Skip to main content

Privacy at the Border – Do We Have Any?


Our right to privacy is under assault. One need only look at evening news casts to see the increased state intrusion of our personal lives. Everyone is aware of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping and massive meta data storage, but most people probably aren’t aware of what happens at our ports of entry each and every day. If you thought that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is constrained by things like warrants, probable cause, or articulable suspicion you would be wrong. Even if you are aware that CBP has carte blanche to search and confiscate your property, you probably think that it doesn’t really apply to U.S. citizens. You would be wrong.

A recent court case in the Eastern District of New York is a perfect example of why we should be concerned about CBP’s broad power to invade your privacy. I’ll try and keep this as free of legal jargon as possible, but basically a photojournalist (with the help of an army of privacy advocating lawyers) sued the U.S. government over the confiscation of his electronic media at a port of entry. Short version is that he lost the case because the court said he lacked standing for failure to show he was harmed – fancy lawyer talk for “go away, it’s really not that big of a deal…don’t waste our time with this!”

More important than what happened to the photojournalist’s belongings are the CBP policies left undisturbed, policies that should at the very least cause concern for anybody visiting or returning to the United States. The exact text of the CBP directive states:

An Officer may detain electronic devices, or copies of information contained therein, for a brief, reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search. The search may take place on-site or at an off-site location, and is to be completed as expeditiously as possible. Unless extenuating circumstances exist, the detention of devices ordinarily should not exceed five (5) days.

Put another way, CBP can take your stuff and send you on your way. Even more disturbing is the following directive:

Officers may seize and retain an electronic device, or copies of information from the device, when, based on a review of the electronic device encountered or on other facts and circumstances, they determine there is probable cause to believe that the device, or [a] copy of the contents thereof, contains evidence of or is the fruit of a crime that CBP is authorized to enforce.

Now they not only get to keep your stuff, they can make copies and look for stuff  for which you can be prosecuted. We’re way beyond looking for things that can actually cause harm, like explosives, and on to looking for evidence of thought crime! Yeah, they might be constrained by probable cause, but we all know how low that threshold is, not to mention they can establish that probable cause with what they find from the thorough border search mentioned in the first directive.

Why should we be concerned? Well, anything that CBP finds can be used against you later in a criminal proceeding. This applies to citizens and non-citizens. Even more troubling is the fact that what CBP finds can be used against the non-citizen in removal proceedings. Unlike criminal proceedings, which theoretically have some procedural safeguards for the accused, removal proceedings dispense with even the pretense of such protections. In removal proceedings, evidentiary standards are relaxed and the government’s burden is substantially less when it is trying to remove a non-citizen. How many of us could withstand a reason to believe accusation if the government got to review everything on your laptop, tablet, or phone. Not many!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If You Are An Immigrant (even a US Citizen), Here Are 9 Things You Should Know

Are you a Naturalized U.S. Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, Visa Holder, or an Undocumented Immigrant? We recommend you take the following steps to protect yourself in our current version of America. The last couple of weeks have reminded immigrants, even naturalized U.S. citizens, that they were not born in the United States. Our office has received countless phone calls, emails, and social media messages from people worrying about what their family’s future in the United States holds. Most people want to know what they can do now to protect themselves from what promises to be a wave of anti-immigration activity by the federal government. Trump's Executive Order on Interior Enforcement has some provisions that should make most Americans shiver.  We recommend the following actions for each of the following groups: Naturalized U.S. citizens. In particular if you have a foreign accent, and you are traveling within 100 miles of any US Border (including the oceans

Seven Reasons Why the Georgia Legislature Should Repeal HB-87

Recently the Alabama Attorney General called on the Alabama State Legislature to repeal parts of Alabama's horrid anti-immigration law ( HB 56), because of the "unintended" consequences of the bill (frankly, what happened was not unintended). Because of the similarity between the two laws, Georgia's Speaker of the House, David Ralston was asked whether Georgia Legislature would repeal part or all of HB 87, Georgia own anti-immigration law. HB 87 has caused almost a half a billion dollars in damage to the Georgia economy (along with untold suffering in Georgia's immigrant communities) without any noted or reported positive effect. Speaker Ralston plainly stated that the Georgia Legislature would NOT do anything to repeal HB 87 . While it understandable why a politician would not admit that a pet bill he shepherded and pushed through the state legislature was simply bad law, it is also clear that Speaker Ralston is facing a challenge on his RIGHT in th

Why is USCIS Taking So Long to Renew DACA Work Permits?

If the calls to our office are any indicator, there are thousands of DACA recipients whose work permit applications were filed at least three months prior to expiration, who are still waiting for their renewed work permits.  Without renewed permits, these individuals lose the right to work legally, the right to drive, and may once again accrue unlawful presence. The DHS published a notice in October 2014 advising DACA recipients that they could file their request for extension up to 150 days (5 months) prior to expiration.  As with all things government, very few of the DACA recipients, who tend not to frequent government websites, knew about the memo and many did not file so far before expiration perhaps thinking that extending a work permit was a like extending a drivers license, its is done in a few minutes.  As an experienced immigration lawyer will tell you, the USCIS does nothing quickly, and certainly does not worry that a person may lose their job or their driver's licens