Maybe somebody’s asked this already but how come, in this day and age, there isn’t a way to snapshot your entire phone into some sort of encrypted blob for storage in a location of your choice? You could wipe your phone and setup a throwaway profile with some basic apps before traveling, and then restore the snapshot once safely through customs.
Border issues aside, it would be very handy to be able to snapshot a phone like that anyway…
What you’re talking about is basically an encrypted backup. Seedvault does exactly that, it’s included in many custom ROMs, including GrapheneOS.
Seedvault doesn’t backup apps whose developer chooses not to let you back them up. It doesn’t backup the encrypted keystore or the tee. It misses a lot, because Android fundamentally puts developers above users.
O rly? I will look into this, thanks!
There isn’t such a feature on android because they can’t scan your stuff for advertising if it is an encrypted blob. Apple let’s you do this with an iphone, iirc.
Samsung has encrypted profiles, apps have no problem advertising to you from knox.
To do a complete phone backup like that all you need is Android root access. Root access on Android is, in fact, a little iffy. Any app given root access can basically read anything on the phone anywhere, keylog, remote execute, yada yada. The security landscape on android is a lot more flat than ios.
Some ISP Vendors do have apps that let you sync android phones and back them up, it’s just not common and they go through a LOT less work to make sure your restores will work later.
Why would you not just take a secondary (read: wiped) phone going somewhere problematic instead of relying on features like this? You know US border security under Trump plays fast and loose with your rights.
Because burner phones have bad cameras.
I hope he sues the agent for wiping his data.
Guys don’t travel to fascist countries.
So only girls go to fascist countries?
Yes only gals
I believe the proper coordinate term is “gals”. Ie. “Only gals travel to fascist countries”. You’ll get a B-
Prosecuted for what, exactly? If push comes to shove, it’s a fifth amendment issue.
not if they judge shop
Prosecuted for what, exactly?
For not being nice to the gestapo?
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™
Idr if this was a feature that made it into a real OS or just a concept that never came to be, but…
I recall reading about a duress pin that instead of deleting stuff, just booted up normally… but to basically a separate user profile. From the non-duress profile you could choose features that would be shared between the two, like texts or call history of specific people, browser history, photo albums, etc.
So “sure officer, it’s 5224” would open up a phone profile that looks convincingly used, with nice long trails of cat memes and chatter with your gaming buddies about your favorite franchise enshittifying, and so on.
Punch in your real pin to unlock it though, and it’s got full access to everything, including data you want to keep private.
…and, uh, if any of you are designing a mobile OS right now, here’s your feature suggestion!
So basically veracrypt hidden volumes
Was there ever a revelation about truecrypt and why it suddenly shutdown?
GrapheneOS should update the duress passcode to load a dummy profile like Only Key’s Plausible Deniability Feature.
Loading any profile allows the operating system access to root privileges, and opens potential for user privilege escalation.
Then it should delete the data while loading a dummy profile
That would be an interesting proposition… under duress load profile x and delete all other profiles, apps, settings and keys.
I like this option, save a snapshot and restore that snapshot deleting everything else. So it looks like a regular profile but won’t contain anything you want to remain private.
Or maybe a lighter version of the duress pin that just loads the fake profile (or alternate profile) but leaves the other(s) intact.
If you’re just handing your phone over for a border pig to swipe through before waving you through that might be adequate.
Border pigs have cellebrite, assume they can access anything left intact.
If it botherw you, wipe it, if it doesnt, you dont really need a duress pin. But login to one profile and cellebrite can get the rest.
I think I’m just going to start traveling with a burner.
It depends on whether you believe forensics can recover the data when handed over. So make it a setting
Yeah I was thinking of this as a half measure. But less secure than just wiping
The profiles are independently encrypted with a key derived from the user’s profile PIN. If the other profiles are not logged in then their keys are not in RAM (and they get zeroed beforehand so they can’t be read out of unallocated memory).
Even if the bad guys get root via a LPE in a dummy account there are no keys to find and the profiles’ storage are not mounted.
You couldn’t trust the device after that however, who knows what kind of persistent spyware they could have installed.
What a shithole
This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I’m on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?
