the road embarrassing. “I felt like I was in a B-movie with Nazis asking for my papers.”

. . . .

Customs and Border Protection Cilberti’s says he did not specifically look into Peppard’s case, but said that refusing a search does not create probable cause for a search and that if a CBP agent searched his car, it’s because their experience and training made them believe they had probable cause.

Isn’t that comforting?

[Koxinga]

And somebody asked about being stopped at random in New York, away from any checkpoint? Here ya go:

The national debate on border security has focused largely on America’s southern border. But quieter change has already taken place along parts of our northern border. It’s now commonplace in upstate New York for federal agents to board buses and trains miles from the border and ask passengers for proof of citizenship.

. . .

This scene has become increasingly common, as almost 2,000 more agents have been assigned to the northern border since September 11th. The Border Patrol asserts its authority to conduct checks like this within 100 air miles of the international border, including the coastlines.

. . . The border patrol wouldn’t do an interview for this story, but in an emailed statement, spokesman Rafael Lavitre(ph) said agents use the checks to prevent smugglers from using public transportation to access the interior of the country.

Media reports say the checks have netted drugs and criminals, but civil rights advocates say they’re too intrusive for ordinary citizens.

(emphasis added)

New York State is what’s cited in the article, admittedly, but New York City would fall well within 100 miles of the coast, I believe.

[Amasia]

@Koxinga

Quote:

In a video shown to reporters at a national press conference event Wednesday, retired San Diego social worker Vince Peppard complained that he and his wife were stopped at a checkpoint on a road east of San Diego on I-94, many miles after crossing back into the United States with tiles he’d bought in Mexico.

When he refused to let the Customs and Border Protection officer search his car, the officer led him to a bench, called in the contraband dog and then “ransacked” his car.

“I didn’t feel like I was inside the U.S.,” Peppard said, calling the search on the side of the road embarrassing. “I felt like I was in a B-movie with Nazis asking for my papers.”

. . . .

Customs and Border Protection Cilberti’s says he did not specifically look into Peppard’s case, but said that refusing a search does not create probable cause for a search and that if a CBP agent searched his car, **it’s because their experience and training made them believe they had probable cause. **

Isn’t that comforting?

Ok, but that’s how ALL searches under the 4th Amendment work. Officers always do/claim to base their probable cause justification for searching on their experience and training.

The border searches are different because officers don’t even need to be able to say that they reach that level of having probable cause.

I’m not commenting on the practice, but I think it’s important to clarify that those searches from the border agent in Peppard’s case sound like a search from any law enforcement official. However, when you enter a border crossing or airport, you have essentially already consented to being searched without even meeting any threshold, such as probable cause.

[Amasia]

@Koxinga

And somebody asked about being stopped at random in New York, away from any checkpoint? Here ya go:

New York State is what’s cited in the article, admittedly, but New York City would fall well within 100 miles of the coast, I believe.

This is still different. There are different rules for being on public transportation then being in your private home or car. Again, I’m not stating a preference for these rules, but the differences are not completely new and do not mean that the 4th Amendment is defunct in areas within 100 miles of the US borders.

[Koxinga]

If there’s no difference, let me ask you this: if I’m on a Greyhound going through Topeka, Kansas, could the bus be stopped by the local sheriff’s deputies, who go through and require each passenger to show his or her ID? I had no idea I lived in a country like that.

[Amasia]

@Koxinga

If there’s no difference, let me ask you this: if I’m on a Greyhound going through Topeka, Kansas, could the bus be stopped by the local sheriff’s deputies, who go through and require each passenger to show his or her ID? I had no idea I lived in a country like that.

I don’t know much anything about Kansas law, but it appears that probably not show your ID, but probably yes, identify yourself. http://kslegislature.org/li/statute/022_000_0000_chapter/022_024_0000_article/022_024_0002_section/022_024_0002_k/

Assuming they have a reasonable suspicion that there is some kind of crime related to the bus (reasonable suspicion is actually a lower standard than probable cause, so it’s even easier for the sheriff to say were justified in stopping you).

