Chances are you now live in a ‘Constitution Free Zone’.
US Federal District Judge Edward Korman, has reaffirmed an Obama admin policy that grants officials the authority to search Americans’ laptops and other electronics without a warrant, citing a controversial premise that makes citizens within 100 miles of the border eligible for a warrantless police search.
The decision came in Tuesday, more than 3 years after the ACLU filed suit against the policy.
Almost two-thirds of the population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US border.
Next it will be 200 miles from the border, then 300 and then only people that will retain their rights are those that are making up these totalitarian laws!
ACLU attorney, Catherine Crump, had this to say about this controversial ruling:
“We’re disappointed in today’s decision, which allows the government to conduct intrusive searches of Americans’ laptops and other electronics at the border without any suspicion that those devices contain evidence of wrongdoing,” she said.
“Suspicionless searches of devices containing vast amounts of personal information cannot meet the standard set by the Fourth Amendment… Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight.”
This nonsense makes my blood boil.
District Judge Edward Korman, a US federal judge, has reaffirmed an Obama administration policy granting officials the authority to search Americans’ laptops, citing a controversial premise that makes citizens within 100 miles of the border eligible for a police check.
District Judge Edward Korman made his ruling in New York on Tuesday, more than three years after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit. The ACLU claimed that – since Americans put so much of their lives on their computers, cell phones, and other devices – border officials should have reasonable suspicion before sifting through someone’s personal files.
Attorneys argued that searches conducted without reasonable suspicion are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
Not so, according to Judge Korman. In his decision Tuesday he argued that the area 100 miles inland falls under a “border exemption.”
“Laptops have only come into widespread use in the twenty-first century. Prior to that time, lawyers, photographers, and scholars managed to travel overseas and consult with clients, take photographs, and conduct scholarly research,” wrote Korman.
“No one ever suggested the possibility of a border search had a chilling effect on his or her First Amendment rights. While it is true that laptops make overseas work more convenient, the precaution plaintiffs may choose to take to ‘mitigate’ the alleged harm associated with the remote possibility of a border search are simply among the many inconveniences associated with international travel.”
The federal government has long conducted searches on travelers entering and leaving the US, but Congress expanded that policy by creating the Department of Homeland Security and setting up at least 33 checkpoints inside the country where people are stopped and asked to prove their citizenship.
The trouble is, the ACLU noted, that almost two-thirds of the population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US border. New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, and dozens of other major metropolitan areas fall under the so-called “exemption” zone.
The civil-liberties advocacy group filed suit in 2010 on behalf of Pascal Abidor, a 29-year-old Islamic Studies student whose laptop computer was held for 11 days when he was traveling by Amtrak rail from Canada to his parents’ home in New York.
Abidor was sitting in the train’s cafe car when an officer forced him to take out his laptop then “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” the suit claimed. The computer contained images of Hamas and Hezbollah rallies and the agents, unmoved by Abidor’s assertion the images were related to his studies, handcuffed the young man and kept him detained for three hours, questioning him numerous times.
Department of Homeland Security data indicates that 6,500 people had their devices search between 2008 and 2010 alone.
Here’s what the ACLU attorney, Catherine Crump, had to say about this controversial ruling
“We’re disappointed in today’s decision, which allows the government to conduct intrusive searches of Americans’ laptops and other electronics at the border without any suspicion that those devices contain evidence of wrongdoing,” she said.
“Suspicionless searches of devices containing vast amounts of personal information cannot meet the standard set by the Fourth Amendment… Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight.”
The absolute malicious stripping away of our rights has got to stop, folks, we must stand-up and fight back against this at every turn! The future of or Republic is at stake and many want to bury their heads in the sand… Wake Up!!!
Actually I agree with this law. Most illegal activity happens along the border of some of these countries and a good majority of those living within 100 miles of the border are more than likely from the other side and only in the US for illegal activity. Just saying.
Obama speaks with forked tongue, he says on one hand we will open the borders to Illegal Immigrants but on the other hand, lets mess with USA citizens rights. Wake up Gracie.
Go home Gracie, you’re drunk…..
Gracie, go back to your home in totalitarian North Korea. We don’t want your ignorance here in the United States of America. Obviously, you came here without reading or understanding our Constitution that guarantees us freedom from unreasonable searches, especially those without a warrant, based on reasonable suspicion of a specified cause.
Of course you do. Because you are willing to give up everything for all of us, just to make yourself happy. I, and many others, are not.
If the police properly suspect a crime, then they can detain-as they did-and obtain a warrant. You really ought to stop erasing your own protections.
Gracie, you are like most people today. You haven’t a clue what our US Constitution is all about – especially the Bill of Rights. You should read the Constitution at least 3 times; and then read the Federalist Papers that explain the premise of our Constitution.
Yeah, a good majority of everyone that lives in nyc, Philly, LA, and just about every other major city are here just for illegal activities.
Gracie. You need to Wake Up. Everyones( even yours) are being taken away from you.
Gracie, you are wrong. If you look at the map it is not just at the border of another country. Apparently, you stereotype people. Not everyone near the border participates in illegal activity.
This article states that The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act is our new Constitution?
Basically, and essentially? Yep.
Communist Suck And Socialism Blows and Now It Is In OUR WhiteHouse
This really sucks haha
EVER INCH YOU GIVE THAY WILL TAKE MORE AND IT WILL NEVER STOP THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE HAVE A CONSTITUTION TO
What a CROCK.. This is Obama’s way of Controlling the people.. everyone needs to Stand up and send him out of OUR COUNTRY…
Thank you to all the ass hole, idiot, moron obama supporters that put this criminal, fraud POS in office.
All you people keep saying Obama, as though he created the Patriot Act. IF we ever get another Republican president, let me know when he/she runs to change this c**p, will you? The Patriot Act what George Shrubs great scheme.
um, Obama and his Demos renewed the patriot act if I remember right.. so yeah, it’s all him
I don’t care what the Obama administration or some federal judge say. There are NO Constitution free zones anywhere in the United States of America. Our Constitution applies to ALL of the United States, every square inch.
I agree with you 100%. Good luck defending that in a rigged court, however.
all judges are nuts