>The ACLU is wrong. The border does it all the time. Here is the one that sticks out in my mind as the most popular case:
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.
>Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
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.
> people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting.
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.
Wasn't this essentially what happened to Philando Castile? In his case he was even complying before he was shot, and the officer who shot him was acquitted.
I believe that was a traffic stop and the officer freaked out after Castile mentioned that he had a CC handgun. Clearly the officer fucked up and murdered an innocent man. However, I think that’s different in kind and circumstances from what I was asking about.
I imagine you are splitting hairs on 2, (mentioning you have a CC handgun, vs telling an officer they can't have your phone), but both are Rights and one person died trying to exercise them (i.e., Your rights don't mean shit to cops).
I see your point, but I was specifically asking about searches like the border searches mentioned in the article, that's the context here.
I also agree that Castile was murdered by a cop, I just don't think it's splitting hairs to distinguish between a warrantless search and seizure vs a traffic stop where a handgun is in play. Both involve violations of rights, but different rights and in circumstances which are operationally different if that makes sense.
He did cite an example: George Floyd. You really ought to read the comment you are replying to more carefully. (And you have to be pretty profoundly ignorant of current events not to already be aware of this.)
We’ll I was specifically asking if there are examples of people being killed by police for refusing a search without a warrant, so it matters insofar as it’s the question I asked.
I’m not here to defend policing as it stands in the US or dismiss any wrongful killing. I just disagree with a particular narrow assertion.
> I was specifically asking if there are examples of people being killed by police for refusing a search without a warrant
No, you weren't. You asked:
"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*." [Emphasis added]
The semantics of that question turn entirely on the antecedent of "this", which is pretty ambiguous in this (!) context.
So I'll revise my criticism of your original remark: you need to be clearer about the scope of what you are asking about. Personally, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to extrapolate the circumstances of the GF case to the potential for the same thing to happen during a border search, but I suppose reasonable people could disagree.
It seems clear when you selectively edit the transcript the way you did. But add a little more context:
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
So? Just because one person professes to have no trouble understanding something doesn't mean it was clear. Maybe you have unusual powers of comprehension. Maybe you understood it because the tacit assumptions happened to align with your prejudices. Maybe you are rewriting the past [1] to save face. Your testimony in this regard doesn't really inform the discussion.
I thought it was clear what I meant, but could see how there might be ambiguity.
To be perfectly clear I do not think qualified immunity should exist and that courts are too quick to rubber stamp warrants. Also most non-violent crimes shouldn’t be crimes IMO. That said, in many year of following the topic I don’t know of anyone being killed while refusing a search in a Terry Stop or an officer requesting entry to a home. Most police killings conform to a few narrow sets of common circumstances, that deserve a LOT of scrutiny but never seem to involve a warrantless search.
The prejudice that it's unlikely that an HN poster doesn't know George Floyd's story? Not only should you have that prejudice too, but simply assuming good faith would have helped you as well.
My prejudice is that if ch4c3 had noticed that the parent comment did provide an example (and it did) he would have said something like: the example you gave is not applicable because… do you have any other examples that are more on point?
> 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.
Which he follows up with:
> 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.
Note that the scope of the discussion has been broadened here. /u/xoa is comparing phone searches at border stops to 'police officer[s] who [ask] if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions"'. And it's pretty clear that this list of police actions is not meant to be exhaustive, just illustrative. There are other unspecified things that an officer could do or say that would be within the scope of what /u/xoa is talking about.
So at this point in the conversation the scope is both broad and ambiguous.
The next step is /u/xnyan quoting /u/xoa:
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
and following up with:
> 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"
The scope of the discussion has now been broadened yet again. And again, the specific details of the hypothetical scenario described by /u/xnyan are obviously intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. An officer could say different words under different circumstances and still be within the scope of what /u/xnyan is talking about. And again, the full extent of the scope is ambiguous because /u/xnyan has not said how far he intended his example to be extrapolated.
But the next thing that /u/xnyan does is give an example of what he is talking about in order to support the point he is trying to make:
> 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.
And finally:
> Your rights don't mean shit to cops.
All this allows us to infer that /u/xnyan intended the scope of his comment to be very broad indeed. He is basically saying that the police in the U.S. can, if they choose, do anything they want to you at any time under any circumstances, up to and including taking your life, and there is nothing you can do about it.
This is the point at which you asked:
> > people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting.
> Can you cite any examples of this happening?
Well, yes, he can. And he did.
I understand that it was not your intention to ask about the "unrelated" example, but in context, that is the most reasonable interpretation of the words that you actually wrote because you didn't say what you meant by "this". In the absence of clarification, the antecedent for "this" in English is usually the most recent reasonable reference, which is to say, the circumstances being described by /u/xnyan in the comment you were responding to, which were very broad, and which included an example as part of the description.
I don't know how you're improving your case here at all.
>> people have been killed by law enforcement for doing what you are suggesting.
> 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.
And at this point, you decided to react with snark. Here's why that was wrong:
1. George Floyd is an example of what happened to George Floyd, so why would he ask for an example of what happened to George Floyd? Is that arguing in good faith?
