Thousands of travelers were stranded at airports during delays and subsequent chaos on Monday evening as the computer system for customs screenings went down in several cities. The system was only out of service for a few hours, from about 5 to 9 p.m., but since it was one of the busiest travel days of the year, the impact was profound. As the computer system for screening people was down, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers used “alternative procedures” to vet international travelers. The agency’s spokesman Daniel Hetlage said that officers had access to national security databases the whole time and that they screened all travelers properly according to safety standards.

Passengers on more than 30 flights that arrived at Miami International Airport were affected. In Atlanta, the outage “only” lasted for an hour and a half. In Salt Lake City, airport staff didn’t know where to put all the people to wait. “Delta had us all line up after we landed and it took a while before customs was even able to find us a place where we could wait because the airport is so small,” said passenger Jennifer Powers-Johnson to CNN.

The problems also hit San Francisco, Boston, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and New York’s JFK Airport. As people were coming back home from the holiday weekend and preparing to go back to school and work the day after, this was not a welcome surprise  and many travelers took to Twitter to express their frustration.

US Customs is down and this is the back of the line Atlanta #atl pic.twitter.com/RHcB8Fh4HF

— Darrellkc (@hamptonsunset) January 2, 2017

One passenger wrote on Twitter that two people had passed out because of the heat and humidity in the Miami airport.

@AmericanAir feeling a warm welcome here in Miami. Standstill at the passport control, and we’ve barely moved for half an hour. Please help! pic.twitter.com/gmKqPdWCDU

— Carlos Rico (@carlosrico011) January 2, 2017

According to the New York Daily News, a spokeswoman from the CBP, who remained anonymous, didn’t explain what could have caused the computer glitch, but she said, “CBP officers continue to process international travelers using alternative procedures until systems are back online.” She added that they were “working to process travelers as quickly as possible while maintaining the highest levels of security.” The CBP then sent out a tweet around 10:30 p.m., saying that the system was back online. But by then, most passengers already had been informed, and were delayed or had missed connecting flights.

All airports are back on line after a temporary outage of #CBP’s processing systems. No indication the disruption was malicious in nature.

— CBP (@CustomsBorder) January 3, 2017

Roger Dow, CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, did not think the incident came as a surprise. He said:

What happened at Customs airport checkpoints yesterday is disturbing, but unfortunately it is not surprising. Technology at these facilities is too outdated to cope with existing travel volume, let alone the increased traffic we hope and expect to see at our gateway airports in years to come.

Maybe we all have to prepare for more complicated and lengthy travel procedures in the coming years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airports Recover From Chaos After Customs Computer System Outage appeared first on Law Street.

When Canadian journalist Ed Ou headed to North Dakota recently to cover the pipeline protests at Standing Rock, he didn’t expect the drama to start as soon as he reached the U.S. border. But border officials decided to detain him for over six hours and confiscate his cellphones, something that is uncomfortable for anyone, but critical for a journalist. He compared having the contents of his phones scrutinized with a doctor giving up confidential information about his patients. If Ou’s sources who have given information on the condition of anonymity are revealed, their lives could potentially be in danger.

The U.S. border agent officers asked Ou to tell them how and why he had traveled to every single country he has visited for the past five years, and if he had seen anyone die. Ou has spent 10 years covering the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, which could explain the unusual questions. The agents asked to see his phones to make sure he was “not posing next to any dead bodies.” When he refused, explaining that he is a journalist and needed to protect his sources, they simply took them anyway. When he got the phones back later, it looked as if the SIM cards had been tampered with. Agents also photocopied pages from his personal diary. In the end, Ou was denied entry into the U.S. and put on a plane back to Canada, with no other explanation than that his name matched that of “a person of interest.” One officer said that his refusal to cooperate with the phones “did not help.”

The United States Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on the event. But in a statement it said, “Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation’s laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S.” If the authorities think that that means looking into the contacts of a well-published journalist and then refusing him entry with no valid reason, that is a huge problem for freedom of the press in the U.S.

The incident has been criticized by advocates for press freedom as well as by other journalists.

