United States v. Arnold
Encyclopedia
United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941
(9th Cir. 2008), is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion
before searching laptop
s or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.
This decision has caused worry and some controversy among Fourth Amendment advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation
. Especially troubled are those that legitimately store sensitive business, legal, or customer data; who worry that federal agents might leak information found from laptop searches. Several legislators have discussed and introduced measures to counter the ruling in order to provide more protection to travellers, but none have become law.
(LAX) after spending a three week vacation in the Philippines
. After retrieving his luggage, Arnold proceeded through the checkpoint at customs
. Customs and Border Patrol
(CBP) Officer Laura Peng saw Arnold waiting in line and selected him for secondary questioning.
Peng questioned Arnold, and began inspecting his luggage, noting a laptop computer and several computer accessories. Peng instructed Arnold to turn on the computer so she could see if it was functioning. CBP Officer John Roberts was called to assist with the inspection while the computer was booting
up.
Among the icons
displayed on the computer's desktop
, two were named "Kodak
Pictures" and one was named "Kodak Memories." Peng and Roberts opened these folders, began viewing the photos, and noted one that depicted two nude women. At that point special agents from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) were called. Arnold was detained and questioned by the ICE agents for several hours. They further examined the computer and equipment, and found numerous images of what they believed to be child pornography
.
Arnold was released, but his computer was seized by the agents. Federal agents obtained a warrant
two weeks later. Arnold was charged with (1) knowingly transporting child pornography, (2) knowingly possessing a computer hard drive and compact discs which both contained more than one image of child pornography, and (3) knowingly and intentionally traveling in foreign commerce and attempting to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a person under 18 years of age.
Arnold filed for a motion to suppress, and argued that the government required reasonable suspicion
to conduct the search. This motion was granted by the District Court, ruling in Arnold's favor. The Government promptly appealed the case, and stated that the border doctrine
took precedence over the Fourth Amendment
's protection from unreasonable search. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's ruling, holding in favor of the Government.
, internet chats
, and web-surfing habits, it is very similar to the "human mind." Under these arguments he sought the protection of the Fourth Amendment, which states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...".
Arnold also raised the exception that the government's searches are limited in cases where they are of a "particularly offensive manner," and argued that such was the case when CBP officers seized and searched his laptop.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus
brief in support of Arnold. The amici included the EFF and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives
(ACTE). The brief argued that the government's position and current practice subjects travelers to unconstitutional invasive searches of laptops and other devices. Their argument is similar to that already made by Arnold, and they contended mainly that a computer is different from a gas tank, suitcase, or other closed container because laptops routinely contain some of the most personal information about a person's life. Moreover, the amici were concerned that a search would reveal information that is already protected under other statutes, including privileged legal communications
, reporters' notes from confidential sources
, and trade secret
s.
In summary, the main points of the brief are that: (1) people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information stored on their laptop computers; (2) searches of personal electronic information devices ... are particularly invasive of personal privacy; (3) the volume of information stored on computers means that the privacy invasion of a laptop border search is enormous; (4) personal computers often contain information that the individual does not know about, or has even sought to erase; (5) laptop computer searches are indistinguishable from "general searches;" (6) there is a real risk of unconstrained "pretext" searches; and (7) the first amendment protects many of the contents on laptop computers. The final point raised the worry that indiscriminate searches of information stored on laptops will discourage people from storing sensitive data, thus causing a chilling effect on speech.
Overall, the amici were concerned that unchecked compliance with the border doctrine would infringe too far on a citizen's First and Fourth Amendment rights. In their view, the doctrine did not provide the protection that it was meant to enact, as technology now provides ways to maneuver around it. "...a smuggler's 'container of choice' for electronic contraband is the internet. They may simply email it to themselves or post it online to avoid customs searches. A ruling that overturns the decision would not undermine the government's ability to protect its borders."
The government argued that the United States has a duty take measures to ensure the safety of its interior. Past cases have stated that "it is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity." In United States v. Ramsey, the court stated that "searches made at the border... are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border..." In the case of Arnold, the point that linked these two conclusions together was the notion that international American airports are the functional equivalent of a border, as stated in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States.
Reference was also made to a history of searches of closed containers such as a briefcases, purses, wallets, pockets, pictures, film, and other graphic material. These items are the equivalent of a closed container, and have traditionally been searched at the border without particularized suspicion. It is acknowledged that some limits have been made, specifically a traveler's alimentary canal. Such limitations are made when searching a person, not their objects in possession, in the interest of human dignity and privacy, which the Fourth Amendment protects.