2. Did you honestly think a "pretty big policing reform person" wouldn't be aware of George Floyd? This is why his question was clear to everyone.
3. George Floyd's case was actually irrelevant to the thrust of the discussion, which was the perils of refusing to allow a search of property at a border.
> Did you honestly think a "pretty big policing reform person" wouldn't be aware of George Floyd?
It seemed improbable, but profound ignorance is not exactly unheard of on the internet.
In any case, it seemed manifestly true that /u/ch4s3 had either not seen or chosen to ignore the example that /u/xnyan provided because he didn't refer to it at all. "Can you provide an example?" is what you say when you think no example has been provided. It is not what you say when you are aware that an example has been provided but you think the example is deficient. What you say in that case is something like: "The example you provided is deficient because... Can you provide a better one?"
> Here's why that was wrong:
Here is why you are wrong: if you give someone an example and they respond by saying "Can you give me an example?" you should not be surprised when you leave your interlocutor somewhat nonplussed, and you should be equally unsurprised when they, being human, respond with a certain amount of frustration at your inability to communicate your intentions more clearly. It's like if you gave a homeless person a pizza and they respond by saying, "Can you give me a pizza?" Dude, I just gave you a pizza, what more do you want? Oh, this is a ham-and-pineapple pizza. I wanted pepperoni! If you think a snarky response is inappropriate in a situation like that, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
If he didn't know what happened to George Floyd, he wouldn't have asked "for an example". He would have asked "who is George Floyd?"
People don't ask for examples of proper nouns.
This is why fluent English speakers understood clearly that he wasn't asking for an example of George Floyd, and therefore was asking for an example of something else, an example that had not been provided.
> 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
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.
That sounds great when typing it up on the internet in a comfortable chair, 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'.
That's why in fields where this isn't uncommon you drill and drill and drill your response until it becomes second nature. If you don't comply you are still an American citizen. CBP cannot deny you entry for any reason (yet). However, they can make your life hell for as long as legally possible.
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.
>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.
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.
As sibling comments have said already, rights must be defended, and clear eyed prep is a big part of the answer for individuals. Even just thinking it through a bit, while you have time.
>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.
Not everyone wants to spend their time on any of this. Some people want to go about their day as they please without having to deal with any of this. That's the entire goal of having a society.
>Not everyone wants to spend their time on any of this. Some people want to go about their day as they please without having to deal with any of this.
That's nice? They can choose to try to do that, and in turn they may well get stepped on. There is a rest of the world out there, not just us as individuals. It doesn't always conform on its own to our wishes.
>That's the entire goal of having a society.
"Society" isn't magic that just happens on its own. It's made up of its people and their actions. If enough of its people don't actually take action, then "society" is going to reflect that too. Society creates more slack and wiggle room, and collective action can help shield individuals. You see that right here, society and law is why there is even an absolute right to return, why someone cannot simply be jailed indefinitely on a whim, etc, which in turn are foundational in making it much less costly to try to work for more. But if you merely want to free ride, well, it may or may not work out.
Eh, right are only rights if they are enforced and/or asserted. If neither is done, at best, they are forgotten and wither and at worst become a quaint memory of things that were.
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.
It's not the guns that are the problem in this scenario, it's the person holding it. If they feel like they can get away with anything, no rule will help you. And even if down the line you get your day in court, you'll still be the one shot.
You might be onto something. Being able to gauge the person behind gun is probably helpful.
Long time ago in country far away, we was traveling through a soon to be former Soviet satellite country. My brother got really sick. We were worried he would die. GPS does not exist yet. Foreign country. We miraculously stumbled upon a hospital. It happened to have armed guards. They blocked the entrance. My mom got pissed and started walking towards them with my brother in her arms. Rifle was raised, but guard ended flat on the floor as my mom pushed him out of the way. My dad followed with an embarrassed hand gestures that he hoped meant 'sorry, she is a little preoccupied now'. Nothing happened. Brother didn't die either. We drove forth.
How you handle yourself matters; doubly so in a time of actual crisis.
edit: Don't be an idiot rule applies. Sensible person will not storm armed guards just because you read a testimonial on the net.
<< no rule will help you.
What do you propose then, because I assure you the world without rules will not be a world people will want to exist in for long?
I have often wondered why gun control advocates in the US haven't taken the ammunition approach. Is there some precedent in the courts that limitations on ammunition are equivalent to those on the firearms themselves? I.E. ammunition commonly used for legal purposes cannot be banned?
In a sense, steps have been taken to do just that, but not in courts. I am not a proponent of those efforts, but it is important to understand what is going on. Various payment systems are currently trying coordinate in a way to track those purchases. Naturally, once they are tracked, they eventually will be marked as risky and, in banks anyway, derisked in a typical bank fashion. The same approach is taken for porn.
And to all that cheer this one, because you happen to align with those values, remember that a tool is just a tool and can be used by anyone for anything.
So that means ammunition must be purchased by bank wire or something? Or of course cash if in person. They already do this for pornography? Yeah, that sounds super scary. Maybe cryptocurrencies are a good thing... I don't want to have to buy a ladder with BTC because I might fall off of it and sue visa.
