Worth noting that both Secret Service and ICE likely have exceptions to Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure based on context. Without specific examples, it’s hard to say if laws as is are being violated. If laws are not being violated, then real issue is if the exceptions should stand.
As if they need much effort elsewhere. ICE (HSI) got a search warrant against me because an anonymous dog allegedly accused me of wrongdoing. That anonymous dog allegedly told an anonymous officer, who allegedly told an HSI detective. I was served a warrant based off 3rd degree, inter-species hearsay. How do you even argue against that. I still have no fucking clue what that was all about and I never interacted with a dog that alerted on me.
Then the cost of the (fruitless) search warrant was sent to collections, and I now have debt collectors chasing me where the debt document literally says guarantor "ICE" on it.
Had to read this many times to understand what you are talking about, but referring to the use of police dogs as "interspecies hearsay" seems like a novel defense. Legally, I would think the use of K9 teams would count as valid evidence for a search. I did not know they billed people for the cost of exectuting a search warrant. Is that really a thing?
The dog handler actually didn't lie. Straight to my face he expressed disappointment the dog did not alert. Someone else lied about the dog alerting. That's the great thing, no one can question the dog so literally anyone in the whole chain can lie and without a recording or testimony of the dog it's impossible to refute.
They handcuffed me, tossed me in a cell, then dragged me to two different hospitals by prisoner van, then told the hospital to search me for an alleged "drug conspiracy" up my ass. Literally. Then the hospital sent me the bill after nothing was found.
So, it sounds like they cloaked the search in terms of a "medical procedure". That surprises me, but I guess by now it shouldn't. They do this kind of thing, when they know they can get away with it.
So I decided to test that exact theory. The warrant wasn't actually signed by the judge until about halfway through my detention.
So I complained to the nursing board, that the nurse had searched me without consent and without a signed court order after a doctor had explicitly noted I was fully alert and oriented and denied informed consent.
The nursing board denied the complaint, stating a nurse acting under the command of an officer is acting in a "search" and not bound by nurse practice act that would make it impermissable to act without a signed court order or informed consent (if individual alert and oriented, which dr documented I was).
That's the gambit. When you legally claim it was a search, they call it a "medical procedure." When you attack the medical procedure, they call it a search. They just flip flop so it's impossible to hold anyone accountable.
Sounds like their position is law enforcement officer commanded the nurse to perform a medical procedure which as result of it being related to a border crossing was legal if there was “reasonable suspicion” which you have said the claimed to have based on your responses and lack of cell phone.
To be clear, not stating I agree with situation, fully understand law, your perspective, law enforcement perspective, etc — but claim that body cavity search requires a warrant once reasonable suspicion is established at a border crossing to my knowledge is inaccurate if you’re claiming it is.
Example of Google search that appears to return search results supporting this:
Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed.
> Disputing reasonable cause is very hard to do. Most people would likely find it reasonable to be suspicious of a person lacking a cell phone. Also appears judge granted a warrant, which to me confirms they believed their the threshold for reasonable suspicion had been passed.
I don’t know what I stumbled upon but it definitely does not meet my threshold of reasonable suspicion to do an involuntary body cavity search for anyone solely because they do not own a cell phone.
Also I would hope the public pays for all costs of whatever involuntary search or medical procedure regardless of whether the search results in evidence of guilt but definitely if the search does not yield anything.
To do X is irrelevant, what matters is if it meets legal definition of reasonable suspicion, which I assure you is both extremely low at border crossings and that law enforcement is very aware of how to establish it; hence why the warrant was granted.
Way to address issues like this is not online or at a border crossing — but by changing laws themselves. I assure that vast majority of people support laws like these, otherwise they would not have been in place so long.
Again, I am not saying I agree with situation, but attempting to accurately describe the reality of it.
Interesting that they can charge you for a search.
Another note: depending on your state, you might have a lot of power in challenging the debt collection. Make sure you demand they send you proof that they hold the debt, that it is in your name, etc. even if the debt was legally applied to you, some debt collectors buy debt that is insufficiently documented.
I’m curious if a small claims court could help you.
> Then the cost of the (fruitless) search warrant was sent to collections, and I now have debt collectors chasing me where the debt document literally says guarantor "ICE" on it.
Wait, am I understanding this correctly? You got a bill for a bullshit search warrant issued against you?
Use of K9s as pretext for plausible cause is well known issue, that said, without knowing specifics of the situation, impossible to comment on legal merit of them submitting the cost of search warrant for debt collections.
Depends on context, jurisdiction, etc — for example, given topic is US law enforcement, here’s one example of costs of investigation assigned for collection based on outcome of a case:
Annoying, for sure, but short of them having a your signature acknowledging responsibility for the cost, it should be straightforward to shut down the debt collector's efforts.
Your statement ignores the fact that this article’s info comes from the DHS Inspector General’s report on CSS usage within the department. The IG did the legwork to figure out that agents didn’t comply with department policy, nor the relevant Pen Tap and Trace statutes.
In the case that agents use the already well established workarounds for 4A protections, the agents must still file for a warrant post hoc within 48 hours, which they didn’t do, hence the article.
And Stingrays / CSS devices are used, there is always an unreasonable search applied towards all phones accidentally intercepted, so there is good reason for both department policy to be followed, and for a judge to at least review this after the fact.
Your comment is lazy. The IG report exists for a reason. It removes almost all of the ambiguity you pretend might exist in these cases.
It's not really an exception so much an application of the "reasonable" part, right? You don't have a right against search and seizure, just unreasonable searches and seizures. The existence of a warrant makes a search definitely reasonable, but there are contexts where a search can be reasonable without one.
