Critics call the ruling a gutting of the Fourth Amendment
3 Sep 18 3:02 PM · 5d ago · 3 comments · 1 source · development 3 of 6
Commenters argued the ruling ignores the plain text of the Fourth Amendment by treating the 100-mile border zone, which covers two-thirds of the US population, as a rights-free area.
“It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.”
mmh00002nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Federal appeals courtU.S. Customs and Border Protection Federal agency conducting border searchesTrump administration Executive branch overseeing border enforcement
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 3 voices · verbatim
-
It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.The 4th Amendment says, exactly: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but…
-
The problem with these laws isn't that they can search you at the border. It's that they can search you within 100 miles of the border (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). The total number of people who live within that zone is 213 Million people, or 2/3 of the total population (
-
The best time to delete all social media accounts and never post anything online with your name attached ever again was 10 years ago. The second best time is right now. This stuff can and will be used against you out of context 10, 20, 30 years into the future.
All 6 developments of 2nd Circuit upholds warrantless phone searches by border… →
Hacker NewsNewswiresMastodonGoogle NewsReddit