They have. New York doesn't allow free purchase of pistol ammunition. That also includes small caliber rifle ammunition that has been used in handgun applications.
Let me know how successful you are crossing the border and getting home when you tell CBP to “pound sand”. They’ll just deny you entry and you’re left with very little recourse. Effectively they are the judge and jury and you’re stuck in the waiting area if you’re lucky, a holding cell if you’re not
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 shocked it went that well for her. I've had agents simply lie on their report, including lying to (and waking up) a federal judge and US assistant attorney in the search warrant DHS got for me. Also had them lie to me and tell me I wasn't permitted to enter the US with my US passport.
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.
Native born Americans of non immigrant parents are incredibly afraid of the us government.
Growing up in a family that came to this country, you're very disabused of the notion these agents have much power.
For most of them it's a power trip. Once you understand that, you will figure out what to say.
You have to understand that they know they're lying to you but it makes them feel powerful. Play into it. Let them feel the rush of power but remain firm in your goals.
I know in developing countries, the cops are nothing more than opportunist thugs. I have friends who tell them to just "fuck off" regularly. Then they come to the US with the same attitude, and while true US cops have limited powers, the "fuck off" approach often doesn't go over as well as politely refusing and stating your rights.
When I was younger I used the "fuck off" approach. I would say it worked slightly better than the polite approach of asserting my rights (and then shutting the fuck up) I use now. The polite approach tends to make them falsely believe I am a push over. The only real reason I use it now is because body cams are everywhere and I assume the judge will be watching exactly what I say if I ends up in court. Before body cams I assumed the cop would just make up the most horrid shit possible so there was not point in being nice.
Course it makes not much difference now. I'm on CBP's watch-list or some shit so I'm in for the 16+ hour shit-show, fraudulent warrants, with HSI detectives and the works everytime anyways. Even the seemingly nice agents see it on the computer and say "you know the drill" and send me into the bad-boy room.
Or they won't. And they'll lie to a judge, and they'll lie to a doctor, and they'll lie to the assistant US attorney. They'll create an insane and false chain of probable cause to accuse you of having drugs up your ass. You'll be taken (while cuffed, and chained to a van) to MULTIPLE hospitals against your will and be seen without your permission (without an arrest, without a warrant, and without a court order, and without any psych hold), each of which sends you a multi-thousand dollar bill. You'll wonder when the lawsuit will end up getting served for the medical bills for a medical condition you never had that the agents made up. You will complain to the state medical/nursing board, and they'll tell you nurses can search and perform 'care' on you without a warrant, probable cause, any emergency, consent, an arrest, nor a court order -- and DHS will exploit this loophole to violate what few 4th amendment rights you do have at the border. The DHS agents will smile inside knowing they can weaponize the high cost of fake medical complains while under your detention to rack up debt in your name.
Later you contact an attorney, and find out the agents have qualified immunity, that suing is a financial black hole that you probably cannot afford, and that your best chance is to be some incredibly sympathetic mother-teresa kind of character that are one of the one per 10,000 or whatever ACLU takes up for a cause.
These are not theoretical. This is what they've done to me, and more.
> If you think you’re immune just because you’re a US citizen, you’re not.
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.
If you are a citizen of the United States of America, and you are returning to the United States from a foreign country, Customs and Border Patrol are not allowed to deny you entry to the United States of America.
Of course the caveats - if you, as the citizen, have an outstanding warrant, they can arrest you. They can take your electronics. They can delay you. They can put you in a room by yourself for some period of time. But they can’t deny you entry without some kind of legal reason. They can’t hold you indefinitely.
It just comes down to how much the citizen is willing to be inconvenienced.
And I believe any American with any felony on their record will have trouble visiting Canada. I once traveled with a guy who had a felony assault conviction from a college bar fight 15 years prior. They wouldn’t let him in.
But they will lie to you and tell you they won't let you in.
They will also lie to you and tell you they have the power to cancel your passport.
I've had them pull both 'tricks' on me. Not a lot of people are well versed on their rights and without access to a lawyer it would be easy to believe a federal officer when they tell you these things. If you believe what a federal officer tells you, which is probably most Americans, being told you won't be let in unless you do X is going to be taken literally as 'unless I do X, I am denied entry to the country.' They will simply comply on the basis of a fraudulent lie, which I might add a material lie like this is a felony if a normal citizen says it to a federal agent.
I'm a brown man and I regularly tell cbp to pound sand.
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.
>Let me know how successful you are crossing the border and getting home when you tell CBP to “pound sand”. They’ll just deny you entry and you’re left with very little recourse.
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 someone's family/connections had the wherewithal and resources to get picked up by the ACLU and go to the federal court once in a decade I wonder how often it actually happens. I was subjected to some abuse by CBP, and found out there were a steady stream of people getting the same treatment ('internal' examination of their body without their consent by a nearby hospital, often without a warrant). The last federal lawsuit is practically a decade old, but I can assure you based on the bragging by CBP officers themselves the shit was happening daily. So a decade old court case doesn't mean it isn't happening more frequently.
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.