Favorite and least favorite US- Canada Border Crossings

[hbelkins]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/electronics-border-seizures/?cid=co5746764

This is why it's likely I will never, ever get to visit Canada. Usually when I'm traveling I have a laptop, a netbook, an iPad, an iPhone, my work cellphone, an iPod Touch, an iPod classic, at least two digital cameras, a video camera and a radar detector. The border patrol would have a field day with me.

[J N Winkler]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/electronics-border-seizures/?cid=co5746764

This is why it's likely I will never, ever get to visit Canada. Usually when I'm traveling I have a laptop, a netbook, an iPad, an iPhone, my work cellphone, an iPod Touch, an iPod classic, at least two digital cameras, a video camera and a radar detector. The border patrol would have a field day with me.

I don't think that is a very good reason to avoid going to Canada or, for that matter, travelling internationally in general.  The article says that just 6,500 people had their electronic gear taken for inspection while entering the US "between 2008 and 2010."  The article is unclear whether those years are included, which gives an annual figure ranging from approximately 2,200 (assuming 2008, 2009, and 2010 are included) to 6,500 (assuming just 2009 is included).  Using the higher figure, that is just 1/16 the number of people chosen for personal inspection (anything from a frisk up to full body cavity search and monitored bowel movements; about 102,000 annually), which in turn is a fairly small fraction of those selected for secondary inspection.  And it sounds like the inspections, at least for now, are narrowly targeted.  From the DHS perspective, staff resource is an issue--CBP (which actually handles the inspections of electronic gear; the Border Patrol is not involved) is not top-heavy with IT-trained people, and it takes a fair amount of man-hours to comb through the hundreds of gigabytes people may have on their personal devices.

6,500 people is a very small fraction of the 90 million people who cross the Canadian border annually, not to mention the 350 million people (per Wikipedia) who cross the Mexican border annually, or arrivals at international airports.

If you are really worried about CBP sniffing through your electronic stuff, just use DynDNS and a VPN server program on your home computer to maintain access to the sensitive stuff (which, for the ordinary person, is likely to be things like video or DVD rips whose presence on a storage device cannot be accounted for within the law).  If it crosses the border via VPN tunnel over a fiber-optic line rather than on a mass storage device, it won't be inspected.

[SP Cook]

For all of the Constitutional scholars, border crossings have no 4th Adm. protections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

Anyway, I have crossed the border at both the tunnel and bridge in Detroit, by air at Toronto and Montreal, at Niagara Falls by car and on foot, at the end of I-81, and by sea at the since closed Portland - Yarmouth ferry.  The last one was the only time I had an issue.  I was just roadgeeking, traveling for no real reason by myself and told the Canadian border cop that (no reservations, no destination, etc).  He sent me over to the search line, where another border cop searched the car for about 20 minutes.  Nothing to find, nothing found.  Not a big issue.  Didn't take the car appart or anything.

When I travel with anything valuable, I take a letter from my insurance agent (why not) that says he has physically seen me with the item prior to the trip, so I don't get hit with a duty claim. 

[vdeane]

For me it's not even search - just the loss of freedom (I consider my devices to be 100% mine and under my control) and inability to go without my laptop for any length of time without going crazy.

There's still no text in the 4th Amendment that mentions borders - it's worth noting that I don't believe that court rulings should be made on precedent (or anything else other than the law as exactly written, for that matter).  Yes, I know this view is in contrary to every lawyer and judge on the planet, and also that this view is a bit hypocritical because I've exploited precedent in the past.

Oh look, new avatar!  :police:

[kkt]

There's still no text in the 4th Amendment that mentions borders - it's worth noting that I don't believe that court rulings should be made on precedent (or anything else other than the law as exactly written, for that matter).  Yes, I know this view is in contrary to every lawyer and judge on the planet, and also that this view is a bit hypocritical because I've exploited precedent in the past.

4th 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.

I'm not sure how you'd define "reasonable" if not by referring to precedent.

[AsphaltPlanet]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/electronics-border-seizures/?cid=co5746764

This is why it's likely I will never, ever get to visit Canada. Usually when I'm traveling I have a laptop, a netbook, an iPad, an iPhone, my work cellphone, an iPod Touch, an iPod classic, at least two digital cameras, a video camera and a radar detector. The border patrol would have a field day with me.

You make me happy that I am not afraid of the border.

[J N Winkler]

4th 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.

I'm not sure how you'd define "reasonable" if not by referring to precedent.

