Lawsuit Seeks Transparency as Searches of Cellphones and Laptops Skyrocket at Borders

By Murtaza Hussain 


A lawsuit filed today by the Knight First Amendment Institute, a public interest legal organization based at Columbia University, seeks to shed light on invasive searches of laptops and cellphones by Customs and Border Protection officers at U.S. border crossings.

Documents filed in the case note that these searches have risen precipitously over the past two years, from a total of 5,000 searches in 2015 to 25,000 in 2016, and rising to 5,000 in the month of February 2017 alone. Among other questions, the lawsuit seeks to compel the federal government to provide more information about these searches, including how many of those searched have been U.S. citizens, the number of searches by port of entry, and the number of searches by the country of origin of the travelers.

Civil rights groups have long claimed that warrantless searches of cellphones and laptops by government agents constitute a serious invasion of privacy, due to the wealth of personal data often held on such devices. It is common for private conversations, photographs, and location information to be held on cellphones and laptops, making a search of these items significantly more intrusive than searching a simple piece of luggage.

A number of recent cases in the media have revealed instances of U.S. citizens and others being compelled by CBP agents to unlock their devices for search. In some instances, people have claimed to have been physically coerced into complying, including one American citizen who said that CBP agents grabbed him by the neck in order to take his cellphone out of his possession.

The legality of warrantless device searches at the border remains a contested issue, with the government asserting, over the objections of civil liberties groups, that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply at ports of entry. Some particularly controversial cases of searches at the border have involved journalists whose electronic data contains sensitive information about the identity of sources. Last year, a Canadian journalist was detained for six hours before being denied entry to the United States after refusing to unlock devices containing sensitive information. It has also been alleged that border agents are disproportionately targeting Muslim Americans and people with ties to Muslim-majority countries for both interrogation and device searches.

This February, Sen. Ron Wyden sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security head John Kelly stating that he was “alarmed by recent media reports of Americans being detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and pressured to give CBP access … to locked mobile devices.”
Wyden’s letter also indicated plans for legislation that would require agents to obtain a warrant before conducting these searches.

The rapidly growing number of searches has prompted a legal effort to demand constraints and controls on the practice. In a press release issued today announcing the lawsuit, the Knight First Amendment Institute indicated more plans to scrutinize these searches in the future.

“These searches are extremely intrusive, and government agents shouldn’t be conducting them without cause,” said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director. “Putting this kind of unfettered power in the hands of border agents invites abuse and discrimination and will inevitably have a chilling effect on the freedoms of speech and association.”

Report: Donald Trump Violated US Embargo on Cuba in 1990s Even as He Called Castro a Brutal Dictator

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, in news from the campaign trail, a new investigation by Newsweek reveals that one of Donald Trump’s businesses violated the U.S. embargo on Cuba and secretly did business there in the late 1990s and then tried to cover it up. The investigation draws on internal company documents showing Trump’s firm, then called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, spent at least $68,000 in Cuba during a secret business trip to Havana. At the time, it was illegal under U.S. law to spend any corporate money in Cuba.

AMY GOODMAN: Only a year later, Trump wrote in an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in '99, "I would rather take a financial hit than become a financial backer of one of the world's most-brutal dictators ... Of course, we should keep the embargo in place," he wrote.

Well, for more, we go to Dallas, Texas, where we’re joined by Kurt Eichenwald, who’s senior writer at Newsweek, contributing editor at Vanity Fair. His cover story for Newsweek is headlined "Donald Trump’s Castro Connection."

So, in these last few minutes we have together, Kurt, can you just lay out what you found?

KURT EICHENWALD: Well, very simply, that Donald Trump violated the Cuban embargo, and did so with a lot of planning. They did a business trip. They spent many, many thousands of dollars, which is completely illegal, visited—this is not Donald Trump personally. They sent someone from an outside company and reimbursed him for all the costs, but that was the way to do it. They met with government officials, financiers, businessmen, came back, plotted on how to make it look like this was actually a humanitarian effort sponsored by a charity. And then, after that, no deal came out of it, but seven months later, Trump was on the campaign trail running for the nomination of the Reform Party. And he said spending money in Cuba is giving it to Castro, and he’s a murderer. And, you know, while he’s standing there, he knows that he had just done that.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the reason he did that, Kurt—

KURT EICHENWALD: So, it’s really—it’s shocking.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Kurt, the reason he did that at the time was just looking out for potential casinos in Havana, at the time that his own company was in financial trouble?

KURT EICHENWALD: Yes. There was—there were rumblings that the embargo might be about to be revised. And so Trump was trying to get, you know, a foot in the door. He was trying to get people on the ground in Havana who would help—you know, help with the government aspects, help with the financial aspects, help with the partnership aspects, and basically was getting braced to, like, dash through the door as soon as it started getting opened. It didn’t get open, and you’re not allowed to do that. It was illegal to begin with. And so, it was a—you know, it was a financial decision for what was then a very financially struggling company. And it just—you know, to me, what’s so shocking about it is how casually they broke the law, how casually—you know, the motivation of it was so—was so based in, you know, just financial calculations, trying to pull a lousy business out of the fire.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, Kurt, you have a lot of people who—a lot of—there are a lot of people who were opposed the embargo, who felt it was wrong, except Donald Trump would not be in that category publicly, because, as you point out in the Miami Herald, he said, "I would rather take a financial hit than become a financial backer of one of the world’s most-brutal dictators." How do you know, in this last minute, that Donald Trump directly knew about this $68,000 expenditure?

KURT EICHENWALD: Well, two things. First of all, the $68,000 was coming out from the very highest reaches of the company. It wasn’t like there was some accountant doing it. The president and chief executive officer were in charge. The chief financial officer was involved. And I know from people who were directly involved in the circumstances, who were there, that Trump knew and was fully on board. You know, you don’t write a $68,000 check and not—and it was actually a $100,000 check, because they were paying for other things, too—with a consultant that Trump is dealing with personally, and have nobody know about it. But, yes, he knew.

AMY GOODMAN: And the investigation that you did of the cover-up afterwards, of—

KURT EICHENWALD: With the—well, what that entailed was, after the money had been paid, there are ways for a humanitarian effort to be expended in Cuba that are legal. And it was: "Well, maybe we should try and make it look like this. Maybe we should get a charity to have sponsored our trip." It doesn’t work that way, and you can’t do a business deal or a business transaction or a business trip and then say, "Oh, let’s make it look like it’s a humanitarian trip."

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to have to leave it there. Kurt Eichenwald, thanks for joining us. We’ll link to your piece at Newsweek, Vanity Fair.