What color are you and how far left are your politics?
It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.
That’s what I do but evidently that pisses them off
“It’s SOP for my business. The risk of phones getting lost or stolen at or near airports is high.”
Their mood isn’t your responsibility. Carrying a blank phone is perfectly legal.
isn’tshouldn’t be*Their mood is a major determining factor in their target’s ability to stay out of prison.
Due process is dead.
That’s not really how the law works. You’re not making a comparable analogy. You sitting at home or in a hotel room is legally not remotely the same as when you’re being actively searched by a federal agent.
This is more like if the a police officer is about to do a pat-down search of someone, and they reach into their pocket, grab something, and rapidly swallow it.
You can destroy your property in normal circumstances whenever you please. If you delete a file in the privacy of your own home, odds are you’re not doing so for the purposes of evading law enforcement. However, if you do it literally seconds before law enforcement is about to get a hold of it, it’s pretty unambiguous that you’re trying to destroy evidence.
That’s the crucial difference here legally. Plausible deniability does not exist when you’re destroying something because a police search is imminent.
Or maybe you just don’t want some cop to see your dick pics. If they had anything on this dude they wouldn’t have needed to go through his phone.
I am explaining how the law works and the assumptions behind it. The law assumes that if you were embarrassed about your dick pics, that you would delete those before the officer is right about to search you.
The laws assumptions are bullshit.
This guy has no fucking idea how the law works. Destruction of evidence requires a primary crime, the one you’re destroying the evidence for. There is no crime, therefore no destruction of evidence. Only an incompetent or corrupt judge would let this even go to trial.
Nah, they just lube up the rubber gloves and fist you, checking in case there’s a micro SD stashed up there. You should still make your flight if you relax.
And thats why you dont travel to countries with ropey regimes
We don’t need hyperbole here …. If authorities have a legal reason to search and you interfere with that, destruction of evidence is a crime. Delete all you want …. Right up until authorities claim the legal reason to search. Usually that takes a warrant: investigators must convince a judge there is a good reason
This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
The slippery slope here is “or within 100 miles”, but that wasn’t a factor here either
as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply because he hadn’t yet crossed into America.
border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they’ll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he’s a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.
they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.
In addition, the law that he’s charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.
There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.
The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn’t the same as destroying property where they’ve demonstrated probable cause to a judge.
This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn’t supported by precedence.
These fucking conservatives crawl out of the woodwork like cockroaches anytime the government does something heinous and use their piss poor understanding of EVERYTHING to try to justify the heinous actions. It happens every time, and I wish just once to see one of them use real and relevant facts, just so I can pretend that these people live in reality for just one second.
Hasn’t happened yet though.
Everything is a conspiracy theory when you don’t understand how anything works.
So the important takeaway is to delete your phone before customs. Presumably you have an encrypted backup you can restore without too much effort
If he wasnt in the US how can the US claim he violated a US law?
The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.
Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.
So the law applies, but protection under the law does not.
Isn’t all law essentially derived from powers granted by the constitution?
If the powers granted by it to enforce a law are applicable when not within the US then then it very reasonably ought to apply to any and all amendments.
But, reason is on the extinction list with the magafascists. (And all LEO)
Finally a sensible reply. Quite a few NAZI bootlickers here. They’re the first the sign up it seems.
This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
Have to disagree with that one. Simply entering a country is not justification for searching someones phone. I don’t care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.
That’s how it should be. But that’s not what the law says.
Not since 2001 they don’t.
They do, just because the government says otherwise doesn’t make it true.
Yes, it does. Thats what governance means.
I’m not saying I agree with it, just that it’s always been so
There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.
You literally said they are not violating rights by doing this.
He’s saying that right was taken away by George W Bush.
Governments cannot take rights away. They can only infringe upon them. They are rights. Not privileges.
Then clearly you’re talking about deontological rights and they’re talking about legal rights and both wasting your breath
Should have been born a child fucking billionaire if you don’t want to be sentenced to prison for 30 years.
I always forget that “choose better parents” one weird trick. ;-)
It’s like pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. So obvious. Just because it is impossible to do is no excuse.