I made a point very similar to this upthread, noting that the Constitution as written (including the Fourth Amendment) in effect passed through a pre-existing legal convention of warrantless search at the border, this convention being universal internationally.  (In Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, published in 1755, the English novelist Henry Fielding complained about Portuguese customs officers in essentially the same terms people in this thread have been complaining about US and Canadian customs officers.)

The argument has previously been made that the Constitution should not be interpreted as having a carve-out for search at the border which it does not explicitly specify.  I have replied to this argument by saying that it is untenable--the Constitution was not created in a vacuum; it was understood that English common law and existing statute law would carry through unchanged except in isolated specific instances of conflict (as has happened in other countries which have adopted new constitutions on top of pre-existing bodies of statute law).

But even if it were tenable to treat the Constitution as newly born into a legal vacuum, the fact still remains that the Constitution empowers Article III courts to interpret it, and if they choose to interpret it as having a border search exception (as indeed they do), then appeal to a higher authority is not possible.

In any case, my experience has been that secondary inspection of any kind is very rare.  I have never been subjected to it, nor has anyone in my immediate family.  I'd say a majority of the people who have commented in this thread have been, but this is the classic example of an unrepresentative sample, and in most cases the secondary inspections described have been traceable to a trigger that is easy to avoid (showing up at the border station with an alcoholic hangover, being overly specific as to purpose of the visit, looking hinky while discussing a niche hobby, etc.).

[AsphaltPlanet]

The opinions on this forum regarding border crossings generally ranges from "it's not that big of a deal", to "it's a pain in the ass, but not that big of a deal"

About 300,000 people cross between US and Canada everyday, the vast majority without incident.  To think that not one of those 300,000 people who cross everyday are carrying various electronic devices is downright laughable.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/12/07/f-canada-us-border-by-the-numbers.html

[corco]

Yeah, I've gotten a couple of pretty good searches in secondary, and not once has the fact that I had a laptop and camera and phone with me even come up- with me they've always been looking for drugs/alcohol. Now that I'm out of college, of legal drinking age, have and can easily prove I have a steady paying job, and am probably nerdier looking, we'll see if the focus of their searches changes now that I'm going to start going to Canada with regularity again.

Actually, if anything I could see being scrutinized for my electronic devices now- I don't look like the type that would be carrying a firearm or drugs, I'm fairly clean cut...appearance wise if I look suspicious it's because I look like I could be smuggling intellectual property across the border.

I will say that living in Arizona and having to put up with internal checkpoints (you want to have a nice talk about unconstitutionality....I have no idea why those things are legal) has helped my confidence level when dealing with authority in the car, so I'd bet I'm even less likely to get secondary than I was prior anyway.

[J N Winkler]

Actually, if anything I could see being scrutinized for my electronic devices now- I don't look like the type that would be carrying a firearm or drugs, I'm fairly clean cut...appearance wise if I look suspicious it's because I look like I could be smuggling intellectual property across the border.

I don't think the likelihood has changed.  Notwithstanding the fact that DHS is defending suspicionless searches of electronic devices, they are doing so few of them that I think the searches are in fact targeted and based on articulable suspicion--they just don't want to say what the suspicion is.  And in spite of all the talk about terrorist plans (as if there are actually blueprints or CAD drawings for a terrorist attack that can be carried around, like plans for a bank job in a 1970's heist film), I think the real focus of laptop searches is child pornography.  The real way to jack up your chances of getting hauled into secondary and having your devices looked at is to get on the NAMBLA mailing list.

I will say that living in Arizona and having to put up with internal checkpoints (you want to have a nice talk about unconstitutionality....I have no idea why those things are legal) has helped my confidence level when dealing with authority in the car, so I'd bet I'm even less likely to get secondary than I was prior anyway.

I think they rely on two things:  federal statutes providing for suspicionless search within 100 miles of the border, and US v. Martinez-Fuerte.  There is an interesting summary of the jurisprudence here:

http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2012/10/update-on-border-patrol-lawsuit.html

Apparently they are not allowed to detain you for longer than two minutes, and are allowed to ask immigration-related questions only, which you have the option of not answering, and they cannot use your refusal to answer to build suspicion for further search.  So if you want to buck them, and have the time and resource to handle the aggravation that will follow, you can--but since any sanctions that may be applied to them for overreaching their authority will be backloaded and will not fall on the officers involved personally, it'd be one hell of a ride for the sake of principle.

