3. 美国的法庭对搜查拥有大量隐私信息的手机等电子设备和搜查包包箱子等不涉及海量隐私信息的东西是区分对待的。2014年在Riley v. California案件中最高法院一致裁决第四修正案保护公民隐私权通常不允许警察在没有搜索令的情况下搜索在手机上电子信息，因为这些信息涉及太多的个人隐私： Held: The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Pp. 5–28. (i) Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee’s person. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an element of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives. Pp. 17– 21.
(ii) The scope of the privacy interests at stake is further complicated by the fact that the data viewed on many modern cell phones may in fact be stored on a remote server. Thus, a search may extend well beyond papers and effects in the physical proximity of an arrestee, a concern that the United States recognizes but cannot definitively foreclose. Pp. 21–22. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
The plaintiffs in the case are 10 U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who hail from seven states and come from a variety of backgrounds. The lawsuit challenges the government’s fast-growing practice of searching travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant. It seeks to establish that the government must have a warrant based on probable cause to suspect a violation of immigration or customs laws before conducting such searches.
The plaintiffs include a military veteran, journalists, students, an artist, a NASA engineer, and a business owner. Several are Muslims and people of color. All were reentering the country from business or personal travel when border officers searched their devices. They were not subsequently accused of any wrongdoing. Officers also confiscated and kept the devices of several plaintiffs for weeks or months.
The number of electronic device searches at the border increased significantly in 2016 and has grown even more under the Trump administration. CBP officers conducted more than 30,000 electronic device searches in fiscal year 2018, over three times the number from fiscal year 2015 (8,503).
>首先，你说“如果肯定合法，法庭就不会允许EFF和ACLU告政府了”。这就有问题，告CBP和DHS，不需要法庭允许。 你知道“motion to dismiss”在这个案子里是什么意思吗？
Plaintiffs, who include two journalists, a NASA engineer, a computer programmer, and a nursing student, among others, were subject to warrantless searches of their electronic devices by ICE and/or CBP. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU sued on their behalf, survived the agencies’ motion to dismiss, and filed last week for summary judgment.
>其次，现在的事实是，CBP搜查公民或者非公民的电子设备，是否适用第四修正案，合不合宪，没有定论。 你的原话“美国法律你们还要学习一个。搜索 Alasaad v. McAleenan 11位原告除了一位绿卡，全是美国公民，都被CBP搜查电子设备了。”读起来似乎在误导别人美国法律是允许搜查的。
The plaintiffs in the case are 10 U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who hail from seven states and come from a variety of backgrounds. The lawsuit challenges the government’s fast-growing practice of searching travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant. It seeks to establish that the government must have a warrant based on probable cause to suspect a violation of immigration or customs laws before conducting such searches.
The plaintiffs include a military veteran, journalists, students, an artist, a NASA engineer, and a business owner. Several are Muslims and people of color. All were reentering the country from business or personal travel when border officers searched their devices. They were not subsequently accused of any wrongdoing. Officers also confiscated and kept the devices of several plaintiffs for weeks or months.
The number of electronic device searches at the border increased significantly in 2016 and has grown even more under the Trump administration. CBP officers conducted more than 30,000 electronic device searches in fiscal year 2018, over three times the number from fiscal year 2015 (8,503).
我最开始发帖是因为，据我了解，美国CBP对公民和非公民的电子设备进行搜查、甚至扣留（施以技术手段），并不需要搜查令，而且频率越来越多。而之前的一个回帖彻底否认美国海关搜查公民的电子设备。 我不是从事法律工作的，了解的很肤浅。现在我了解了motion to dismiss
海关搜查电子设备和你举的例子警察搜查电子设备，明显是不一样的。Riley v. California使得警察搜查嫌犯的电子设备是需要法院搜查令的。海关搜查电子设备，追溯到911之后通过的反恐相关法案，当时就有不少搜查电脑、手机的案例。所以今天才会有每年30000多次搜查电子设备。海关搜查电子设备符不符合宪法是待定的。
Another Federal Court Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches at U.S. Border It’s time for SCOTUS to revisit the "border search exception" to the Fourth Amendment.