I’m half-expecting for it to turn out that he was being wholly compliant, and he’s being accused of destruction of evidence because they were looking for something that never existed to begin with.
To be fair, a duress pin is definitely a good thing to have if you’re being mugged, but using it to deliberately destroy data when it’s been seized by a lawful authority is guaranteed to land you in serious trouble pretty much anywhere. Whether the border agents were, in fact, a lawful authority, and whether they had a lawful reason to seize his phone are very different questions.
The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it, or wipe your phone before you travel, and spend a little time building up an innocuous history on it, without putting anything you care about on it. Anything you absolutely must have access to while you’re away can be stored, encrypted, online, and you can remember the details to retrieve it.
The fifth amendment applies to this because he was a US citizen. He had every right to not give them his pin and it would only be destroying evidence if charges had been pressed. In this case some butt hurt border guard just really wanted to look at his vacation pictures or some shit.
The 4th applies, too.
The charge wasn’t destruction of evidence, but destruction of property, probably for exactly the reason you mention. He could certainly have arguwd with the agent, but he certainly wouldn’t be getting on the flight if he did, and I suspect he’d be lucky to walk out of the airport without being arrested. As I said in another comment, this isn’t something you can beat at the point of application, it needs to be cut off at the root.
Ooo so wiping data is destruction of property now? That means data is property.
Let’s apply that to Microsoft for the times their updates wiped user data, to apple when you take the phone in for a screen repair and they “had” to wipe your data, to Sony for deleting movie collections, and all the data collectors for stealing property…
The crux of those scenarios you outlined doesn’t hinge on weather or not data is property. Their arguments are that it isn’t YOUR property.
Third option: Refuse to give your phone credentials unless these fascist pigs have a warrant or provide you with a lawyer.
Then they will just deny you entry into the country
The guy from the article was referred to as “a US man,” so I’m assuming he has US citizenship.
The border cannot legally deny US citizens from entering the US. But they can do all sorts of other things, like detain or delay or prosecute people for not complying.
Unless they’re going to see real repercussions for doing so, get definitely can do whatever they want. Rules and laws only matter if people care enough to follow them and enforce them. All they have to do is pretend the person didn’t comply, and now they’ve got all the authority in the world to anything they want, regardless of what it says in the law books. Just look at what ICE is doing to US citizens; border patrol knows they can do all of that, too.
He’s a US Citizen. Legally they cannot deny him entry into the country.
Central to these protections is the absolute right of a U.S. citizen to return to their country. This right is unequivocal. No matter where an individual has traveled, the duration of their absence, or their personal or legal background, a U.S. citizen cannot be denied entry into the United States. This principle is supported by both statutory and constitutional law. A landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), established that citizenship includes the right to reenter the nation. Unlike lawful permanent residents or visa holders, U.S. citizens are exempt from admissibility criteria. Consequently, even if a U.S. citizen lacks proper documentation or is subject to further questioning, the government is obligated to permit their entry once their citizenship is verified.
Trump Administration: “No”
What about give them the wrong pin, they initiate the device wipe, then you say they did it intentionally?
That’s what happened
That is what happened. The accused told the boarder agent the duress pin when asked. The agent entered the pin that initiated the wipe.
Could make a difference at trial, didn’t stop the case prior to the arrest.
Then a lot of it could come down to the wording the officer used. If they just asked ‘what’s the passcode’ then the person DID give them a passcode.
As far as I understand, from their point of view they have the lawful right to seize and inspect your phone. You could certainly refuse to hand it over, but that would certainly lead to incarceration or worse, with no positive outcome for you or society. It’s one of those things that you’re bot going to beat at the point of application, vut needs to be cut off at the root.
they have the lawful right to seize and inspect your phone
Sure. They can look at the outside of the hardware all they like. But if they can’t access the data on it, that’s (Constitutionally-speaking) purely their problem, not ours.
My understanding is that, for the purposes of inspections during border crossings, that is not the case. Also, remember that the border agent can decide, for pretty nuch any reason, that you’re not getting on the flight, and, I’m sure, can add a note to your record to suggest to agents on other flights that they stop you too.
