Fourth Amendment Violation? Hard drive Search Warrants Legal?

Imagine reality. Sounds like "SwordFish"... only no Halle Barry

Laptop and Cell Phone Data Searched at Airport

"The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates of America prevents authorities from conducting unsubstantiated or warrantless search and seizure. But do we give up those rights when we have traveled outside the country and wish to return home? The recent detainment and subsequent search of electronic devices in the possession of white hat hacker Moxie Marlinspike seem to indicate so. Marlinspike is not known to be the subject of any criminal investigation, nor does he appear to be an immediate threat to national security. Nonetheless, he was recently detained at JFK International Airport upon returning from an overseas conference, and the cause seems to be an interest in searching his electronic devices..."

https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/9761-Laptop-and-Cell-Phone-Data-Searched-...

WTF? The damn police will pull you over or stop you from walking, to search you. They break the law against you every time when they ask for your consent. Never give them the opportunity because from the reverberation is systemic and congress can reratify the constitution at will. Whoever thought communisim was a threat for that, the US is a tyranical democracy the allows YOU to continously vote of YOUR FREEDOMS!

If it is a questionable warrant, it is an illegal warrant.

It will all change come liberation!

Since when does the government care about the fourth amendment? Just go to an airport.

I don't know anything about the 4th amendment or the Constitution nor do I particularly care to know. What I do know is that computers are the latest instrument of violence and we need to give our government and law enforcement officials broad powers to protect us from cyber terrorism.

A warrant needs to state the particular items to be seized but it is easy to see this morphed into a fishing expedition.

Could this be the Jobs growth BO promised us???? They are talking about giving tests to folks caught pulled over here in Denver.... Doing some test that will say how much and the last time you have partaken of the Leaf.... Total BS to me!!!! Just another means of invasion of privacy and Fund Raising...

I beleive the supreme court just made a ruling that children need not be read their miranda rights before being questioned because according to Scalia, "We want criminals to give confessions". I don't think they will have any difficulty ruling on this 4th amendment question.

This is very bad.

i blame obama haha

Time to buy a new computer and put everything on a remote hard drive

'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.'

To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be 'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 ('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728 F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a hearing was reasonable).

In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps typically incident to arrest. See id.

As a warrant searcher can not distinguish and eliminate that which they are not expressly entitled to search, it is an unwarranted invasion of privacy to do so. Should a program be employed which scans to only select that data specifically related to the search warrant, then I can not see it in conflict with the principles of non cyber searches.