Journalists don’t get much braver or more talented than Ed Ou. What happened to him at the US border is shameful. https://t.co/4jCjUUqMaw

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) December 2, 2016

The way journalists are being treated at the US borders is truly alarming. This happened to photographer Ed Ou https://t.co/ZZi1bNNmB8

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) November 30, 2016

Does the United States believe in freedom of speech? Apparently not @CustomsBorder, which bars entry to accomplished photographer @EdOuphoto

— Neil MacFarquhar (@NeilMacFarquhar) November 30, 2016

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, wrote a letter to Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security, signed by attorney Hugh Handeyside, in which it called the detention and treatment “harassing and exceptionally intrusive.” It said that border agents should have realized that Ou was a renowned journalist, who had often traveled to the U.S. as he has well-established professional connections with major news outlets such as Reuters, the Associated Press and the New York Times. The letter stated:

We believe that C.B.P. took advantage of Mr. Ou’s application for admission to engage in an opportunistic fishing expedition for sensitive and confidential information that Mr. Ou had gathered through his news-gathering activities in Turkey, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

Ou was on his way to cover the Standing Rock protests on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which the agents were apparently aware of. But individual border officials should not have the power to affect what ends up in the media. The director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, said that the practice of forcing journalists who have worked in the Middle East to give up their confidential sources just to get into a country puts the U.S. in a very bad light. “If this is requisite for journalists who are not U.S. citizens to enter the U.S., that is an enormous violation of press freedom,” he said.

An important reminder to #journalists that your #data is not safe at the US Border https://t.co/oqEbH8Xz6q @ACLU @edouphoto pic.twitter.com/jvQiO113tN

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) December 1, 2016

For all intents and purposes, the Fourth Amendment does not apply when you’re at the border. Walking on the street, a police officer likely can’t go up to you and randomly search you without a warrant or arrest order. But in an airport or at a border control stop, agents can search you and your electronic devices without reason or permission from a judge. This is because of a loophole in the law that mentions bags and personal property, but was written in a time before most people had their entire private lives stored in a cellphone. A policy from 2009 says that the owner of a digital device needs to be present when agents perform a search, but that rule can be interpreted very loosely. According to the policy, agents can make copies of data, but they need to be erased within a week unless a crime is suspected or there is a probable cause to keep the data.

This incident raises a deeper question, about press freedom and Freedom of Speech in the U.S., as well as what the role of the CBP should be. As Hugh Handeyside from the ACLU said, “conditioning foreign journalists’ admission to the United States on their willingness to agree to intrusive searches encourages similarly abusive treatment of American journalists in other countries.” To treat journalists like this at borders will discourage them from reporting on important events, and stem the flow of information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Journalist Ed Ou Detained and Denied Entry to the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

In Arizona, if you are within 75 miles of the Mexican border, you might just come across a “temporary” border control checkpoint. The goal of these checkpoints is to help control drug trafficking and stop illegal immigration. But the legality of these checkpoints, and what the Border Patrol agents are actually allowed to do is far from clear. The American Civil Liberties Union has now filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 15 individuals who claim that their constitutional rights have been violated at checkpoints in Arizona.

Of the individuals involved in the ACLU complaint, the majority say they were never asked about their identity, the supposed purpose of the checkpoints. Some of the complainants claim they were held for over half an hour for not giving the Border Patrol officer consent to search their cars. Other complaints include a gun being pulled on a individual, and the Border Patrol agents attempting to take someone’s cell phone. If these allegations are true, they most likely violate the existing laws on checkpoints.

The highest court of the land has only ruled on interior checkpoints once, almost forty years ago, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Amado Martinez-Fuerte was transporting two illegal immigrants when he was stopped at a fixed interior checkpoint in Southern California. When asked, the two illegal immigrants admitted to their status. Martinez-Fuerte reacted by suing, saying that the checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. SCOTUS ruled that his rights were not violated, because if there is a reasonable collective suspicion, then individuals can be searched in the interest of public safety. The court stated that Border Patrol agents could briefly question and ask people for identification, without individual suspicion, if they’re at reasonably located checkpoints. The court did not give the Border Patrol the right to search vehicles or occupants without probable cause. The question in Arizona today is if the Border Patrol is abiding by this ruling.

