The ACLU is not wrong, if you actually read their actual words. Your case doesn't say what you think it does. From your own article:
>Bikkannavar insisted that he wasn’t allowed to do that because the phone belonged to NASA’s JPL and he’s required to protect access. Agents insisted and he finally relented.
As far as the law is concerned, he voluntarily let them look at it. It doesn't matter if they "insisted", he could have told them to pound sand. They could have kept the phone, but in its locked state it presumably wouldn't be that useful, and particularly since it wasn't merely a personal device JPL's legal department then could have easily gone right after them for it and won. Just because we have the legal right to something doesn't mean there is some magic barrier preventing LEOs from attempting to violating them, or implying the right doesn't exist. They have to be defended by people exercising them and potentially going to court. The very next paragraph states:
>Hassan Shibly, chief executive director of CAIR Florida, tells The Verge that most people who are shown the form giving CBP authority to search their device believe that they have an obligation to help the agents. “They’re not obligated to unlock the phone,” she says.
Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". They may certainly ask that. You may choose to cooperate. But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no". If they arrest you they were almost certainly going to do so anyway but now they have less to go on and with more avenues to challenge it, and if they arrest you over exercising your rights you have a strong cause of action right there. CBP agents may well ask people this sort of thing all the time, but that doesn't mean citizens must comply.
If you think you’re immune just because you’re a US citizen, you’re not.
A friend came back to the US after 3 years. A time period you typically lose your green card.
However friend was smart to ask a lawyer and the lawyer said “agree to nothing, sign nothing, only a judge can take your green card”.
So she did just that. Put up with about an hour of shit. “No, im not signing anything”, “No, I don’t agree that I’m no longer a permanent resident of the US”.
Was eventually let in and nothing came of it.
Know your rights and stand firm. If some non-us citizen minority woman can do it, I’m sure you can too.
I'm quite certain if she had dealt with some of the agents I dealt with they simply would have lied or signed the form for her and kicked her out of the country. If they would have simply taken the green card from her and said "good fuckin luck" it would have been a hell of a road getting it back after being gone 3 years. Either way good on her for calling the bluff.
My fellow Americans are very afraid of their own government for some reason. The us government is filled with a bunch of cowards.
Worst day of Google Mapping ever.
That's a pretty big claim, do you have a particular example in mind? You might have your phone seized, sure, but denying a citizen entry to the country? Even CBP understands they can't do that and it would make the evening news if they did it.
Canada denies entry to tons of Americans. Americans with a DUI on their record have trouble visiting Canada.
Once they tried to hold me up because my wife had two drivers licenses. We were just married and she had an old invalidated license with her old name.
I explained the situation and he thought it was suspicious so I asked him if he was suspicious because I was brown really loudly and he then let us through.
I don't understand all these people who cow down to everything.
My family, due to being immigrants, have been in many fights with cbp, ice, ins. Like all government bureaucracies they are filled with power hungry people. Knowing your rights and politely but firmly insisting upon them will rarely land you into trouble.
It's the politeness and insistence most people have trouble with. But honestly even my high tempered dad did not have any trouble growing up.
How about instead of this handwave-y impossible ask BS you cite any actual cases at all since Lyttle v. US (10 years ago) where the CBP denied a US Citizen entry or deported them? There is plenty of case law here. In Nguyen v. INS the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added) "[...]a citizen entitled as of birth to the full protection of the United States, to the absolute right to enter its borders, and to full participation in the political process." And that's not even tied to a passport. In Worthy v. US the 5th Circuit found the government could not impose a penalty on returning without a passport: "We think it is inherent in the concept of citizenship that the citizen, when absent from the country to which he owes allegiance, has a right to return, again to set foot on its soil. . . . We do not think that a citizen, absent from his country, can have his fundamental right to have free ingress thereto subject to a criminal penalty if he does not have a passport."
Lower courts have since cited all this, even when the practical result was a mixed bag or a loss for the plaintiff. Fikre v. FBI was about the no-fly list, and the court didn't hold that the absolute right to return meant the US couldn't prevent getting on an airplane in another country, and that Fikre hadn't asserted enough facts to support that the No-Fly list and boarding denial were enough to violate his right to get to a port of entry a different way. I think that's unfortunate, saying essentially "well take a boat or figure out a flight to Canada/Mexico" isn't ok and I think the whole no-fly list is flagrantly bad, but the court did uphold a citizen's right to enter borders on getting to them.
Finally in Lyttle v. US [0] there was indeed a case where a US citizen with mental challenges was detained by ICE and deported, after being allegedly coerced into signing a document falsely stating he was Mexican citizen. This set off a saga that eventually resulted in the DHS terminating deportation efforts "on the basis that “it was determined that [Lyttle] was not a Mexican citizen and is, in fact, a citizen of the United States.”" The court refused to dismiss all damages claims, and at all times ICE/CBP proceeded on the basis of fraud that he in fact wasn't a US citizen. Court found that the government is simply not authorized to detain or deport US citizens, and thus may not ignore any credible assertion of citizenship.
