> I agree, would it have killed him to just say "business" when asked about his trip...
...and, again, answered specifically this point in the follow-up post, which was prominently linked to the top of the post submitted here.
That makes at least three HN commenters that weren't bothered to read the second post, so far.
As for,
> ...and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion.
I followed your link and read portions of it. I especially found this section chilling:
"For example, in United States v. Forbicetta, the court found reasonable suspicion to exist where Customs officials acted on the following objective facts: the suspect (1) arrived from Bogota, Colombia, (2) was traveling alone, (3) had only one suitcase and no items requiring Customs inspection, (4) was young, clean-looking, and attractive, and (5) was wearing a loose-fitting dress. These factors taken together matched the “smuggling profile” for narcotic carriers in that area, and thus, the court concluded there was a sufficient basis to conduct the search."
I looked up the case. In this case, Forbicetta was indeed smuggling an appreciable amount of cocaine under her dress. I will also grant that in this case the CBP showed a high degree of professional training and accurately profiled her.
However, I am extremely unsettled that the factors listed, taken together, represent a legal basis for invasive search.
As a more practical matter, whenever articles from guys like Paul Lukacs come along, and some part of my brain says to me, "this guy is tilting at windmills", I find myself soon reading something else that supports their crusade altogether.
You are right -- it is best not to say anything. But be prepared for being detained for 6 hours as part of a "routine" search.
There must be some way to poliely tell them you decline to answer any questions. Maybe "I am sorry but I have been advised not to answer any questions."
He is a lawyer, and most lawyers would advise their clients that the less they say, the better. Your example would lead to a neat follow-up question, "Who advised you?", which -- according to the document you linked -- might be considered legal grounds for a non-routine search!
The legal arena takes rationality and the rules of debate to their most absurd possible conclusions, and therefore doesn't work in ways that you or I would consider intuitive.
Or, more succintly: politeness could land you in court.
The only creepy bit I find about that is that "young, clean-looking, and attractive" was included in the logic they used to look up her dress.
If I were writing the report I would have left the bit where "We decided to look up her dress because she was young and atractive".
Personally I'm guessing that your demeanour upon aproaching the customs desk tells a customs officer a lot (which is why they ask you some harmless questions about what you were doing while overseas). If I had a million bucks' worth of cocaine stuffed up my dress I'd probably be nervous enough to give them the idea that something was up, if they're cleverly trained to notice the signs of nervousness among people who are trying to hide them.
...and, again, answered specifically this point in the follow-up post, which was prominently linked to the top of the post submitted here.
That makes at least three HN commenters that weren't bothered to read the second post, so far.
As for,
> ...and invasive body cavity searches can be performed without a warrant with the vaguest suspicion.
I followed your link and read portions of it. I especially found this section chilling:
"For example, in United States v. Forbicetta, the court found reasonable suspicion to exist where Customs officials acted on the following objective facts: the suspect (1) arrived from Bogota, Colombia, (2) was traveling alone, (3) had only one suitcase and no items requiring Customs inspection, (4) was young, clean-looking, and attractive, and (5) was wearing a loose-fitting dress. These factors taken together matched the “smuggling profile” for narcotic carriers in that area, and thus, the court concluded there was a sufficient basis to conduct the search."
I looked up the case. In this case, Forbicetta was indeed smuggling an appreciable amount of cocaine under her dress. I will also grant that in this case the CBP showed a high degree of professional training and accurately profiled her.
However, I am extremely unsettled that the factors listed, taken together, represent a legal basis for invasive search.
As a more practical matter, whenever articles from guys like Paul Lukacs come along, and some part of my brain says to me, "this guy is tilting at windmills", I find myself soon reading something else that supports their crusade altogether.