this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
548 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
86633 readers
3863 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
They can’t search your property without a warrant, probable cause, or your permission.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
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...