[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Government Directive Addresses Traveler's Attempt To Prevent Search In A Timely Fashion Government Directive Addresses Traveler's Attempt To Prevent Search In A Timely Fashion After reading an excellent article by Scott M. Fulton, III entitled DHS: Expect your computer to be seized without suspicion, I clicked on one of the four links he included, Border Searches of Electronic Devices. Referred to as 'Directive No. 7-6.1" and issued on August 19, 2009, the ICE Immigrations & Customs Enforcement document contains some interesting info which deserves to be examined. Few people probably read such dry directives, so I read it and have posted a brief overview of the interesting and relevent sections of it. Section 1.1 begins "This Directive provides legal guidance and establishes policy and procedures within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with regard to border search authority to search, detain, seize, retain, and share information contained in electronic devices possessed by individuals at the border, the functional equivalent of the border"... Let's stop right there. The term "functional equivalent of the border" is a tricky and subjective term, as evidenced by the great work of Terry Bressi of CheckpointUSA.org, and his refusal to answer questions at internal suspicionless checkpoints coducted by ICE. I highly recommend his videos to everyone as an excellent educational tool as to how to exert your rights. Moving further into the document, once again the bugaboo of 'terr'ism' and drug smuggling are used as a pretext to seize computers and cell phones, cameras, and any other number of devices: other communication devices, cameras, music players, and any other electronic or digital devices. "Individualized suspicion" is not required to seize property, according to ICE, although one sections pays lip service to "constitutional, privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties training": Section 7.4 outlines how the status of a search analysis is to be given by ICE within 10 days of the seizure. Section 8.1 2) entitled "Knowledge and Presence of the Traveler", outlines "To the extent practicable, border searches should be conducted in the presence of, or with the knowledge of, the traveler". It goes on to state "Permitting an individual to be present in the room during a search does not necessarily mean that the individual will be permitted to witness the search itself", if doing so reveals the governments techniques or operational secrets. Section 8.1 3) is perhaps the most galling of all, stating "Consent Not Needed. At no point during a border search of electronic devices is it necessary to ask the traveler for consent to search." Section 8.1 5) states "Devices will be returned to the traveler as expeditiously as possible at the conclusion of a negative border search". 8.2 4) titled "Notice to traveler" states "Whenever ICE detains, seizes, or retains original electronic devices, the Special Agent is to provide the traveler with a copy of the applicable chain of custody form or other appropriate documentation." Section 8.3., entitled Duration of Border Search dicusses "reasonable time" and includes some interesting information regarding their views on a traveller's attempts to prevent the search of his property. They refer to the fact that "courts have reviewed" the issue, and although they don't reference any specific court cases, ICE seems to be aware of possible legal repercussions, specifically mentioning the traveller who "has taken affirmative steps to prevent the search of his or her property in a timely fashion". They reference this despite their earlier claim in section 8.1 3), where they contend that the traveler has no say in the matter and that consent is not needed. This serves as a good reminder that we should always invoke what I consider our God given right to privacy and exert our Constitutional protections.: Section 8.5. 1)a) is the first time the document mentions probable cause. So it seems that the government's contention is that seizure does not require probable cause, but retention of the device does: Section 8.6 reiterates their claim that all electronic devices are subject to search, yet outline vague guidelines regarding legal confidentiality, trade secrets, and medical privacy: The document is signed by "John Morton" Assistant Secretary U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I noticed one odd thing about this; when you copy paste the name "J6hn Morton" from the ICD PDF document,the letter "o" in the name John appears as a number 6. The following are various excerpts of ICE Directive 7-6.1 which I referred to in this article.: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Artisan (#0)
Technically speaking, they should be able to get away with this one because technically speaking, "the border" is not US Territory and therefore the US Constitution may not be operative there. Until you are admitted to "The United States" you are in limbo. Tricky folks. Make sure you are on US Soil where the Constitution IS in effect, or what is left of it is in effect.
Good article!
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
|
|||||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
|||||