[oscar]

I don't think that is a very good reason to avoid going to Canada or, for that matter, travelling internationally in general.  The article says that just 6,500 people had their electronic gear taken for inspection while entering the US "between 2008 and 2010."  The article is unclear whether those years are included, which gives an annual figure ranging from approximately 2,200 (assuming 2008, 2009, and 2010 are included) to 6,500 (assuming just 2009 is included).  Using the higher figure, that is just 1/16 the number of people chosen for personal inspection (anything from a frisk up to full body cavity search and monitored bowel movements; about 102,000 annually), which in turn is a fairly small fraction of those selected for secondary inspection.  And it sounds like the inspections, at least for now, are narrowly targeted.  From the DHS perspective, staff resource is an issue--CBP (which actually handles the inspections of electronic gear; the Border Patrol is not involved) is not top-heavy with IT-trained people, and it takes a fair amount of man-hours to comb through the hundreds of gigabytes people may have on their personal devices.

That said, having been subjected twice to inspections of my electronic devices by U.S. Customs (one last month, the other in 2008) makes me wonder about the real frequency of such searches, or the real criteria for selecting people for such searches.

The part about the limited IT capabilities of CBP does make me wonder about how thoroughly they inspect electronic devices.  On one of my inspections, the agents made a point of separating me from my devices, so I don't know what they did with them, but since they never asked for the password for my laptop, maybe they were just bluffing about doing an electronics inspection.   (The vehicle search, though, was definitely not a bluff, considering how long it took for me to put everything in my car back in order.)  The second time I was subject to an electronics inspection, CBP did demand my system password, but if they poked around my files, either they didn't try to look at the ones that were password-protected, or they were able to break the passwords without my help (the password protection for those files is medium-strength at best, I just get by with what WordPerfect and Excel make available).

[AsphaltPlanet]

^ That sucks that that happened to you.  Just to for transparency, what was the net result of having your devices searched?  Just inconvenience correct?

[agentsteel53]

suspicionless search within 100 miles of the border

I've seen border patrol officers manning the agricultural checkpoint on I-40 in Needles.

if that's within 100 miles of the US-Mexico border, then I am shooting for one Hell of a speeding ticket.

[kkt]

suspicionless search within 100 miles of the border

I've seen border patrol officers manning the agricultural checkpoint on I-40 in Needles.

Really?  I thought they used California agricultural inspection agents.  When did that change?  I didn't think the Border Patrol knew how to identify plants.

[agentsteel53]

Really?  I thought they used California agricultural inspection agents.  When did that change?  I didn't think the Border Patrol knew how to identify plants.

there were aggies as well, but when we passed by (going the other way on I-40), one person was waved out of the aggie point and immediately pulled over by a waiting border patrol car.

if they're not officially manning the station, they sure are running plates.

[J N Winkler]

My theory is that the Border Patrol is using the agricultural checkpoints to develop suspicion that they can then use to justify Terry stops.

[agentsteel53]

My theory is that the Border Patrol is using the agricultural checkpoints to develop suspicion that they can then use to justify Terry stops.

since when are they allowed to do anything in an official capacity, further than 100 miles away from an international border?

[vdeane]

I made a point very similar to this upthread, noting that the Constitution as written (including the Fourth Amendment) in effect passed through a pre-existing legal convention of warrantless search at the border, this convention being universal internationally.

I was always taught that the Constitution was a "reboot" of the federal government (the same way Hollywood can "reboot" Batman and James Bond) because the Articles of Confederation were so bad.

But even if it were tenable to treat the Constitution as newly born into a legal vacuum, the fact still remains that the Constitution empowers Article III courts to interpret it, and if they choose to interpret it as having a border search exception (as indeed they do), then appeal to a higher authority is not possible.

I tend to take a much more limited view of "interpreting" the Constitution than most, I admit.  It's worth noting that the modern role of the Supreme Court was invented by... the Supreme Court.

looking hinky while discussing a niche hobby, etc.).

Kinda hard not to if customs decides to pry.  Doesn't help that my first time interacting with customs was on a trip with no purpose other than to meet AsphaltPlanet and clinch roads in Montreal, with my drive to/from Montreal being a hair longer than my time in Montreal.  Other than roadmeets, I avoid "pure" roadgeeking trips into Canada, though I hope to be able to clinch more Canadian highways in the future by intermixing in sight-seeing.

[J N Winkler]

since when are they allowed to do anything in an official capacity, further than 100 miles away from an international border?

AIUI, their jurisdiction is limited by function (enforcing immigration laws), not by geography.  The 100-mile zone delimits their ability to question without suspicion, but they can still take action outside that zone as long as someone else (e.g. a California agricultural inspector) develops that suspicion for them.  It is comparable to some police departments finding illegal immigrants as part of a criminal investigation and then handing them over to ICE to be dealt with.