[Koxinga]

@Amasia

I don’t know much anything about Kansas law, but it appears that probably not show your ID, but probably yes, identify yourself. http://kslegislature.org/li/statute/022_000_0000_chapter/022_024_0000_article/022_024_0002_section/022_024_0002_k/

Assuming they have a reasonable suspicion that there is some kind of crime related to the bus (reasonable suspicion is actually a lower standard than probable cause, so it’s even easier for the sheriff to say were justified in stopping you).

Link doesn’t work for me, but in any case, the two bolded parts seem to me to be the crux of the issue: People are being required to show IDs in the previously mentioned cases, and they’re being issued this demand as part of random sweeps, not reasonable suspicion. If the Kansas police are not allowed to do this, my question is why not?

[Oliveritaly]

I have been through U.S. customs more times in the last 9 months than I have ever before. At one point I was entering the U.S. three times a month from Germany (not that often but more often than I had before). While I don’t have a clue about the legality of them looking through my laptop, the customs ‘experience’ is so painful (after an eight hour flight) that the last thing I would do is resist.
Hell I’d boot it up for them and happily log on if it meant getting out of there sooner.
Twice in Frankfurt they’ve pulled me and my laptop aside and ‘dusted it’ after having gone through security. I have no idea what for and the entire procedure took about 10 minutes so it’s not that big of a deal. By dusting I mean they took what looked to be a smallish paintbrush and flicked it across the keyboard and outside. I guess they didn’t find anything as it was handed back both times.

[toofs]

Soon after the September 11 attacks, I remember discussing the likely changes to our society and our likely national response. Thankfully we were more restrained in our overseas actions than I had fearfully predicted.

Unfortunately, as a society we have been forever changed in a negative way. We are doing this to ourselves.

[aruvqan]

@Koxinga

Originally Posted by Sunspace View Post
So you could be walking down the street in New York City and they could do a border-guard search on you?

Yes.

@Boyo_Jim

The link doesn’t say they can search anyone, or seize anyone’s property. But they do have the right to ask your questions, presumably about your citizenship, within 100 miles of the border, and request an ID. If at that point they suspect you are not in the country legally, they can detain you and your property. And generally speaking, if police personnel detain you they also have the right to search you.

This actually sounds quite a bit like Arizona’s “papers please” law but on a federal level.

Heh, back in 89 mrAru and I were traveling in northern Texas almost to Louisiana, well north of the border and ran into a checkpoint - and a pair of anglos in a ford escort puttering along don’t seem to ring the wetback bell … they were not amused when he offered to show them his green card… [he was active duty navy at the time]

[rbroome]

@Boyo_Jim

Are you saying that a customs agent can simply claim you were crossing a border and seize anything from you within 200 miles of a border? Without any evidence that you have actually crossed a border? I would need to see a cite for that.

OTOH, anywhere there is an airport receiving international flights, there are customs agents waiting. This includes places like Kansas City, which I’m pretty sure isn’t within 200 miles of the geographical border.

So what exactly are you claiming?

here is one cite:
http://web1.nusd.k12.az.us/schools/nhs/gthomson.class/pol699.paper/pol699.s.ct.interp.html

I particularly liked the last paragraph. A search can be reasonable if a) one is traveling alone or b) one is traveling with companions. Either is sufficient.

[Frylock]

Does the government randomly open and check mail coming in from outside the country? If not, it seems (assuming I have a contact in the country, which I’m sure nearly 100 percent of people coming through a border check do) I could easily simply mail my laptop over, making the at-the-border checking of laptops nearly useless for catching anyone serious about using a laptop to bring in criminal information.

[Bricker]

@rbroome

here is one cite:
http://web1.nusd.k12.az.us/schools/nhs/gthomson.class/pol699.paper/pol699.s.ct.interp.html

I particularly liked the last paragraph. A search can be reasonable if a) one is traveling alone or b) one is traveling with companions. Either is sufficient.

No. None of those are sufficient, standing alone.

Combined with other factors, they may be. A person dressed very shabbily is not a factor, but a shabby dresser with trash-bags for luggage, traveling on a ticket purchased with cash and carrying a single Zero Halliburton attache case? Yes, those factors, considered together, probably form reasonable, articulable suspicion.