536
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
536 points (100.0% liked)
News
38782 readers
1822 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
My password is the text of the 4th Amendment. I don't unlock my phone often.
No need for a warrant, and the 4th amendment doesn't apply in this case.
They have near autonomy to search you and your belongings for any reason upon entering the country.
We don't have to let them. We can fight it to make change happen.
And we should. They are no masters.
Trying to fight them when you’re re-entering the border I guarantee you will lose. If you want to fight them, you do it in court.
But you do you
If you want to fight them in court, you need standing. To have standing, you have to have been affected by the law.
You can not fight them in court until they do something. You can not sue for what someone might do.
Unless you make up a case about gay people demanding you bake a wedding cake, then you can win at the Supreme Court.
Is it true that you have to have standing to fight them in court, yes.
But to be completely honest, 99% of the people have no interest in actually going to court . they figure they can just fight them while standing in line.
You're contradicting yourself.
There's an implied "instead" in there. You're saying don't fight them at the border, because you will lose. INSTEAD, fight them in court.
To fight them in court, you have to have standing. You get standing by fighting them at the border and losing.
I’m not contradicting myself, you’re just not understanding what’s being said there.
So let me spell it out for you. If a person thinks they can just stand at the border and just fight it. And that’s it. And win. No they’re going to fail. Damn near every single time. It’s kind of like trying to argue with a cop alongside the road. Good luck you’re basically not going to win.
Now, if your intent is to fight in court, if that is your end goal, then yes you would have to fight it at the border. You have to say something at the border so then you have legal standing.
The point of my statement was 99% of the people have no intention going into the courtroom, so therefore there’s no point in fighting at the border because they’re going to lose at the border.
It's like people pretend to know the law, but don't actually understand shit.
I'm not convinced this applies here as it's discussing traffic stops to look for illegal immigrants and contraband near land border crossings. The article is referencing an American citizen getting detained and having his phone searched in the Atlanta airport without probable cause or a warrant.
This is exactly describing that if you read the part that I quoted it specifically quotes upon entering the United States. At an international border. And air flight at an international airport is an international border. And they do not require a warrant. It's already been settled in a court of law although as we can see that can be overturned however it would be very difficult to do so
That doesn't mean agents have a free-for-all to do whatever they want at the border. Would you assume agents can just imprison anyone or perform warrantless searches at homes along the border too? There's a lot more nuance to this than what you think and seizing a device chock full of personal information and private communication is a lot more invasive than someone performing a routine, (from your quote) fairly non-invasive visual inspection of a vehicle looking for entire human beings.
There isn't nuance. You are bringing up things beyond the scope of the conversation and article to try to prove something you can't.
Article states: man enters country. Border patrol requests search of phone. Man is accused of wiping phone.
Person states: 4th amendment says you cannot search me for no reason!
Court says: yea, actually they can.
Person states: nuh uh. You can't, I'll take it to court, we can fight this!
I state: sorry, already been to court. The law says, yea, they can.
Person states: nuh uh! Cause what if this, or what if that! Random bullshit that doesn't have anything to do specifically with this situation, or anything.
Whatever dude. You want to win. Go ahead. You win. Keep moving your own goal posts to try to prove something unprovable.