I made a point very similar to this upthread, noting that the Constitution as written (including the Fourth Amendment) in effect passed through a pre-existing legal convention of warrantless search at the border, this convention being universal internationally.

I was always taught that the Constitution was a "reboot" of the federal government (the same way Hollywood can "reboot" Batman and James Bond) because the Articles of Confederation were so bad.

I was taught the same thing, but the Constitution was actually a reboot of the Articles of Confederation only, not the whole body of statute law and judicial precedent at either the state or national level, for which the original enabling devices were the colonial charters and the Articles of Confederation.

[agentsteel53]

AIUI, their jurisdiction is limited by function (enforcing immigration laws), not by geography.  The 100-mile zone delimits their ability to question without suspicion, but they can still take action outside that zone as long as someone else (e.g. a California agricultural inspector) develops that suspicion for them.  It is comparable to some police departments finding illegal immigrants as part of a criminal investigation and then handing them over to ICE to be dealt with.

how does the California agricultural inspector develop suspicion?  all the aggies do is ask if I have various raw fruits/meats/etc - unless I volunteer "I am in this country illegally", out of the blue, they will not get suspicious about my status.

bear in mind, the border patrol vehicle was already parked and ready to go at Needles; it's not like the aggies detained someone for several hours waiting for CBP to show up! 

[oscar]

^ That sucks that that happened to you.  Just to for transparency, what was the net result of having your devices searched?  Just inconvenience correct?

Right.  As I mentioned upthread, I'm not sure CBP took a close look at the data on my devices. 

CBP's Canadian counterparts searched my electronic devices on two of my many crossings into Canada.  (Same outcome, just hassle and a half-hour or less delay.)  So this isn't just about CBP. 

[cpzilliacus]

since when are they allowed to do anything in an official capacity, further than 100 miles away from an international border?

AIUI, their jurisdiction is limited by function (enforcing immigration laws), not by geography.  The 100-mile zone delimits their ability to question without suspicion, but they can still take action outside that zone as long as someone else (e.g. a California agricultural inspector) develops that suspicion for them.  It is comparable to some police departments finding illegal immigrants as part of a criminal investigation and then handing them over to ICE to be dealt with.

I have observed U.S. Border Patrol cars at Greyhound bus stations in the District of Columbia and Maryland (not recently, during the George W. Bush Administration).  But rather far from the land borders with Canada and Mexico.

I presume they were checking for undocumented aliens riding the buses.

[corco]

all the aggies do is ask if I have various raw fruits/meats/etc - unless I volunteer "I am in this country illegally", out of the blue, they will not get suspicious about my status.

I've had the aggies ask me where I'm coming/going. I crossed in from Arizona on California 62 a few weeks ago when I was moving to Montana, and I'd put my studded snow tires on since the weather was supposed to be bad on the way up, and the aggie asked several questions (veiled in legitimate curiosity) about why I had studded snow tires on my car, which was fun to explain since Tucson -> Deer Lodge via Needles isn't really a route that makes sense (I drove up again in a Uhaul the following week and didn't want to go the same way twice).

I bet if you look Mexican they have a whole extra set of questions.

[agentsteel53]

I have observed U.S. Border Patrol cars at Greyhound bus stations in the District of Columbia and Maryland (not recently, during the George W. Bush Administration).  But rather far from the land borders with Canada and Mexico.

I presume they were checking for undocumented aliens riding the buses.

I believe that, along with the "100 miles from any land border", there is a parallel clause of "50 miles from any sea port".  In this case, most of Chesapeake Bay counts.

[cpzilliacus]

I have observed U.S. Border Patrol cars at Greyhound bus stations in the District of Columbia and Maryland (not recently, during the George W. Bush Administration).  But rather far from the land borders with Canada and Mexico.

I presume they were checking for undocumented aliens riding the buses.

I believe that, along with the "100 miles from any land border", there is a parallel clause of "50 miles from any sea port".  In this case, most of Chesapeake Bay counts.

As I understand it, border protection off of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts (and, I believe, the Great Lakes) is the responsibility of the Border Patrol's sister agency, the Coast Guard.

But either way, anyone that gets caught by the Border Patrol at a bus station in Maryland has only themselves to blame, since I don't think anyone is obligated to answer their questions at "inland" locations.

Or could it be that the Border Patrol agents are looking for persons that appear to be Latin American? 

Sounds like profiling to me!