Freedom?

A Wall Street Journal reporter has shared her experienced of having her phones forcefully taken at the border -- and how the Department of Homeland Security insists that your right to privacy does not exist when re-entering the United States.

 Indeed, she's not alone.
Documents previously released under FOIA show that the DHS has a long-standing policy of warrantless (and even motiveless) seizures at the border,essentially removing any traveler's right to privacy.
"The female officer returned 30 minutes later and said I was free to go," according to the Journal's reporter, adding. "I have no idea why they wanted my phones..."

***

GOP leaders told President George Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the Patriot act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. 

“I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. 

Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. 

“It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says.

 “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. 

The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

***

I guess they were right...

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.  

The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. 

 In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." 

 The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.  Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.  

The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. 

 Polls show most  Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

***

 
A Canadian was reentering Canada when he was arrested and charged with hindering or obstructing border officials. 

At the time traces of cocaine were found on his bags and he was carrying $5,000 in cash. 

He provided his smartphone to border agents as requested, however refused to provide the password.

  Canada Border Services Agency officials asked for Philippon's smartphone and its password.

 From a report: 

"He handed over his BlackBerry but refused to disclose the code to access the phone. 

 Philippon was arrested and charged under the federal Customs Act, accused of hindering or obstructing border officials." 

It is unclear if he provided the password while agreeing to the fine.