It seems like this administrative complaint may lead to a new look at our laws. These checkpoints have expanded their focus to include more work in drug control, instead of just looking for illegal immigrants. This is problematic because Martinez-Fuerte only serves as a precedent for checkpoints searching for illegal immigrants. Currently at checkpoints, vehicles are examined by drug-sniffing dogs. In Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that a drug-sniffing dogs could be used during a routine traffic stop, but no court has explicitly ruled that they can be used at Border Patrol checkpoints.

Furthermore, in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that using these checkpoints for general law enforcement acts violates the Fourth Amendment. James Duff Lyall, the attorney who filed the complaint stated:

The restrictions in the Martinez-Fuerte ruling don’t mean that agents have to turn a blind eye to obvious evidence of drugs or crime, but if you have cases where people are not even being asked about residency status, it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of these checkpoints.

In 1976, the Supreme Court made the Martinez-Fuerte ruling because they felt that in an area with a high number of illegal immigrants, it was not unreasonable to have ID checkpoints on major roads. Using that logic as precedent, I think that it could be argued that due to the large amount of narcotics crossing the border, it is not unreasonable to have cars drive through a checkpoint where drug-sniffing dogs are present. However, there’s no legal basis for that argument yet, and this is not an excuse for the unreasonable searches that the ACLU is alleging are taking place. If the point of these checkpoints is to find drugs, a car should only have to stop for a few moments while the dog sniffs, and then be allowed to move on. Anything beyond that, or a simple examination of a person’s ID, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol in Arizona needs to realize this if they want to keep operating their checkpoints.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken & Sharon Lotts via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Interior Checkpoints in Arizona Draw Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

When is a line more than just a connection between two points? A line, a border, can limit the encroachment of and define a culture, language, religion, and laws. It can also be blurred, changing constantly, like that of India and Pakistan, or Israel and Palestine. When playing jump-rope with those lines, what laws apply?

Making recent global headlines is the story of the White Widow, Samantha Lewthwaite — the British born and raised converted Muslim woman who’s now-dead husband was involved in London’s 7/7 jihad attacks. Although initially condemning her husband’s actions, she seems to have joined his cause. She forged a Somali passport under the name Natalie Webb, and crossed African borders, seamlessly entering Kenya. Now, she is a major suspect in a Nairobi mall bombing, and has been given a Red Notice by INTERPOL. The Red Notice means that the 190 member countries of INTERPOL, an international police organization, are participating in manhunt for her. For her search, other methods Kenya could have taken would have been to reach out to INTERPOL’s close alliance, the United Nation, work in solitude with Kenya’s own national security, or extend for help to independent Kenyan alliances rather than the large coalition, INTERPOL.

From one conservative extremist Muslim, to one liberal extremist, different people with radically different views, are found in similar situations— they are both being sought by authorities. Acclaimed author Salmaan Rushdie, as a result of his unapproved writings about Islam, had a fatwa placed upon him by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989. A fatwa, unlike the a notice by INTERPOL, is less tied with the government and more with the religion. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is a religious order commanding the Muslim population worldwide to do an action. In the case of Salman Rushdie, the action was to kill the author.

A more domestic situation that deals with this issue is the anecdote of Edward Snowden. After receiving treason charges in America, Snowden was granted limited asylum in Russia, tarnishing the relationship between the two nations. A stemming problem is the extradition of Edward Snowden. By avoiding America, he was able to avoid his prosecution. Like America, Kenya anxiously awaits the return of the potential criminal, using the Red Notice to catalyze the extradition process.

All of these cases echo the same question about borders that was posed by the Dred Scott Case in 1857: Do the laws of a land no longer extend to you once you step over the line? Is it the responsibility of nations to carry out the jurisdiction of the native ruling county?

[cfr.org] [ Interpol.int]

—

Featured image courtesy of [hjl via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post The Thin Line appeared first on Law Street.