Will this stop the next Border Patrol person from grabbing a laptop? Most definitely not. They can grab it, and then let the defendant wind his way through the courts. This isn't new, by the way; I remember going back all the way to Steve Jackson Games[1] that the government will seize the stuff willy-nilly, and then let you fight it out in the courts.<p>Violations of our basic rights will continue until there is tangible punishment for an LEO for doing so.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._U...</a>
The headline is misleading, and I shouldn't be surprised that techdirt didn't explore the language being used:<p><pre><code> > After considering all of the facts and authorities set
> forth above, then, the Court finds, under the totality of
> the unique circumstances of this case, that the imaging
> and search of the entire contents of Kim’s laptop, aided
> by specialized forensic software, for a period of
> unlimited duration and an examination of unlimited scope,
> for the purpose of gathering evidence in a pre-existing
> investigation, was supported by so little suspicion of
> ongoing or imminent criminal activity, and was so
> invasive of Kim’s privacy and so disconnected from not
> only the considerations underlying the breadth of the
> government’s authority to search at the border, but also
> the border itself, that it was unreasonable.
</code></pre>
Unless I'm reading it wrong, this is a very narrow ruling that can't really be used as precedent for other situations.<p>In this one unique case, DHS was told they were not justified in their actions. There's nothing in this language that says other seizures, in other circumstances, are not acceptable.
The court's order suppressing the search has more detail on the situation and the government's arguments: <a href="https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/dcd/159072/42-0.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/dcd/159072/42-0.h...</a><p>"The search of the laptop began well after Kim had already departed, and it was conducted approximately 150 miles away from the airport. The government engaged in an extensive examination of the entire contents of Kim’s hard drive after it had already been secured, and it accorded itself unlimited time to do so. There was little or no reason to suspect that criminal activity was afoot at the time Kim was about to cross the border, and there was little about this search – neither its location nor its scope and duration – that resembled a routine search at the border. The fundamental inquiry required under the Fourth Amendment is whether the invasion of the defendant’s right to privacy in his papers and effects was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and the Court finds that it was not."
Unfortunately, this case carries no implications for arbitrary search and seizure (in many cases with no return of hardware and no recourse) of computers on arrival to the US. That has been the major point of controversy, vide Jacob Appelbaum.
Reminds me of how the DOJ keeps dropping cases anytime someone questions their sting ray tech. Seems like moving forward, the DOJ, is going to try their hardest to keep any of these cases from ever getting appealed anywhere near the supreme court. Even if it costs them a few cases here or there.
If I'm reading this correctly, this is only about grabbing someone's laptop when they are <i>leaving</i> the country. Does this in any way affect people who are entering the country?