US citizens have an unequivocal right to re-enter the county regardless of where they have been, how they returned, how long they were gone, or what they were doing. This was already determined by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
US citizens have an unequivocal right to enter the country, eventually, just not necessarily on a flight they booked (or any flight in the next few weeks, until the goons are done with them…)
I admit, I didn’t check, but if he was stopped on returning, then yes, he must be allowed in. He’d then be arrested.
The other two issues are that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer when asked and not read his Miranda rights. Given how border patrol has acted lately, this is incredibly plausible and will hopefully lead to the motion to throw out the case being granted.
Not a lawful authority.
He was flight side at the airport. So either:
- …they’re not subject to US law, and it’s fair to search his possessions without a warrant. In which case he’s also not subject to US law so destruction of evidence is fair game.
- …everyone is subject to US law and it’s an illegal search.
US border patrol are considered a lawful authority as they are granted their powers by the federal government and are federal law enforcement officers. They are charged with enforcing US laws, including immigration laws, at the border and in any US state or territory.
From their point of view, they are well within their rights to seize and search his phone, and he interfered with their duties by destroying the data on the phone. Whether that should be the case is a different matter.
The much more sensible approach is to either have a separate phobe for travelling, that has nothing you care about on it
and people have gotten in trouble for that, too, for having a travel phone, a phone that was too clean, etc etc.
Because its not about the phone. Its about stealing data. pictures for facial recognition, contacts so they can map groups, communications so they can search for whatever bullshit excuse they want to string people up.
This isnt about law. its not about protection people/the country.
Its about being fascist dicks to undesirable groups of people. Aint seen one motherfucker on the epstein list, one motherfucking CEO, or any trump cocksuckers have their phone seized by border patrol to steal any data.
Can thy prove it though
This is the correct take. Its common across various business contexts: destroying evidence after you learn you are being investigated is big time illegal. If you destroy data, you better be able to demonstrate you did so beforehand (I.e. an expiration policy), or you don’t have it in the first place (because sensitive data doesn’t touch a given mobile device and all.). Dedicated device for travelling is the best idea.
You could also take a video of yourself wiping the device before travelling for security in case it gets stolen. (Not a lawyer disclaimer).
Maybe instead of wiping the phone and restarting the duress pin should show a pre-selected number of apps and wipe everything else.
Reboot into Hannah Montana OS
Sounds like the best of both worlds.
Brb, just submitting a merge request on the Graphene git.
That wouldn’t avoid the destruction of property charge, just (possibly) make it harder to notice. It sounds like it was the screen flashing and the phone restarting, which is probably necessary for a full wipe, that tipped them off.
The man was in duress and being forced to hand over his PIN while being denied access to legal counsel, that is the very reason for a duress PIN. I don’t think the charge is even going to make it to real court, his defense has a great case for it to be thrown out.
We’ve got a lot of really shitty judges here
The fact that he’s in the news is a VERY good sign. In a real 3rd world shithole he would just disappear because he pissed off an unaccountable field goon.
(That’s why arrest data is required to be public, despite the damage it does to the arrestee’s reputation, BTW.)
It’s a tough balance, it puts cops in a position to destroy someone’s life with zero proof of any law being broken - like Paul Reubens…
Whilst, yes, he probably did feel under duress, he had a choice to make; hand over the phone, or wipe it and face the repercussions from doing so. Bear in mind, that from the agent’s point of view, they had the lawful right to search his phone, so arguing duress will be tricky at best. In his position, I’d like to think I was comfortable handing over the phone because I’d wiped it before travelling.
Having said all that, yes, I agree that his defense has some strong arguments. However, if they decide to make an exame of him, those arguments wont do him much good.
While I am not entirely disagreeing, I have to a bit for anyone that can’t bring themselves to say it (all sides should be heard).
I may have misread but I don’t think he typed the PIN, as far as I understood they had already taken the phone and were insisting he give them the PIN without any access to a lawyer. Not only did he not wipe it, he only gave them the ‘I’m in duress’ PIN because he felt he was, if I’m on the jury it’s innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t think the difference between him physically triggering the wipe and him giving them the code that triggered the wipe would have much effect from a legal point of view. In both cases he deliberately took an action he knew would lead to the destruction of the data. I think his defense’s approach of challenging the legality of the stop is probably much safer.
