What would you do if airport security agents demanded your phone password?

[The Clamburglar]

Whether it has been tested in Court or not is irrelevant. It is definitely obstruction. It just depends on whether or not the specific circumstances would qualify the obstruction for a charge of criminal obstruction in this one specific case. They absolutely do not need a warrant to get your "personal information." You are just further showing your ignorance.

The Act provides for intrusive searches based on reasonable suspicion. The Act also states that you must answer questions posed to you by border agents truthfully.

Except that Rob Currie, a lawyer and law professor, disagrees with you in the article and says it is not clear whether or not the Customs Act requires you to unlock your device, only allow them to inspect it.

"This is a question that has not been litigated in Canada, whether they can actually demand you to hand over your password to allow them to unlock the device," he said. "[It's] one thing for them to inspect it, another thing for them to compel you to help them."
Currie said the obstruction case hinges on that distinction.

I am going to go with him. You are free to keep pretending this is a cut and dry issue if you want.

 

[Shoemaker]

If the police are investigating screams coming from your basement

Then they'd have probable cause. In a "I'm walking through security like everyone else" scenario, where is the probable cause? I never argued that a screaming person in a house isn't that. I'm just not sure where the "screaming person" is in this entirely different scenario. If blood is dripping my from bag, sure, check my phone. Swab my hands and explosive material turns up? Sure, check my phone. Don't like my smile? I'm not likely to help you, and as I quoted below I think precedence supports me.

"Probably cause" isn't the test for border agents. Border agents can do a search entirely randomly. However, do to an intrusive search, they need reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is basically shaking hands, sweating, stumbling over words, wearing "inappropriate clothing" (ie Sweater during Summer) etc. They are given nearly complete discretion with a huge range of reasons to label someone or something as reasonably suspicious.

Seems you're right, border agents have an exemption. So it looks like I'm submitting there. But not on a domestic flight. TSA has a special needs exception, but caselaw has set the precedent for how far they can go before needing to be reasonably suspicious.

In 2006, for example, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that airport searches must be “minimally intrusive” and that officials may only resort to “more invasive” methods after an initial screening has indicated some cause for concern. - See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/bu...and-seizure-“reasonable”#sthash.43SWaoLW.dpuf

In Aukai, the Ninth Circuit stated TSA screening procedures are “well-tailored to protect personal privacy escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search.” (United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007)).

http://flyingwithfish.boardingarea....tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

The initial screening would need to produce some kind of reason to proceed with more invasive searches.


There will likely be a lot more litigation in the future about this. But as it stands right now, it doesn't look like I need to give TSA my phone password.

 

[Serana]

I don't have a phone password. If they wanted my computer password I would just give it to them. They are looking for illegal stuff and they have the right to check.

 

[Shoemaker]

I had a similar thing happen.

Was with friend who tried to cross border with one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/Safety-Cat-Womens-Defense-Keychain/dp/B004LUXICC

US Border Agents didn't cause any issue about it (it was hanging on the outside of their luggage), but Canadian border agents confiscated it right away and said we were lucky we didn't get charged with trying to bring weapons across.

The lady was like "so, do you want me just to confiscate and destroy it? Or do you want to file a complaint and try to get it back?" We were like fuck that destroy it please! Pretty stressful moment.

Jesus Christ. A ballpoint pen could be just as dangerous.

 

[InvestigatorIL]

I had no idea this was a thing.

My best friend and his girl flew to Cancun a month ago and he texted me after he got through security and told me they did this exact same thing. He relented because he wasn't missing the trip but ya...its scary shit

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

I would ask them to suck my **** first.

 

[Count Zero]

Last year I was leaving Las Vegas, and a TSA agent sent the family in front of me, myself, and a few other people down a separate roped-off path. We travel the path, and it leads us back to the original line, where a crap load of people have been let in front of us, and there's no clear way for the lines to merge.

So the (presumably) wife in front of me asks the guard what we're suppose to do, since we were sent down that path. His response was "no one told you to do that." Myself and a few other people chimed in and said "Yeah, you did" and she kept trying to talk to him to figure out what to do. He quietly listens to her and when she stops he says "you know what I just heard? Nothing at all." And walked away.

Sometimes I wonder if they only hire soulless people, or if it's something they take from you on orientation day. But I never want to throttle people more than when I'm going through security.



Another one, I was getting in the security line the other day and asked the TSA agent if there was a trash can near by because I had a water bottle in my backpack and didn't realize it. He said "yeah, on the other side." Meanwhile he is standing directly next to a trashcan, and when I turned around there was another one there. I feel like he wanted me to try to take it through such that it would cause a kerfuffle.