Even without a clear scale to determine how offensive a search may be, the Court dismissed the reasoning of the District Court that particularized suspicion was needed in the case of Arnold. The District Court based this decision on previous cases that related to search of the human body, not of property.
To address Arnold's claim that a laptop is like a home, and therefore requires Fourth Amendment protection, the court dismissed his argument as without merit. Its decision is based on previous Supreme Court judgments that have denied Fourth Amendment protections to property which is also "capable of functioning as a home."
Lastly, the Court addressed a comparison to United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005). In that case, a man's van was stopped and searched as he was driving from Canada into the United States. The court upheld the border search doctrine, and the Ninth Circuit acknowledged the concerns and followed the reasoning that carving out a First Amendment exception to the border doctrine would (1) protect terrorist communications "which are inherently 'expressive'"; (2) create an unworkable standard for government agents who "would have to decide - on their feet - which expressive material is covered by the First Amendment"; and (3) contravene the weight of Supreme Court precedent refusing to subject government action to greater scrutiny with respect to the Fourth Amendment when an alleged First Amendment interest is also at stake."
By this reasoning, the Court justified the government's interest in preventing unwanted persons and effects as greater than a person's desire to conceal the contents of their baggage. The decision of the District Court was overturned, ruling in favor of the government.
. Attorneys for Arnold filed a motion to de-publish the Ninth Circuit opinion (which was denied). In their motion, Arnold's counsel explained that two days after being informed of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear his appeal, Arnold committed suicide.
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. One of the primary points of controversy is the court's ruling that a laptop is no different than any other type of container. Just as Arnold has argued, critics argue that a laptop contains far more sensitive and personal data than any ordinary container. They continue to state that a laptop search is so revealing and invasive that the Fourth Amendment requires agents to have some reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed their disappointment in its statement:
Other critics have cited that there are some documents and data that need to be legitimately kept secret or discrete, and are worried that there is nothing to prevent the officials involved in a search from disclosing this sensitive data. They give examples of trade secrets, acquisition
plans, plans for a new product, security data about private customers. The concern is that officials in the process of searching may copy and leak this information without consent. Most are unwilling to trust government officials and employees to not misuse what they seize or negligently disclose confidential information.
, UPS
, or FedEx
.
Senator Maria Cantwell
, and Democratic Representative Adam Smith
announced on September 26, 2008, that they had proposed a law to limit the searches of laptops or other electronic devices to cases where United States Customs and Border Protection officials have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The so-called Travelers' Privacy Protection Act would allow border agents to search electronic devices only if they had reasonable suspicion
s of wrongdoing. In addition, the legislation would limit the length of time that a device could be out of its owner's possession to 24 hours, after which the search becomes a seizure, requiring probable cause
. This bill was introduced, but never became law due to the starting of the new 111th session of Congress.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(9th Cir. 2008), is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";...
before searching laptop
Laptop
A laptop, also called a notebook, is a personal computer for mobile use. A laptop integrates most of the typical components of a desktop computer, including a display, a keyboard, a pointing device and speakers into a single unit...
s or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.
This decision has caused worry and some controversy among Fourth Amendment advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an international non-profit digital rights advocacy and legal organization based in the United States...
. Especially troubled are those that legitimately store sensitive business, legal, or customer data; who worry that federal agents might leak information found from laptop searches. Several legislators have discussed and introduced measures to counter the ruling in order to provide more protection to travellers, but none have become law.
Background to the case
On July 17, 2005, Michael Arnold arrived at Los Angeles International AirportLos Angeles International Airport
Los Angeles International Airport is the primary airport serving the Greater Los Angeles Area, the second-most populated metropolitan area in the United States. It is most often referred to by its IATA airport code LAX, with the letters pronounced individually...
(LAX) after spending a three week vacation in the Philippines
Philippines
The Philippines , officially known as the Republic of the Philippines , is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. West across the South China Sea sits Vietnam...
. After retrieving his luggage, Arnold proceeded through the checkpoint at customs
Customs
Customs is an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties and for controlling the flow of goods including animals, transports, personal effects and hazardous items in and out of a country...
. Customs and Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security charged with regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing U.S. regulations, including trade, customs and immigration. CBP is the...
(CBP) Officer Laura Peng saw Arnold waiting in line and selected him for secondary questioning.
Peng questioned Arnold, and began inspecting his luggage, noting a laptop computer and several computer accessories. Peng instructed Arnold to turn on the computer so she could see if it was functioning. CBP Officer John Roberts was called to assist with the inspection while the computer was booting
Booting
In computing, booting is a process that begins when a user turns on a computer system and prepares the computer to perform its normal operations. On modern computers, this typically involves loading and starting an operating system. The boot sequence is the initial set of operations that the...
up.
