On this first day of 2014, I wanted to bring light to this issue, which is the suspension of our Fourth Amendment Rights. This also shows you need to look at an issue from several different angles, because one point of view won't give you the whole story. This particular case revolves around Pascal Abidor, who's citizenship is not revealed. One of the articles states that his parents live in New York. Their citizenship status is not clear either. Anyway, Pascal was traveling via Amtrak from Canada to his parents home. I'll let the RT.com article explain it(by the way, here are two more articles on this):
Abidor was sitting in the train's cafe car when an officer forced him to take out his laptop then “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” the suit claimed. The computer contained images of Hamas and Hezbollah rallies and the agents, unmoved by Abidor's assertion the images were related to his studies, handcuffed the young man and kept him detained for three hours, questioning him numerous times.
Doing a "police inspection" in public like this is simply wrong. And it is not meant to intimidate just the person being stopped, but every other person in sight as well. Because if they can stop him, they can stop you. A probable cause for the stop was given, was that he had "traveled to Lebanon," but no time frame for that travel was given. If he just transferred straight from the airport in Canada to Amtrak and headed into the US, that is one thing. However, I have to ask, did he stay in Canada more than the minimum time necessary to leave the country? Did he stay overnight, a week, a month before heading to New York? That fact would change the equation. I also need to ask, why wasn't he stopped right there at the border? Why wait until he already got some distance into the country? I really think it's telling that the ruling judge, Judge Korman, talked about the First Amendment, not the Fourth. The First wasn't an issue in the lawsuit he was ruling on. Judge Korman also upheld a DHS policy which claims any American land within 100 miles of a border to be a "Constitutional exception zone," which means DHS can stop you without warrant or probable cause, seize your personal electronics and demand proof of your citizenship. Let's tale a look at the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Taking a look at this Amendment, I don't see how a police officer can stop a person who does not appear to be breaking any law, and demand access to their "papers and effects" which your laptop, tablet or smartphone clearly is. If the officer has reasonable suspicion, he can swear out an Oath and obtain a warrant for the items the police wishes to inspect and/or seize. The unintended consequences of this ruling means that currently 2/3rds of the population lives within "100 miles of a border," and are thus subject to the whims of the DHS.
If I were to travel to New York City, or Miami, Florida, the DHS can stop and seize any electronics in my possession without warrant or probable cause. Papers, please? I understand that judges are people too, and they have prejudices, beliefs and agendas just like the rest of us. That being said, when we have Judges like this, who blatantly and flagrantly disregard the standards set forth by the Constitution, we are all truly screwed.
Because now all three branches of the Federal government, instead of fighting against each other in a balance of power, have united against the Constitution they have supposedly sworn to "protect, uphold and defend," and the People as well. Sleep well, citizen. Our government is looking out for us.