I suspect that the prosecution would like to set precedent that you can’t claim to be under duress when a lawful authority is performing a search, so the defence staying away from that area is probably a good idea.
I’m not sure any law force agency in the US is lawful anymore.
why even have some shit on your phone.
just have private stuff on some remote serverEven memes or slightly (to them) offensive comments or messages can land you in detention.
You would have to have zero messages, social profiles or anything like it on that phone.
And no references or logins to that private server.
Even unlocking your phone lets them install spyware.
Have to be careful, though. You need a curated social media presence…
Not having social media is considered suspicious in the US https://papersplease.org/wp/2025/05/30/us-state-dept-says-silence-or-anonymity-on-social-media-is-suspicious/
The much more sensible approach is …
The fact that we’re discussing ways to sneak past the fascist border guards, by getting very lawyerly with a bunch of fiddly rules they don’t actually give a hoot about, is kind of a big hint that we’ve already lost our liberties to a degree we are reluctant to acknowledge.
This guy was singled out for his political opinions. Border patrol held him as a political prisoner, and when we read the story about him, we all see only too clearly that this could be any one of us.
As far as anyone knows, the CP thing was an excuse, a lie. The authoritarians aren’t following the rules, the rules exist to serve as excuses to hurt us. There isn’t going to be some magic combination of smartphone hygiene and “I know my rights” phrases that will let us escape targeting by the most corrupt cops in the country.
That first paragraph is really powerful. Cool i parrot it around? I think that needs to become common sentiment.
I don’t mind!
Curious, why the innocuous history? Just to reduce friction?
“Where’s your REAL phone?!? We’ll strip search you for your real phone!”
Pretty much. A compketely blank phone is a clear sign that it’s wiped, and why would you do that, unless you have sonething to hide, hmm? A phone with a couple of weeks of boring use, maybe a few photos of nice sunsets, a few messages, a take-out ordering app, some boring history in the web browser, and maybe a login to a social media account that follows some celebs and an old school friends or two who don’t seem to post any more, just says you got a new phone a while back and you’re fairly boring.
Obviously, if they actually have something on you, or they want to pin something on you, those precautions won’t actually help much.
My understanding is you can’t actually be forced (legally) to give up your phone’s PIN or password as part of a police search, because it violates the 5th amendment against self-incrimination, even at the border. Now will they still find a way to fuck up your day if you refuse to unlock your phone, sure, but I feel like saying “I have a right under the 5th Amendment to not reveal my password” is going to be a lot easier to defend than “I intentionally wiped/locked/bricked my phone when you asked to look through it.”
Depends
Most phones can be accessed by forensic software. The more secure phones are protected as long as they’ve just been restarted but before they’re unlocked for the first time.
Some phones, like an up-to-date GrapheneOS on a supported Pixel, may resist forensic imaging after first unlocking but the information is in memory so there could potentially be zero days or other exotic methods of obtaining the data.
A duress wipe lets you know 100% that the data is not accessible.
Back up and wipe your phone before you cross the border. That way if they want to look at it, feel free to hand it to them. When you get back home, restore the backup.
Also consider getting a throwaway phone if they try to keep it.
From reading up on the laws and if what this article says is true, even if they unlocked his phone and found evidence of crimes on it, gods case would be kicked to the curb as it was all an illegal search and correct procedures weren’t followed.
Border guards do not need a search warrant to search you and your property at a crossing. The search was perfectly legal.
They can’t search your property without a warrant, probable cause, or your permission.
https://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.
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.
That Probable Cause standard requires a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrong doing to exist too. Crossing a boarder alone doesn’t give rise to that.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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 reasonable articulable facts of observation that 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.
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.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
To do a search they need probable cause, your permission, or a warrant.
Border agents in an airport absolutely can do warrantless searches.
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.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/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.
Land of the “free”…
Land of the free™
I’ve come to believe that was actually a typo. The correct title is “land of the fee”.
Free to get fucked over
Bend over, bend over