Among the icons
Icon (computing)
A computer icon is a pictogram displayed on a computer screen and used to navigate a computer system or mobile device. The icon itself is a small picture or symbol serving as a quick, intuitive representation of a software tool, function or a data file accessible on the system. It functions as an...
displayed on the computer's desktop
Desktop environment
In graphical computing, a desktop environment commonly refers to a style of graphical user interface derived from the desktop metaphor that is seen on most modern personal computers. These GUIs help the user in easily accessing, configuring, and modifying many important and frequently accessed...
, two were named "Kodak
Eastman Kodak
Eastman Kodak Company is a multinational imaging and photographic equipment, materials and services company headquarted in Rochester, New York, United States. It was founded by George Eastman in 1892....
Pictures" and one was named "Kodak Memories." Peng and Roberts opened these folders, began viewing the photos, and noted one that depicted two nude women. At that point special agents from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security , responsible for identifying, investigating, and dismantling vulnerabilities regarding the nation's border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security...
(ICE) were called. Arnold was detained and questioned by the ICE agents for several hours. They further examined the computer and equipment, and found numerous images of what they believed to be child pornography
Child pornography
Child pornography refers to images or films and, in some cases, writings depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child...
.
Arnold was released, but his computer was seized by the agents. Federal agents obtained a warrant
Warrant (law)
Most often, the term warrant refers to a specific type of authorization; a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is...
two weeks later. Arnold was charged with (1) knowingly transporting child pornography, (2) knowingly possessing a computer hard drive and compact discs which both contained more than one image of child pornography, and (3) knowingly and intentionally traveling in foreign commerce and attempting to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a person under 18 years of age.
Arnold filed for a motion to suppress, and argued that the government required reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";...
to conduct the search. This motion was granted by the District Court, ruling in Arnold's favor. The Government promptly appealed the case, and stated that the border doctrine
Border search exception
The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that exempts searches of travelers and their property from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement....
took precedence over the Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
's protection from unreasonable search. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's ruling, holding in favor of the Government.
Reasonable search
The crux of Arnold's argument is that a laptop is very similar to a person's home and the human mind, much more so than an ordinary container for data. His argument is based on the notion that a laptop has the ability to store a greater amount of data and personal documents, much like those stored in one's home. He continued to argue that because a laptop is able to record ideas, e-mailE-mail
Electronic mail, commonly known as email or e-mail, is a method of exchanging digital messages from an author to one or more recipients. Modern email operates across the Internet or other computer networks. Some early email systems required that the author and the recipient both be online at the...
, internet chats
Online chat
Online chat may refer to any kind of communication over the Internet, that offers an instantaneous transmission of text-based messages from sender to receiver, hence the delay for visual access to the sent message shall not hamper the flow of communications in any of the directions...
, and web-surfing habits, it is very similar to the "human mind." Under these arguments he sought the protection of the Fourth Amendment, which states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...".
Arnold also raised the exception that the government's searches are limited in cases where they are of a "particularly offensive manner," and argued that such was the case when CBP officers seized and searched his laptop.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus
Amicus curiae
An amicus curiae is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it...
brief in support of Arnold. The amici included the EFF and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives
Association of Corporate Travel Executives
The Association of Corporate Travel Executives is a not-for-profit professional association of business travel stakeholders throughout the world. The ACTE purpose is to advance the interests of the corporate business travel industry, to promote industry networking opportunities and to educate...
(ACTE). The brief argued that the government's position and current practice subjects travelers to unconstitutional invasive searches of laptops and other devices. Their argument is similar to that already made by Arnold, and they contended mainly that a computer is different from a gas tank, suitcase, or other closed container because laptops routinely contain some of the most personal information about a person's life. Moreover, the amici were concerned that a search would reveal information that is already protected under other statutes, including privileged legal communications
Attorney-client privilege
Attorney–client privilege is a legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential....
, reporters' notes from confidential sources
Journalism sourcing
In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or other record or document that gives timely information. Outside journalism, sources are sometimes known as "news sources"...
, and trade secret
Trade secret
A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers...
s.
