The court then says that this is good enough to satisfy the First Amendment, too. Plus, after seizing a device when the govt has reasonable suspicion it has contraband, the court says, the govt can only seize for a reasonable period of time.
-
Show this thread
-
The court limits the remedy to declaratory relief along the lines of the opinion. Expungement of seized data and fruits goes too far, court says. And no injunction at this time b/c that gets into the debate on universal injunctions and more briefing is needed.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
That's the opinion. Let me offer my own thoughts on it next, at least for the three people still reading (hi mom!)
1 reply 0 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
First, I'm skeptical that there is standing. The standing test for 4A injunctions is a really tough standard under City of LA v. Lyons. As far as I can tell, the ct doesn't cite Lyons or apply that tough test. I suspect CA1 will, and they may reverse on that procedural ground.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
On the merits, this is interesting, but it's only a district court ruling. In the last five years, a handful of federal circuits have weighed in on how the border search exception applies to electronic devices. Circuits are disagreeing, and SCOTUS is going to have to settle it.
1 reply 5 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Given that, it's hard for a district court case to matter all that much. Of course, pro-privacy rulings get vastly more media coverage than equivalent pro-govt rulings, so there will be buzz. But it's just a trial court decision.
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
On the substance, I think this is furthering a trend among some lower courts of being skeptical about the border search exception. But note that the court here rejects what the ACLU has been arguing for in its recent briefing: its elimination entirely for electronic searches.
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
The court here rejects a warrant requirement or a probable cause requirement, only requiring reasonable suspicion even for the most invasive border searches. It rejects the CA9 manual/forensic line, but it's not too far off of the CA9 otherwise.
1 reply 3 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Unless I'm missing something, this is an interesting but relatively small development in a broader debate working its way up to SCOTUS, and this particular case may run into procedural problems on appeal anyway. /end
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
P.S. Some are wondering about the distinction between allowing a border search for only contraband vs. evidence. That's currently the subject of a CA9 vs. CA4 split. It's an interesting Q, but with the circuit split, a mere DCT's taking a side doesn't amount to much.
2 replies 3 retweets 10 likesShow this thread
If it were your call, with what rule would SCOTUS roughly end up? As in, with the background of existing precedent, constitution, etc, not a green-field policy analysis.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.