And still everybody manages to oversee the importance of this ruling... where's hogfly when you need him :/
Printable View
And still everybody manages to oversee the importance of this ruling... where's hogfly when you need him :/
You mean it actually has one?...................cases where the defendant submits a de facto admission of guilt are not good ones to attempt to argue points of law.Quote:
And still everybody manages to oversee the importance of this ruling...
A more interesting situation would be if the defendant entered a not guilty plea?.................the computer had been used to access kiddie pr0n sites and kiddie pron materials had been downloaded.
Supposing it was second user, or others had access to it ..................................?
"Possession in a usable form" would be an important consideration under UK law, and I doubt if we would have prosecuted on the trace evidence alone. However , the perp would now be a marked man and would be monitored until he was caught in the act................ which, by his own admission, would not have been long?
That said, I wonder if the real question was ever raised?......................a customs official immediately looks at the internet browser log?................why?..............
Does anyone else smell an element of "stage management" or "choreography" here?
Had I been on the defence team, I would not have been inclined to go for the "border search" rules, as I think that those are trivial............
I would have asked where the intelligence came from, and what communications had taken place between the US and Canadian enforcement agencies................ the sort of "entrapment" *** "conspiracy" approach?
Errrrrrrrrrr.............. "let's ship prisoners from banana republic to banana republic..........because it isn't legal here"
IMHO that is the thin end of a rather nasty wedge :(
If there really is cause for concern, I would suggest that it lies in that area?
Just a few thoughts :)
Here's why this ruling is important:
A border agent is a law officer, and thus bound by federal search and seizure guidelines. Those guidelines center around the Fourth Amendment:
In practical terms, this means that law officers always need a warrant except in some cases, of which this one is important here: where consent is given by the suspect, a search warrant is not needed. So far, so good in this case: Romm gave his permission to search the laptop, and the law officers did so. Nothing wrong with that, everything by the book.Quote:
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 upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The importance of this case, though, is in this part of the ruling:
"Under the border search exception, the government may conduct routine searches of persons entering the United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant. [...] passengers deplaning from an international flight are subject to routine border searches."
That goes completely against the DoJ Search and Seizure guidelines: the court here found that Fourth Amendment rights do not apply to citizens entering this country - and that's what makes this case important. The Border Search guidelines have been around since a while after 9/11, but never have they been tested like this. Now we know what they stand for: kiss your Fourth Amendment rights goodbye at the border :)
I know that this goes back a few days to some of the original postings but you may be interested to find out about a law over here in the UK.
It has been mentioned that if you have encryption that you may have a means of stopping people accessing your private data. This is not true over here.
If a customs or police officer retains a computer for investigation and they find encryptred content on the computer the owner must (I emphasise MUST) provide the encryption/decryption key when asked otherwise they receive an immediate two year prison sentence on top of anything else that you may be charged with.
Now, of course, you may think that this is a fair trade-off if you are carrying illegal content but when you consider that over here a hacker will get less than two years as standard and a number of child porn offenders will get a suspended sentence it doesn't seem like much of a deal.
Actually Neg, this case did not decide that at all, but relied on United States v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2002) for that portion of the decision ( which relied on other decisions. )
People keep speaking about consent given, but I do not see how it is relevant in this case ( at least as far as U.S. Law is concerned ).
I did not see it brought up in arguments in the appeal, nor do I believe it had any relevance here.
From the .pdfIf this was deemed to give them consent the defense would never have claimed an illegal search, or would have been arguing the consent was coerced in some way. That was not the case, at least not in the appeal. The search was found valid as an exception to the warrant requirement, i.e., a border search.Quote:
The agents told Romm they needed to search
his laptop for illegal images, and could arrange for the examination
to be completed that night. Romm agreed.
We can only guess what would have happened if he had not turned the laptop on in Canada??
Quote:
IKnowNot
People keep speaking about consent given, but I do not see how it is relevant in this case ( at least as far as U.S. Law is concerned ).
I did not see it brought up in arguments in the appeal, nor do I believe it had any relevance here.
...Quote:
Posted by me two pages ago
Whether he gave consent or not is not what's important in this case, because it doesn't matter whether or not he did (that's what the case is about)
Yes, sorry Neg if it seemed I was including you in the second part ... you are ( were ) correct, but it was mentioned again after your post on that.
Where is Mrs |ce on this discussion? I'd love to hear her thoughts.