I would wager that this is going to become a test case that is intended to appeal it’s way to the SCotUS. The SCotUS has already ruled that many constitutional protections are waived at the border, so it wouldn’t be surprising if that is the intended outcome.
Land of the Free™
I would wager that this is going to become a test case that is intended to appeal it’s way to the SCotUS. The SCotUS has already ruled that many constitutional protections are waived at the border, so it wouldn’t be surprising if that would be intended outcome.
Land of the Free™
I would wager that this is going to become a test case that is intended to appeal it’s way to the SCotUS. The SCotUS has already ruled that many constitutional protections are waived at the border, so it wouldn’t be surprising if that would be intended outcome.
I haven’t searched yet, but I’m curious if this is the first time that someone’s being prosecuted for this. Authorities can detain a US Citizen and confiscate their electronic devices for forensic analysis, which should be a violations of the 5th, but the SCotUS feels differently.
If this is the first time a US Citizen has been prosecuted for refusing to unlock and handover their personal devices, then I’d wager that the authorities want to make this into a test case, and appeal it all the way to the SCotUS to rule that such a seizure and prosecution is not unconstitutional, or required for national security, or some other authoritarian bull.
Border agents cannot deny a U.S. citizen entry back into the country for remaining silent or refusing to provide a device password. However, they can legally detain you for an extended secondary inspection and seize your electronic devices for forensic examination. I also think it’s a violation of the 5th amendment, but the SCotUS feels differently.
Border agents cannot deny a U.S. citizen entry back into the country for remaining silent or refusing to provide a device password. However, they can legally detain you for an extended secondary inspection and seize your electronic devices for forensic examination. I don’t agree with it and I think it’s a violation of the 5th amendment, but the SCotUS feels differently.