Good God! The Customs Service can now legally take away your laptop, FOR NO REASON!

[Redstone]

Unbelievable, but true. Read the Washington Post story here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103030.html and be prepared to vomit.

Ah, Fourth Amendment, it was good knowing you.

Redstone

[ecstatic]

1. That has me a little worried. I was going to bring laptop on cruise

because I can't be away from my work for very long and the new ships have wireless internet. But if my laptop is confiscated then I would be pretty much "screwn."

[Hydra]

2. I love how they use "terrorism" and "child porn" as excuses

The sheep love hot buttons like those- as if DHS was actually doing anything about those two issues.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Actually, they have always had this power. The only difference is that now it is written policy

The courts have long held that people coming into the country do not have the same rights as those already in the country. This doctrine is the legal basis for customs inspections, entry quarantines and other such practices, and it has existed continuously here since the establishment of the Massachussetts Bay colony. It holds that the government has full authority to inspect any and all materials that enter its sovereign borders, including embassies and military bases outside the United States.

The only thing that has changed is that this centuries old practice is now a matter of law rather than policy and court precedent. If anything, the new form makes it much easier for you to protect your rights, as you now have something written to which you can point.

I'm not saying I like the policy or agree with it, mind you. I'm just pointing out that very little as actually been done.

Added: I also want to point out that this affects only those who cross US borders into the country. It does NOT, in any way, apply to people leaving the US or to anyone who has already entered the country. If you were to, say, fly from LAX to La Guardia, or from Philadelphia to Toronto, your rights under the US Constitution remain intact (until you attempt to cross the Canadian border; all countries have this same authority with regards to their own borders.) If you were to fly from Toronto to Philadelphia, then and only then would this policy take affect, and only as you made your way through US customs. Likewise with a cruise, it does not affect you when you get onto the boat, but it might be invoked if you leave US territorial waters and return.

Also, keep in mind that such seizures are very rare. US border crossings simply do not have the staff to inspect every laptop, cell phone and PDA that enters the United States. Logistically, inspection and seizure will not happen unless there are other red flags that single you out as needing special attention. Despite this having been policy for centuries, and despite the millions of people who cross into the US every year, this inspection policy typically gets invoked about 20 or 25 times a year.

[WhollyHeretic]

4. This happened to friends of my parents. A professor and a teacher (both very liberal of course)

Had their laptops taken when flying back from England. This was last summer and they still have not gotten the computers back or even an explanation as to why they were taken.

[TooBigaTent]

5. Someone here a couple of weeks ago clearly stated that the Customs Service has always had the power

to do anything they wanted. It is just more obvious to people now, esp. with the "terrorism" bullshit justification.

But, exactly how long do you think that corporate Amerika is going to put up with "their" business secrets, etc. being open to confiscation?

If this practice is going to be inhibited by public outcry, it is not going to come from the left, but from the corporate right. They are the only ones who have the capability to influence laws and rules.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. I've cogent arguments that this may end up actually protecting your rights

Before, this power existed as internal policy backed up by court precedents. Now, it exists as a publicly available written statement (or has it become a law?) In any case, someone who feels it has been applied to them unfairly or has put them at a disadvantage now have something in writing to which they can point. That will serve to protect the public, even if only slightly.

[Supersedeas]

6. But Mukasey is YOUR Attorney General.

[IDemo]

8. The 4th Amendment does not apply to border searches.

I was wrong about this, as are many DU'ers.

You have no legal expectation of privacy during a border crossing. While it certainly sounds like an outrageous violation of privacy, it turns out the right of government agents to seize and inspect your belongings actually predates the 4th Amendment, and was created by the same First Congress that created the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It has since been affirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court:

That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border should, by now, require no extended demonstration. The Congress which proposed the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, to the state legislatures on September 2, 1789, 1 Stat. 97, had, some two months prior to that proposal, enacted the first customs statute, Act of July 31, 1789, c. 5, 1 Stat. 29. Section 24 of this statute granted customs officials "full power and authority" to enter and search "any ship or vessel, in which they shall have reason to suspect any goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be concealed. . . ." This acknowledgment of plenary customs power was differentiated from the more limited power to enter and search "any particular dwelling-house, store, building, or other place . . ." where a warrant upon "cause to suspect" was required. The historical importance of the enactment of this customs statute by the same Congress which proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we think, manifest. This Court so concluded almost a century ago. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 623 (1886), this Court observed:

"The seizure of stolen goods is authorized by the common law; and the seizure of goods forfeited for a breach of the revenue laws, or concealed to avoid the duties payable on them, has been authorized by English statutes for at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been authorized by our own revenue acts from the commencement of the government. The first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, the act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43, contains provisions to this effect. As this act was passed by the same Congress which proposed for adoption the original amendments to the Constitution, it is clear that the members of that body did not regard searches and seizures of this kind as 'unreasonable,' and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the amendment."

more -> http://supreme.justia.com/us/431/606/case.html#616

[Redstone]

9. Hey, since you seem to know a lot about this stuff, may I ask you a question?

For the last few years, we've been stopped in a Border Patrol roadblock on I-91 in White River Junction, Vermont. They just ask us if we're all US citizens, I tell them yes, and we go on our way, but it's really fucking annoying.

Where does the Border Patrol get the authority to set up a roadblock more than eighty miles from the border? I even had one agent ask me where we were coming from, and where we were going to, and I asked him to show me, in writing, where he was given the authority to question a US citizen about his whereabouts within the US. He just made a face and waved me on.

I'd appreciate any information you may have because, as I said, you seem to know a lot about this subject.

Thanks,
Redstone

[IDemo]

12. I'm not familiar with how far inland a 'border' search is warranted

Although 80 miles sounds like they're pushing the limits a bit much.

I'm not really that knowledgeable about the topic, as it took a Google search to discover the truth about it. The site I linked to does seem to provide overwhelming evidence that border searches have always been legal, but I'm left to wonder just how vigorously they have been conducted prior to our present administration.

[SeattleGirl]

10. My daughter is going to Thailand next Sunday. Last night, I asked

her if she was taking her laptop with her. She said no. I told her that was good, because it could be "detained" when she flew back to the states. Then I told her about this nonsense. We both agree it is utter bullshit.

[riverdeep]

11. Hmm. I wonder what would happen if you mailed your laptop to your destination?

And just picked it up from the post? Then mailed it back to your home when you leave? One less thing to carry if nothing else. It might work for an extended stay in one country better than a short hop of different countries.

[Redstone]

13. That would indeed be the right way to go.

Redstone

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I have no immediate international travel plans, but...

I kept my old laptop when I bought a new one. It would be fine for basic e-mail and stuff, so I'll just take it instead of the one I really use for work at home.

But this is pretty outrageous. I got into CHINA with less hassle than I routinely get at airports nowadays.