Border guards do not need a search warrant to search you and your property at a crossing or point of entry. The search was perfectly legal.

“At a crossing” means with 100 miles of any border or port of entry. Which is about 67% of the country. It is complete bullshit of a policy.

I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe that applies to airport points of entry. Regardless, if you’re going to something as suspicious as wiping your phone while at a point of entry, consulting a lawyer beforehand is just a reasonable thing to do.

You may think some laws are bullshit, (ie: sovereign citizens) but you are still governed by those laws.

All I am saying is be informed.

The 100 miles extends inward from the exterior border, not around every airport. But every international airport is a port of entry over which they have jurisdiction and can perform warrantless searches. And, in my opinion, warrantless searches for everyone by virtue of simply entering into the country is a violation of the 4th amendment. Which is why it’s bullshit and shouldn’t be allowed. It can and often is abused, especially when tied to another equally (should be) unconstitutional “law”, civil forfeiture, even before the bullshit policies Trump and the SCOTUS have deemed reasonable suspicion for illegal status (i.e. appearing Hispanic, speaking Spanish, displaying a flag from another nation, etc.) I’m aware of the laws, but that doesn’t make them just or even constitutional.

They’re not allowed to do warrantless searches.

www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

To do a search they need probable cause, your permission, or a warrant.

Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity. However, stops and searches conducted in areas farther from the border may require at least heightened suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity to withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

constitution.congress.gov/…/ALDE_00000239/

They can do warrantless searches. Just not within the entire 100 mile border. A fair distinction, but they definitely can at the border and ports of entry, and do so routinely.

Yeh that’s very different to saying they can in the whole 100mil area.

At an airport or actual border crossing yeah, I can understand that. They’d only be doing it when they have a big suspicion of something, at least you’d hope. According to them it’s like 0.01% of people a year.

They’d only be doing it when they have a big suspicion of something, at least you’d hope.

Nope. They often do it entirely randomly. I’ve seen videos of them pulling over multiple vehicles to be searched simultaneously at a crossing before.

Oh I was more talking about the mobile phone checking then just a physical search of a car. Random car searches make sense as a deterrent.

Border agents in an airport absolutely can do warrantless searches.

We’re not just talking about airports though, but yes I agree on airports.

Yeah it’s like having never had a single sip of alcohol but doing a u-turn and driving off when you see police doing mobile breathalysers. It looks suspicious as fuck, and the police will treat it as such until they’ve investigated and found you didn’t do anything wrong. You’re basically giving them “probably cause”.

You mean probable cause, not “probably cause”. And what you described, evading a sobriety checkpoint, gives them reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion amounts to articulable facts of observation that reasonably lead them to suspect you may be committing/have committed/were about to commit a crime (like apparently fleeing from a police breathalyzer check). It grants them the power to detain you for a reasonable time for the purposes of investigating to confirm or assuage their suspicion.

Probable cause requires actual evidence that a specific crime has been committed, that you committed it, and that evidence is secured. It is the standard needed to A) arrest you or issue a warrant for your arrest, and B) issue a search warrant for your property if evidence connects it to the crime in question in order to gather more evidence. (Note: They may do an inventory search of your person if arrested, and an inventory search of your vehicle if towed due to your arrest. This is limited in scope. A full search requires a warrant.)

Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause.

67% of the population lives in that border area, not 67% of land area. But yeah, it’s silly.

I believe you’re right. My mistake. I misremembered that factoid.

They can’t search your property without a warrant, probable cause, or your permission.

www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

• An immigration officer also cannot search you or your belongings without either “probable cause” or your consent. If an agent asks you if they can search your belongings, you have the right to say no.

Of course they just deny you entry at that point…

They can’t deny a US citizen entry to the US.

I doubt it would be grounds for turning away a legal visitor, though you would have to have a way to challenge it.

You are sorely misinformed on both counts…

You think they can deny a US citizen entry into the US?

I think what is legal and what this administration does (and gets away with) are two very different things.

So they’ve been denying citizens entry? Source?

In this case the probable cause was that his name was on a terrorist watch list. something that the TSA and the FBI wouldn’t have known was done out of spite with no real justification. The search was as legal as it could be under the circumstances. Though access to the phone gets murkier because it falls into the bullshit reasons cops claim all the time to search or arrest you. They admit that they had no real evidence to hold him. claiming CSAM was likely to scare him into opening the phone for them. But the core issue is that he was on a terrorist watchlist and that is just cause. I’m not saying he should have been there but the issue is ultimately with the police department not the FBI or the TSA.

It’s a whole lotta bs and I hope he makes it through unscathed to sue the police department for their actions.

That Probable Cause standard requires a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrong doing to exist too. Merely crossing a boarder alone doesn’t give rise to that.

You guys are looking at the wrong thing. Airports have their own set of bullshit rules. According to the government choosing to fly automatically implies consent to be searched. Domestic flights have more protections, but international flights basically wave your right to privacy under the 4th.

They only require explicit consent or probable cause if they want to do an advanced or forensic search of your phone. You can deny the search if you’re a citizen, but if you choose that option they can take your phone into custody for several weeks to attempt to crack it if they choose to do so.

We’re also talking about the 100 mile border zone though, not just airports. As you say, airports have different rules that allow searches.

ngl, in his position I would have wiped it too. Not because I had anything illegal, but because I have a signal chat with the bros where we sometimes bitch about politics and I don’t need this administration’s FBI arresting me as a terrorist for stupid memes about socialism and queer jokes.