DOJ Dismisses Case After Court Explains That Feds Can't Just Grab Someone's Laptop At The Border
from the tail-tucked dept
Remember the 4th Amendment? We hear it's making a comeback. Back in May, we had a story about another court explaining to the government that, contrary to popular belief within Homeland Security, the 4th Amendment does still apply at the border, and thus Border Patrol can't just take someone's laptop without a warrant.
The case involved a guy named Jae Shik Kim, who the government suspected was shipping items to China that were then being forwarded to Iran. Because of that, DHS grabbed his laptop as he was leaving the US (on a flight to Korea). The DOJ argued that the laptop was a "container" subject to search at the border. The court disabused the DOJ of this notion: 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. Given an opportunity to respond, the DOJ has dropped the entire case. The United States, by and through its attorney, the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Indictment against the defendants. As grounds for this motion, the government states the following: in a Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed on May 8, 2015, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to suppress evidence, and the government has decided not to pursue an appeal of that decision. Accordingly, the government is unable to continue prosecuting this matter, and we therefore move the Court to dismiss the Indictment pending against the defendants. Yup. Next time, maybe don't violate the 4th Amendment.
techdirt.com
Drop it before a more widly applicable precedent is set
It's all S.O.P. for the DOJ.
Never appeal a case where some judge calls out their obviously illegal actions. In this way they can try to minimize the precedent setting and limit the damage to as small an area as possible.
With a single judge, maybe that town/county/state. If they're lucky it'll only be limited to that particular judge. With an appellate loss, they loose the ability to successfully engage in those shenanigans across an entire appellate circuit.
techdirt.com
The government would rather drop a case against a serial killer if it meant saving them the ability to continue spy on others illegally.
Proof is this case, as well as the one where they dropped a kidnapping case just so they don't unveil they were using Stingrays to catch the guy.
usatoday.com
Disgusting.
techdirt.com |