回复 17楼ytwk2的帖子 我最开始发帖是因为，据我了解，美国CBP对公民和非公民的电子设备进行搜查、甚至扣留（施以技术手段），并不需要搜查令，而且频率越来越多。而之前的一个回帖彻底否认美国海关搜查公民的电子设备。 我不是从事法律工作的，了解的很肤浅。现在我了解了motion to dismiss
海关搜查电子设备和你举的例子警察搜查电子设备，明显是不一样的。Riley v. California使得警察搜查嫌犯的电子设备是需要法院搜查令的。海关搜查电子设备，追溯到911之后通过的反恐相关法案，当时就有不少搜查电脑、手机的案例。所以今天才会有每年30000多次搜查电子设备。海关搜查电子设备符不符合宪法是待定的。
Riley v. California之前警察是否允许在无搜索令时对手机进行搜索也是有争议的。第四修正案有几种例外情况允许警察在无搜索令时进行搜索。“searches incident to a valid arrest”是这些例外之一。该例外允许警察在拘捕Rilley时无需搜索令即可搜索他随身带的东西包括手机。警察这样做了并在手机上发现了Rilley的其他犯罪证据最后将他定了其他罪。上诉法庭也判了搜索是合法的驳回了上诉。但告到最高法院后大法官们考虑到“searches incident to a valid arrest”这个例外并不是可以没有限制的搜索信息。三个相关法庭判决先例规定了警察搜查被捕者随身带的或附近的东西的程度是受到下列限制的：1. the area within the arrestee’s immediate control；2. where it is justified by the interests in officer safety；3. in preventing evidence destruction； 警察对Riley手机的电子信息的搜索超出了这三条限制，所以最高法院全票一致裁决警察一般要有搜索令才允许搜索在手机上的电子信息，因为这些信息涉及太多的个人隐私。
言归正传，海关不需要搜索令对旅客携带物品执行搜索是由来已久的规矩。在旅客没有广泛使用和携带存有大量个人隐私信息的电子设备的年代这可能不是一个会严重侵犯个人隐私权的问题。但时代不同了，今天的海关如果再不对电子设备的搜索有所限制，政府可以获得旅行者及相关人员的大量个人信息，严重侵犯了第四修正案赋予个人的隐私保护权。这次EFF和ACLU联合告政府的案子很有可能会告到最高法院，我个人的感觉最高法院的裁决会对海关搜索电子设备的权限有所限制。 >我想请你说明，"美国CBP搜查都是从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的”而不是现场profile，或者根据某个模棱两可的内部名单（导致重名的人会经常被关小黑屋，搜查电子设备）。 我的原话“涉案的搜索都是海关从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的”, 是来自你给的链接提供的信息： Both CBP and ICE openly admitted that these searches are informed by information or requests from outside agencies, like the FBI, IRS, and State Department. https://www.kaiserdillon.com/can-they-really-search-my-phone-cbp-ice-and-the-suit-at-the-center-of-electronic-device-searches-at-the-border/
不是所有人都被查，说是被查的大部分都是年纪轻的
基本就是翻看微信的聊天记录和朋友圈
整个过程10几分钟
美国海关不查美国人的手机，中国海关专查中国人的手机
美国只查外国人 因为他们入关前不受美国宪法保护 美国有义务保护本土安全
中国专查中国人, 因为监控大国他们要控制屁民的一举一动.
是的，中国海关查中国人手机，美国海关也查中国人手机
就跟美国人可以骂美国总统，中国人也可以骂美国总统一样。
楼上那位sswyu同学就属于想说美国好（这个结论大体是事实），但自个儿没能力没水平，张嘴胡说一通，结果被人抓包的那种。。。
美国该好，还是好。但sswyu同学就不好了，呵呵。。。
LOL..
1. 被美国海关搜索了不等于海关这样做就是合法的。如果肯定合法，法庭就不会允许EFF和ACLU告政府了。法庭允许告就说明这个官司最后法律会判哪方赢还是个未知数。
2. 涉案的搜索都是海关从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的，并不是海关自己无来由搜查。中国的海关搜查手机如果是随机搜查中国人那和这个美国的案子还是不同的。
3. 美国的法庭对搜查拥有大量隐私信息的手机等电子设备和搜查包包箱子等不涉及海量隐私信息的东西是区分对待的。2014年在Riley v. California案件中最高法院一致裁决第四修正案保护公民隐私权通常不允许警察在没有搜索令的情况下搜索在手机上电子信息，因为这些信息涉及太多的个人隐私：
Held: The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Pp. 5–28.
(i) Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee’s person. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an element of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives. Pp. 17– 21.
