But why would that be legal? The device is owned by the individual. No judge signed any warrant search for the device. I can do what I want with my device - that is a basic right of property. Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.
But why would that be legal? The device is owned by the individual. No judge signed any warrant search for the device. I can do what I want with my device - that is a basic right of property. Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.
You are allowed to refuse access to your device, and they are allowed to refuse entry to the country.
Most constitutional rights are suspended within 100 miles of a border or international airport.
Which leaves me wondering - should domestic travel be treated the same as international when it comes to securing your devices?
Worse, almost the entire population of the USA lives within 100 miles of a border or international airport.
> Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.
This jogged my memory, though I couldn't find the example I was thinking of. But here's an item that is pretty similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas_asset_forfeiture...
Edit: Not on the border, btw. Just people travelling inside US. I guess it was their mistake to carry cash instead of getting a bank check or something.
> Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.
no need to imagine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...