Goddamn. Fucking assholes

 

[Count Zero]

I was at the border being detained one time, and a group of guys on their way to a heavy metal concert in Seattle got detained and their vehicle searched etc. They were held for about 4 hours and so when they were finally let go the concert was already half over and they wouldn't even have time to drive the rest of the way before it ended. I felt bad for them. Completely fucked. After all that, they miss their concert and basically just have to turn around and come back across the border home.

What a shitty experience. All because they were probably suspected of having some personal amount of weed or pills on them, and the border agents found nothing.

Jesus, how does it even take 4 hours to search them. Must've deliberately just trying to be dicks to them. Ugh

 

[Jmarc]

Except that Rob Currie, a lawyer and law professor, disagrees with you in the article and says it is not clear whether or not the Customs Act requires you to unlock your device, only allow them to inspect it.

I am going to go with him. You are free to keep pretending this is a cut and dry issue if you want.

Dude please stop. He doesn't disagree with me at all. It is the definition of obstruction. It is just that in certain circumstances, we are allowed to obstruct people, even the police and border officials. All you are doing is taking a guess that maybe this is one of those situations where you are allowed to obstruct them, and acting like you are definitely allowed to obstruct them.

The fact is, you have no clue if you are legally allowed to obstruct them.

 

[The Clamburglar]

Dude please stop. He doesn't disagree with me at all. It is the definition of obstruction. It is just that in certain circumstances, we are allowed to obstruct people, even the police and border officials. All you are doing is taking a guess that maybe this is one of those situations where you are allowed to obstruct them, and acting like you are definitely allowed to obstruct them.

The fact is, you have no clue if you are legally allowed to obstruct them.

He clearly did disagree with you.

The fact that you cannot admit that maybe, just maybe your preconceived notions of what obstruction is in regards to the customs act is says a lot about you, and so does the whole "Please stop" nonsense. Get over yourself.

 

[Shoemaker]

Goddamn. Fucking assholes

I didn't realize this at the time, but researching this thread led me to find out that once you enter the security, you're not actually aloud to leave. They aren't "detaining" you, you just can't leave. So that guy could've forced me to go through.

I haven't looked into that much but it seemed to be a case in which the judge ruled that allowing people to leave would provide terrorists with too many opportunities to find security holes. While I appreciate that, it's a shitty reason to detain someone. Erm, sorry, "not allow them to leave", not detain. Requiring probable cause for a search probably provides criminals with more opportunity as well; it also protects innocent people from getting sandbagged.


I'd almost be okay if they called it a "Constitution Express Zone". You only get some of it because we need to hurry this shit along.

 

[Jmarc]

He clearly did disagree with you.

The fact that you cannot admit that maybe, just maybe your preconceived notions of what obstruction is in regards to the customs act is says a lot about you, and so does the whole "Please stop" nonsense. Get over yourself.

This is never going to get through to you is it? It is still obstruction no matter how a judge interprets the act. Interpretation is irrelevant. You are still obstructing their investigation.

Do you even remember what your initial "bad ass" response was?

I would say "Go fuck yourself", I am in no way obligated to assist you in your job, only to not obstruct you. You are free to inspect my phone all you want with whatever techniques you want, but I am not obligated or required to assist you in your search.

And now you are basically saying "but but MAYBE I don't have to give them it... we don't know, because it hasn't been tested in Court that I am aware of." But sure buddy, keep acting like you would tell a CBSA officer to go fuck themselves. Just admit you would shit your pants and that you don't have a fucking clue what the law is.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

No love for The Terminal reference.

 

[The Clamburglar]

This is never going to get through to you is it? It is still obstruction no matter how a judge interprets the act. Interpretation is irrelevant. You are still obstructing their investigation.

Do you even remember what your initial "bad ass" response was?

Except it is only obstruction if they have the right to do it in the first place, which is what the whole court case is going to decide.

Do you even understand that? You only have to comply with their investigation if they have the right to do so under the customs act.

And now you are basically saying "but but MAYBE I don't have to give them it... we don't know, because it hasn't been tested in Court that I am aware of." But sure buddy, keep acting like you would tell a CBSA officer to go fuck themselves. Just admit you would shit your pants and that you don't have a fucking clue what the law is.

Yes, only a middle aged quebec man has the balls to stand up to CBSA, everyone else would shit their pants.

I am saying that nowhere in the customs act does in specifically state that you must provide passwords to the device.

Which it doesn't.

Which is why Rob Currie, the law professor, said:

"This is a question that has not been litigated in Canada, whether they can actually demand you to hand over your password to allow them to unlock the device," he said. "[It's] one thing for them to inspect it, another thing for them to compel you to help them."

Currie said the obstruction case hinges on that distinction.

And disagrees with your assessment.

It is only obstruction if the request is lawful. It seems you are the one who doesn't understand obstruction.

 

[TOTHEFULLEST!]

I would say "Go fuck yourself", I am in no way obligated to assist you in your job, only to not obstruct you. You are free to inspect my phone all you want with whatever techniques you want, but I am not obligated or required to assist you in your search.