(ii) The scope of the privacy interests at stake is further complicated by the fact that the data viewed on many modern cell phones may in fact be stored on a remote server. Thus, a search may extend well beyond papers and effects in the physical proximity of an arrestee, a concern that the United States recognizes but cannot definitively foreclose. Pp. 21–22.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
呵呵 你这水平太差 就别给中国方面洗了， 上面的同学已经指出 这些美国搜查都是应FBI 等方面要求的 ，是针对性的 非抽检的 程序有没有问题 自然有法庭来判定， 告赢了也是很正常
你在中国毫无理由的搜查手机 你告个政府 试试
呵呵呵了。
等哪天你也敢在中国告中国海关了再做比较
首先，你说“如果肯定合法，法庭就不会允许EFF和ACLU告政府了”。这就有问题，告CBP和DHS，不需要法庭允许。
其次，现在的事实是，CBP搜查公民或者非公民的电子设备，是否适用第四修正案，合不合宪，没有定论。
再次，“通常不允许警察在没有搜索令的情况下搜索在手机上电子信息”，是属实的。但是“海关从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的”，你举的这些机构并没有发出搜查令的权利。
综上所述，CBP在没有法院的搜查令的前提下，过去、到近期、再到可以预见的未来，仍会对公民、绿卡、非公民搜查手机，电脑等随身电子产品。而且，据我从这个案子的资料了解，CBP搜查的时候并不会知会 被搜查对象，是什么机构要求、什么原因要进行搜查。
911之后公民隐私权的收缩是众所周知的。
The plaintiffs in the case are 10 U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who hail from seven states and come from a variety of backgrounds. The lawsuit challenges the government’s fast-growing practice of searching travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant. It seeks to establish that the government must have a warrant based on probable cause to suspect a violation of immigration or customs laws before conducting such searches.
The plaintiffs include a military veteran, journalists, students, an artist, a NASA engineer, and a business owner. Several are Muslims and people of color. All were reentering the country from business or personal travel when border officers searched their devices. They were not subsequently accused of any wrongdoing. Officers also confiscated and kept the devices of several plaintiffs for weeks or months.
The number of electronic device searches at the border increased significantly in 2016 and has grown even more under the Trump administration. CBP officers conducted more than 30,000 electronic device searches in fiscal year 2018, over three times the number from fiscal year 2015 (8,503).
哈哈哈，赞逻辑！👍
>首先，你说“如果肯定合法，法庭就不会允许EFF和ACLU告政府了”。这就有问题，告CBP和DHS，不需要法庭允许。
你知道“motion to dismiss”在这个案子里是什么意思吗？
Plaintiffs, who include two journalists, a NASA engineer, a computer programmer, and a nursing student, among others, were subject to warrantless searches of their electronic devices by ICE and/or CBP. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU sued on their behalf, survived the agencies’ motion to dismiss, and filed last week for summary judgment.
>其次，现在的事实是，CBP搜查公民或者非公民的电子设备，是否适用第四修正案，合不合宪，没有定论。
你的原话“美国法律你们还要学习一个。搜索 Alasaad v. McAleenan 11位原告除了一位绿卡，全是美国公民，都被CBP搜查电子设备了。”读起来似乎在误导别人美国法律是允许搜查的。
>再次，“通常不允许警察在没有搜索令的情况下搜索在手机上电子信息”，是属实的。但是“海关从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的”，你举的这些机构并没有发出搜查令的权利。
如果有搜索令就不需要上法庭了。我这里表达的是美国和中国海关搜索本国公民手机的原因是不同的。
>综上所述，CBP在没有法院的搜查令的前提下，过去、到近期、再到可以预见的未来，仍会对公民、绿卡、非公民搜查手机，电脑等随身电子产品。而且，据我从这个案子的资料了解，CBP搜查的时候并不会知会 被搜查对象，是什么机构要求、什么原因要进行搜查。
只有在美国的这个案子判决后才能断定CPB可否继续在无搜索令的情况下搜索电子设备。
>911之后公民隐私权的收缩是众所周知的。
我们现在讨论的不是公民隐私权收缩不收缩的问题而是在没有搜索令的情况下政府可不可以搜索拥有大量个人隐私信息的电子产品的问题。2014年Riley v. California的判决是在911发生的十几年后。
有搜索令的话还告什么？我们讨论的是没搜索令可不可以搜索。
搜索后有没有发现犯罪证据和搜索的合法性是两回事。即使找到犯罪证据也不等于搜索是合法的。
我最开始发帖是因为，据我了解，美国CBP对公民和非公民的电子设备进行搜查、甚至扣留（施以技术手段），并不需要搜查令，而且频率越来越多。而之前的一个回帖彻底否认美国海关搜查公民的电子设备。
我不是从事法律工作的，了解的很肤浅。现在我了解了motion to dismiss
海关搜查电子设备和你举的例子警察搜查电子设备，明显是不一样的。Riley v. California使得警察搜查嫌犯的电子设备是需要法院搜查令的。海关搜查电子设备，追溯到911之后通过的反恐相关法案，当时就有不少搜查电脑、手机的案例。所以今天才会有每年30000多次搜查电子设备。海关搜查电子设备符不符合宪法是待定的。
我想请你说明，"美国CBP搜查都是从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的”而不是现场profile，或者根据某个模棱两可的内部名单（导致重名的人会经常被关小黑屋，搜查电子设备）。
It’s time for SCOTUS to revisit the "border search exception" to the Fourth Amendment.
