Michigan Lawyer Detained at Detroit Airport, Phone Seized; He Represents Pro-Palestine Protester (youtube.com)
They handed him a brochure explaining why they had authority to demand he hand over his device [to me this seems counter evidence, ie showing that they actually doubt their authority to take a device ie they can only ‘demand’ it, legally. Which seems obvious, since US has Constitutional protection against unlawful search and seizure, which this instutionally violates. They told him he could write down what sensitive information he had on his device and they wouldn't scan that. Lol. They confiscated his device and then they told him if he wrote down a list of his contacts they'd give it back. He did this. I would like to see just one person interviewed who doesn't comply. They all comply. Then they brought him a form and asked him to write down details about all of these contacts. Now he said he thought it was too far and he refused. ‘An intimidation attempt.’ ‘They’re attacking attorneys... law firms.' It seems, particularly just on the Gaza situation. Not on any actual terrorism, if that term means anything anymore.
‘Is the border some kind of no-man’s land?'
There is a ‘law’ that modifies the capabilities of border security to do things, including search and seizer, with no warrant, and even without any probable cause. But it's supposed to be done in the interest of national security. But everything is classifyable as in the interest of national security. It's being used for political reasons, against dissenters, fairly clearly, it seems. ‘Someone who protests the war on Gaza is a threat to national security.’ So it could be anything.
‘You’d have to almost travel with a burner phone. This is the only way you can adequately protect yourself from having your phone confiscated, because they have the right to do it.'
‘The actual confiscation of a phone has to only be done in the most extreme cases, where there’s a high level of national security concern.' CBP policy.
Read the comments. Lots, and 100% against this. So obviously not representative.
I think I've written about this before, but the chief issue here is the uncertainty. All these lawyers come on and just say ‘no one knows’ about what rights they have, what rights the people have.
If it was stated clearly, what powers the border workers have, and what rights citizens and other have, then it could be discussed. It can't really even be discussed since no one knows what the rules are.