Source
GavinmacOP•

There's a recurring theme in all these stories by American journalists about being mistreated at the border. That theme is that they are uneducated about what to when they are sent to secondary inspection.

This CBP officer told the American journalist he wouldn't be allowed into the USA unless he answered questions. The journalist should have laughed in his face. "You can't enter until you answer" is a common bluff from CBP officers. The correct response, when at an airport, is "What are you going to do, deport me on the next flight back?" Of course they won't.

"We'll keep you here all night until you answer" is another bluff. The reporter should have just sat there silently, or asked "Do I get food? Water? Can I use the bathroom? Will you take me to a cell or do I sleep here on this bench forever?"

CBP would have let him go in 15-90 minutes.

Also, "We'll seize your device if you don't unlock it" was almost certainly another bluff. They only have the authority to seize a device and perform a forensic search of it if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If they threaten to seize your phone if you don't unlock it, just laugh again, and they will more than likely just let you go with your still locked phone in a short period of time.

When you answer questions ad nauseam and let them look through the entire contents of your phone, then that takes 3+ hours. The fastest way for an American journalist to get out of CBP secondary inspection is to say "I'm American, I have the absolute right to enter the USA, I'm not telling you anything, let me go."

15
Sparta2019•

A US citizen cannot be denied entrance to the United States. Reading the story, that bluff jumped out at me immediately.

14
fuckshitpissboston•

4th Amendment rights a diminished at a port of entry. Hence why CBP could search your bags at random. What’s the difference of a phone search and a luggage search?

2
GavinmacOP•

If your phone is unlocked, they can look through it will nilly just like your luggage. However, if they wish to perform an off site forensic search, like for tying to crack a password, they need reasonable suspicion of criminality.

Court have ruled in the last few years that phones are a bit different from luggage due to the high volume of personal information that can be stored on a phone. A functioning phone can't contain drugs or weapons inside it like a suitcase can, and kiddie porn can be transmitted instantaneously around the world over the internet without being stored on devices and carried across the border.

4
LoveInATimeOfTrump•

Yeah, maybe in a book. In reality, they can say a few magic words, take the phone off you, let you through, then write it up as whatever they want - reasonable suspicion of unaccompanied goods or whatever. Believe me, in the rare case an attorney is dumb enough to take up a case like this, it's quickly dispensed with by 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity. In this country, in most cases, cops simply asking a rote question designed to indicate a reasonable suspicion and subsequently logging it in the record as the reason for the search/seizure is enough to defeat a plaintiff's claim. You have that ACLU suit trying to get Riley extended to the border (which I think is unlikely now that Scalia is dead), but the single plaintiff suits - ie. what this guy would be doing if he were to laugh in the CBP officer's face and try to press through, as you suggest he should - those suits go nowhere.

7
GavinmacOP•

I didn’t say anything about a lawsuit. I said Americans should refuse to answer questions and refuse to unlock their phones (and laugh at the bluffs) and then wait to be let through.

CBP’s bluffs only work because some folks like yourself perpetuate the notion that they can do whatever they want without retribution or accountability. The reality is that they have to go through levels of supervisory approval to seize devices and to hold Americans more than a few hours, and they won’t do that to a silent American in all likelihood unless they have a very good justifiable reasonable suspicion.

By your logic, I should let in any cop who wants to search my home without a warrant, because if I don’t, maybe he’ll kick the door down and beat me up. I disagree.

2
ezagreb•

So they knowingly lie to get what they want ! And our tax dollars pay for that service.

1
cannotlol•

A friend of mine had a similar experience and I can't even imagine how I would have felt in that situation.

And I'm shocked by the comments on the article that are defending the CBP's actions. Unless it's some paid propaganda, why would a conservative who believes in right to freedom and privacy be okay with what was done to an American citizen.

9