In summary, the main points of the brief are that: (1) people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information stored on their laptop computers; (2) searches of personal electronic information devices ... are particularly invasive of personal privacy; (3) the volume of information stored on computers means that the privacy invasion of a laptop border search is enormous; (4) personal computers often contain information that the individual does not know about, or has even sought to erase; (5) laptop computer searches are indistinguishable from "general searches;" (6) there is a real risk of unconstrained "pretext" searches; and (7) the first amendment protects many of the contents on laptop computers. The final point raised the worry that indiscriminate searches of information stored on laptops will discourage people from storing sensitive data, thus causing a chilling effect on speech.
A personal computer is among a person's most private belongings. Laptop computers are virtual extensions of the mind, used to record and share our thoughts, feelings, and activities; indeed, "they are postal services, playgrounds, jukeboxes, dating services, movie theaters, daily planners, shopping malls, personal secretaries, virtual diaries, and more." ...[a]s a result, our laptop computers contain as much information about us as our homes contain - perhaps more.
Overall, the amici were concerned that unchecked compliance with the border doctrine would infringe too far on a citizen's First and Fourth Amendment rights. In their view, the doctrine did not provide the protection that it was meant to enact, as technology now provides ways to maneuver around it. "...a smuggler's 'container of choice' for electronic contraband is the internet. They may simply email it to themselves or post it online to avoid customs searches. A ruling that overturns the decision would not undermine the government's ability to protect its borders."
Border doctrine
In response to Arnold's motion to suppress, the government argued two points. Firstly, the Fourth Amendment did not require reasonable suspicion because of the border doctrine. Secondly, even if reasonable suspicion were required, it was present.The government argued that the United States has a duty take measures to ensure the safety of its interior. Past cases have stated that "it is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity." In United States v. Ramsey, the court stated that "searches made at the border... are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border..." In the case of Arnold, the point that linked these two conclusions together was the notion that international American airports are the functional equivalent of a border, as stated in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States.
Reference was also made to a history of searches of closed containers such as a briefcases, purses, wallets, pockets, pictures, film, and other graphic material. These items are the equivalent of a closed container, and have traditionally been searched at the border without particularized suspicion. It is acknowledged that some limits have been made, specifically a traveler's alimentary canal. Such limitations are made when searching a person, not their objects in possession, in the interest of human dignity and privacy, which the Fourth Amendment protects.
Reasonable search
The Court addressed the argument that the search of Arnold's laptop was carried out in a particularly offensive manner, and was so destructive that it required particularized suspicion. The court acknowledged that there was no precedent to declare when a border search should be deemed unreasonable. The Supreme Court has left open the question of the circumstances that make a search particularly offensive, and thus unreasonable. However, the Court pointed out that Arnold never claimed that his laptop was damaged in any way during the government's search.Even without a clear scale to determine how offensive a search may be, the Court dismissed the reasoning of the District Court that particularized suspicion was needed in the case of Arnold. The District Court based this decision on previous cases that related to search of the human body, not of property.
Border doctrine
The Court distinguished searches at American airports because they are considered border searches, and occur at the "functional equivalent of a border" . Previously, the Supreme Court had stated that:To address Arnold's claim that a laptop is like a home, and therefore requires Fourth Amendment protection, the court dismissed his argument as without merit. Its decision is based on previous Supreme Court judgments that have denied Fourth Amendment protections to property which is also "capable of functioning as a home."
Lastly, the Court addressed a comparison to United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005). In that case, a man's van was stopped and searched as he was driving from Canada into the United States. The court upheld the border search doctrine, and the Ninth Circuit acknowledged the concerns and followed the reasoning that carving out a First Amendment exception to the border doctrine would (1) protect terrorist communications "which are inherently 'expressive'"; (2) create an unworkable standard for government agents who "would have to decide - on their feet - which expressive material is covered by the First Amendment"; and (3) contravene the weight of Supreme Court precedent refusing to subject government action to greater scrutiny with respect to the Fourth Amendment when an alleged First Amendment interest is also at stake."
By this reasoning, the Court justified the government's interest in preventing unwanted persons and effects as greater than a person's desire to conceal the contents of their baggage. The decision of the District Court was overturned, ruling in favor of the government.
Michael Arnold Commits Suicide
On February 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States notified Arnold's counsel that it had denied Arnold's petition for writ of certiorariCertiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
. Attorneys for Arnold filed a motion to de-publish the Ninth Circuit opinion (which was denied). In their motion, Arnold's counsel explained that two days after being informed of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear his appeal, Arnold committed suicide.
Controversy
This ruling has caused much controversy and discussion among First and Fourth Amendment rights activists, including the American Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It works through litigation, legislation, and...