lol
中国不好美国好，都不影响您张嘴胡说被人抓包。。。
不要觉得美国好就是您好哦。。。
你咋知道中国查手机没理由？
他要能像咱正常人，说话需要“知道”才说的话，就不会张嘴跑火车被人抓包了。。。
那你说说中国查手机啥理由?
抓个屁包, 中国地铁查手机 入境查手机 就是看你像不像有反党言论的抽检, 也不是为了配合调查现有案件, 你们五毛这种都能洗 还自诩正常人? 太不要脸了罢.
您又装。。。
说的是您那啥“美国只查外国人 因为他们入关前不受美国宪法保护 ”这句是张嘴胡说。
不是说中国如何如何。。。
您咋就一直装糊涂，说的好像只要中国不好，您自己就不是那种张嘴胡说的主儿了？
您如果对您自个儿是不是张嘴胡说的主儿没兴趣，只想讨论中国好不好，那随您。那您真是太大公无私了，自个儿咋样没关系，只要证明中国烂就行？
我反正讨论的是您，不是中国。
小粉们绕道而行
Riley v. California之前警察是否允许在无搜索令时对手机进行搜索也是有争议的。第四修正案有几种例外情况允许警察在无搜索令时进行搜索。“searches incident to a valid arrest”是这些例外之一。该例外允许警察在拘捕Rilley时无需搜索令即可搜索他随身带的东西包括手机。警察这样做了并在手机上发现了Rilley的其他犯罪证据最后将他定了其他罪。上诉法庭也判了搜索是合法的驳回了上诉。但告到最高法院后大法官们考虑到“searches incident to a valid arrest”这个例外并不是可以没有限制的搜索信息。三个相关法庭判决先例规定了警察搜查被捕者随身带的或附近的东西的程度是受到下列限制的：1. the area within the arrestee’s immediate control；2. where it is justified by the interests in officer safety；3. in preventing evidence destruction； 警察对Riley手机的电子信息的搜索超出了这三条限制，所以最高法院全票一致裁决警察一般要有搜索令才允许搜索在手机上的电子信息，因为这些信息涉及太多的个人隐私。
言归正传，海关不需要搜索令对旅客携带物品执行搜索是由来已久的规矩。在旅客没有广泛使用和携带存有大量个人隐私信息的电子设备的年代这可能不是一个会严重侵犯个人隐私权的问题。但时代不同了，今天的海关如果再不对电子设备的搜索有所限制，政府可以获得旅行者及相关人员的大量个人信息，严重侵犯了第四修正案赋予个人的隐私保护权。这次EFF和ACLU联合告政府的案子很有可能会告到最高法院，我个人的感觉最高法院的裁决会对海关搜索电子设备的权限有所限制。
>我想请你说明，"美国CBP搜查都是从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的”而不是现场profile，或者根据某个模棱两可的内部名单（导致重名的人会经常被关小黑屋，搜查电子设备）。
我的原话“涉案的搜索都是海关从FBI, IRS和State Department得到信息和要求而为的”, 是来自你给的链接提供的信息：
Both CBP and ICE openly admitted that these searches are informed by information or requests from outside agencies, like the FBI, IRS, and State Department.
https://www.kaiserdillon.com/can-they-really-search-my-phone-cbp-ice-and-the-suit-at-the-center-of-electronic-device-searches-at-the-border/