So again, if you have a newer example to share where someone was denied entry at all, let alone "with very little recourse", you share it. Otherwise you're just posting FUD.
----
If you are prepared for that then you absolute can and should tell them to pound sand. Just like you should to the police. But standing up for yourself has consequences you may not be prepared for. In both cases, CBP and police, you may be isolated from your loved ones, harassed, interrogated, etc in an attempt to make you crack. The difference, in a "border zone"[1] 100 miles from any border you effectively lose several important rights so the stakes are far, far higher. But, if you are truly innocent, it is worth the time to exercise your fourth and fifth amendment. As long as you present the correct paperwork the officer can't do much. However, they CAN lie. So it's imperative you know your rights to not talk yourself into probable cause.
I went through the border without a phone or anything of interest for them to search. They cuffed and shackled me, finger printed me, booked me, tossed me in a cell. Then held me for 16 hours while driving me to hospitals and told doctors there was drugs up my ass. Towards the end they got a warrant to cover their ass, where they woke a federal judge and and the US assistant attorney in the middle of the night and told them vicious lies that a dog had 'alerted' on my asshole and that during a (real) invasive strip search they found (fake) evidence of smuggling.
[note: am US citizen]
>That sounds great
How does having your property confiscated for days/weeks and being arrested sound "great" to you? It's not great, it stinks. For some people it could even be ruinous. But it's also legal reality. Every single "right" your or I or anyone has came out of blood. Lots of blood. Blood, sweat, tears, money, activism, power both soft and hard. The entire reason the ACLU exists at all is precisely that rights don't auto-enforce and must be defended, that's literally their raison d'etre. When they say US Citizens have an absolute legal right of entry but that exercising it may result in significant inconvenience or cost they aren't wrong. All of society as well as individuals need to work with that tailored to their own situations.
>but when a few power hungry workers with guns are breathing down your neck in a small room you can't get out of, the rules aren't going to make you feel 'safe'.
And? What does "feeling safe" have to do with this? And it's precisely because we're "in comfortable chairs" that it's the best time to go over our rights and consider ways to protect them both at the overall political level and individual level, rather then once we're in the hot seat. Preparation is worth a huge amount. If you know both your rights and the practical risks, you can do things like simply carry a minimal phone/computer, load and reload with a VPN at your destination. Make sure trusted contacts know all your travel plans and status. If you're carrying sensitive data for a corporation or government, check in with your legal department, HR etc. That's literally a core strength of a big organization, that they can have powerful specialists of their own vs leaving it all on their employees. At the political level, when was the last time you actually wrote your Senators and House Rep? If you're outraged and feel at risk, the bare minimum is telling them that. It adds up. Even if one gets a canned reply they absolutely pay attention to volume on an issue, and on a sliding scale. People who are angry enough to actually go to the trouble of writing or even calling are presumed to represent some number of people angry enough to maybe vote in opposition or stay home on election day but can't be bothered to write or don't know to.
The rules exist for a reason. They also exist for people with guns; especially for people that do it on behalf of government. If you are afraid of guns from people in uniform, you are already doing it wrong. I will tell you this as an interesting little factoid.
In Israel guns are everywhere, but you are responsible for every single bullet.
There is ample evidence in the US that fear of people in uniform carrying guns is a very rational thing.
This is not only a very naive take, its a dangerous one - people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting. Law Enforcement Officers in the US has what is known as qualified immunity. In practice qualified immunity means as long as the LEO says they believed they were following rules (even if they were not), then they can do anything they want to you (including kill you) with little to no personal consequences.
In other words, you can say "No officer, you can't look around without a warrant", to which they can say "I see an object that may be a gun, and you're moving your hand in the direction of your pocket. Stop. I'm afraid for my life, I need to break your car windows and throw you on the street"
It's common enough that a LEO can publicly and slowly strangle George Floyd on the street, recorded and in front of others, and the only notable/unusual aspect is that the police officer was convicted of a crime.
Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
Can you cite any examples of this happening? I’m a pretty big policing reform person and follow this stuff closely and can’t think of a single case like this.
I live in Mexico and even I know about the Floyd case ... it seems you don't really follow that kind of thing at all.
This is a major flaw in our system, and desperately needs legal reform. LEOs should only be allowed to ask people to do things that they can be legally compelled to do. Acting outside of that authority to coerce other actions should be charged equivalent to impersonating a police officer, kidnapping, or logically similar - the same as if a non-police dressed up in a police costume to coerce someone.
This is of course in addition to the need to make longstanding laws like the ones against murder apply to LEOs as well.
Not that I expect much to ever change. I've got to wonder what our society would be like if Hollywood hadn't leaned into "police procedural" for its cheap production cost. How many hours per week does the average American watch people pointing guns at one another and barking orders? It nowhere reflects real life, yet we've all been primed to think that's how the world operates.