Right! This is along the lines of DUI checkpoints asking "if you've had anything to drink tonight." MYOFB!

 

[Jmarc]

Except it is only obstruction if they have the right to do it in the first place, which is what the whole court case is going to decide.

Do you even understand that? You only have to comply with their investigation if they have the right to do so under the customs act.

Yes, only a middle aged quebec man has the balls to stand up to CBSA, everyone else would shit their pants.

I am saying that nowhere in the customs act does in specifically state that you must provide passwords to the device.

It is only obstruction if the request is lawful. It seems you are the one who doesn't understand obstruction.

This is just getting sad dude. Open a dictionary every now and then.

It is obstruction no matter what. End of story. Can not be argued intelligently.

Did the middle aged Quebec man tell them to go fuck themselves? Not bloody likely.

Tough keyboard warriors like you who think telling border officers to go fuck themselves is cool and pretending that they understand the law do not actually stand up to authority figures.

They can legally escort you to a room and force you to take a shit in front of them. If you tell them to go fuck themselves, that's probably your next stop. They already have reasonable suspicion that you have or may be planning on circumventing the Act in some way, which is why they are asking for your cell phone password. This means they are already authorized to do many things A LOT WORSE than giving up your cell phone password.

But sure, be the tough guy. You will look super tough with your pants around your ankles in front of the guys you just told to go fuck themselves, trying your best to take a shit to their standards while they watch it fall from your ass, and if it wasn't enough shit to their standards, you will be detained until you can go again, or they can stick their fingers as deep inside you as they want until they are satisfied you are not hiding anything.

Still feel like a tough guy?

 

[The Clamburglar]

This is just getting sad dude. Open a dictionary every now and then.

It is obstruction no matter what. End of story. Can not be argued intelligently.

Did the middle aged Quebec man tell them to go fuck themselves? Not bloody likely.

Tough keyboard warriors like you who think telling border officers to go fuck themselves is cool and pretending that they understand the law do not actually stand up to authority figures.

They can legally escort you to a room and force you to take a shit in front of them. If you tell them to go fuck themselves, that's probably your next stop. They already have reasonable suspicion that you have or may be planning on circumventing the Act in some way, which is why they are asking for your cell phone password. This means they are already authorized to do many things A LOT WORSE than giving up your cell phone password.

But sure, be the tough guy. You will look super tough with your pants around your ankles in front of the guys you just told to go fuck themselves, trying your best to take a shit to their standards while they watch it fall from your ass, and if it wasn't enough shit to their standards, you will be detained until you can go again, or they can stick their fingers as deep inside you as they want until they are satisfied you are not hiding anything.

Still feel like a tough guy?

http://www.dal.ca/faculty/law/faculty-staff/our-faculty/robert-currie.html

This guy disagrees with you and so do I. Keep pretending that you are some sort of authority on the subject. I'll side with the expert in law, and the expert on myself.

Once again:

"This is a question that has not been litigated in Canada, whether they can actually demand you to hand over your password to allow them to unlock the device," he said. "[It's] one thing for them to inspect it, another thing for them to compel you to help them."

Currie said the obstruction case hinges on that distinction.

If the court decides that you don't have to provide your cell password, then it no longer becomes obstruction because he was not required to oblige. It is not "clearly obstruction" like you seem to think.

And LOL @ you if you think that everyone in the world is scared of police officers and security guards. For some of us, taking a shit in front of some dudes and getting fingers put in our ass is just called "Saturday Night".

 

[gatchaman]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[MikeHammer**]

Dude please stop. He doesn't disagree with me at all. It is the definition of obstruction. It is just that in certain circumstances, we are allowed to obstruct people, even the police and border officials. All you are doing is taking a guess that maybe this is one of those situations where you are allowed to obstruct them, and acting like you are definitely allowed to obstruct them.

The fact is, you have no clue if you are legally allowed to obstruct them.

You are wrong here.

You seem unwilling to admit it or incapable of comprehending it. Either way you are wrong.

Just sayin'.

 

[MikeHammer**]

http://www.dal.ca/faculty/law/faculty-staff/our-faculty/robert-currie.html

This guy disagrees with you and so do I. Keep pretending that you are some sort of authority on the subject. I'll side with the expert in law, and the expert on myself.

Once again:



If the court decides that you don't have to provide your cell password, then it no longer becomes obstruction because he was not required to oblige. It is not "clearly obstruction" like you seem to think.

And LOL @ you if you think that everyone in the world is scared of police officers and security guards. For some of us, taking a shit in front of some dudes and getting fingers put in our ass is just called "Saturday Night".

He's taken a stand and drawn a line and will not admit your right. Let it go as you clearly are.

This could not be more clear that it is not clear cut obstruction.

...Currie said the obstruction case hinges on that distinction.