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. One of the primary points of controversy is the court's ruling that a laptop is no different than any other type of container. Just as Arnold has argued, critics argue that a laptop contains far more sensitive and personal data than any ordinary container. They continue to state that a laptop search is so revealing and invasive that the Fourth Amendment requires agents to have some reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed their disappointment in its statement:
The opinion is almost certainly wrong to classify laptop searches as no different from other property searches. Fourth Amendment law constrains police from conducting arbitrary searches, implements respect for social privacy norms, and seeks to maintain traditional privacy rights in the face of technological changes. This Arnold opinion fails to protect travelers in these traditional Fourth Amendment ways.
Other critics have cited that there are some documents and data that need to be legitimately kept secret or discrete, and are worried that there is nothing to prevent the officials involved in a search from disclosing this sensitive data. They give examples of trade secrets, acquisition
Mergers and acquisitions
Mergers and acquisitions refers to the aspect of corporate strategy, corporate finance and management dealing with the buying, selling, dividing and combining of different companies and similar entities that can help an enterprise grow rapidly in its sector or location of origin, or a new field or...
plans, plans for a new product, security data about private customers. The concern is that officials in the process of searching may copy and leak this information without consent. Most are unwilling to trust government officials and employees to not misuse what they seize or negligently disclose confidential information.
DHS policies after Arnold
On August 1, 2008, the Washington Post reported that Department of Homeland Security policies allow federal agents to “take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing.” Further, “officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons.” Senator Russell Feingold called these policies “truly alarming” and said that he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion, or national origin. Meanwhile Ryan Singel of Wired.com recommended placing one's electronics and papers “in a first class U.S. mail envelope and stamp it—or even better mail it to yourself before the trip,” since ‘officers may not read or permit others to read correspondence contained in sealed letter class mail (the international equivalent of First Class) without an appropriate search warrant or consent’. However, this only applies to articles in the postal system, not to letters carried by individuals or private carriers such as DHLDHL
DHL Express is a division of the German logistics company Deutsche Post providing international express mail services. DHL is a world market leader in sea and air mail....
, UPS
United Parcel Service
United Parcel Service, Inc. , typically referred to by the acronym UPS, is a package delivery company. Headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia, United States, UPS delivers more than 15 million packages a day to 6.1 million customers in more than 220 countries and territories around the...
, or FedEx
FedEx
FedEx Corporation , originally known as FDX Corporation, is a logistics services company, based in the United States with headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee...
.
Travelers Privacy Protection Act
Senator Feingold, fellow DemocraticDemocratic Party (United States)
The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party. The party's socially liberal and progressive platform is largely considered center-left in the U.S. political spectrum. The party has the lengthiest record of continuous...
Senator Maria Cantwell
Maria Cantwell
Maria E. Cantwell is the junior United States Senator from the state of Washington and a member of the Democratic Party....
, and Democratic Representative Adam Smith
Adam Smith (politician)
David Adam Smith , American politician, has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 1997, representing Washington's 9th congressional district.-Biography:...
announced on September 26, 2008, that they had proposed a law to limit the searches of laptops or other electronic devices to cases where United States Customs and Border Protection officials have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The so-called Travelers' Privacy Protection Act would allow border agents to search electronic devices only if they had reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";...
s of wrongdoing. In addition, the legislation would limit the length of time that a device could be out of its owner's possession to 24 hours, after which the search becomes a seizure, requiring probable cause
Probable cause
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the...
. This bill was introduced, but never became law due to the starting of the new 111th session of Congress.
See also
- Border search exceptionBorder search exceptionThe border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that exempts searches of travelers and their property from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement....
- Computer forensicsComputer forensicsComputer forensics is a branch of digital forensic science pertaining to legal evidence found in computers and digital storage media...
- Carroll v. United StatesCarroll v. United StatesCarroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld that the warrantless search of an automobile is known as the automobile exception...
, (1925) - Olmstead v. United StatesOlmstead v. United StatesOlmstead v. United States, , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the...
, (1928) - United States v. Ramsey (1977)
- California v. AcevedoCalifornia v. AcevedoCalifornia v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 , was a decision made by the United States Supreme Court, which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches...
, (1991) - United States v. Flores-MontanoUnited States v. Flores-MontanoIn United States v. Flores-Montano, , the United States Supreme Court held that customs agents may remove the gas tank from a vehicle crossing the international border in an effort to look for contraband.-Facts:...
(2004) - United States v. BoucherUnited States v. BoucherIn re Boucher, No. 2:06-mj-91, 2009 WL 424718, is a federal criminal case in Vermont, which was the first to address directly the question of whether a person can be compelled to reveal his or her encryption passphrase or password, despite the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against...
(2007)