France’s research minister said the scientist was traveling to Houston for a conference when his phone was searched

France’s research minister said a French scientist was denied entry to the US this month after immigration officers at an airport searched his phone and found messages in which he had expressed criticism of the Trump administration.

  • Cosmic ClericEnglish
    13•1 day ago

    immigration officers at an airport searched his phone

    There’s no mention in the article if this search was voluntary, or not.

    Edit: For the downvoters, please point out where I was wrong; I’d honestly really like to know if it was voluntary or not.

    This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

    • @Mniot@programming.devEnglish
      2•4 hours ago

      Consent in a situation like this is difficult to establish, to the point of it being pointless. Your comment implies to me that you think if the person said “OK” to a search request then whatever happened next is their own fault.

      Consider just the situation where you’re in the immigration line and two uniformed officers walk up to you and say, “please come with us.” If you go with them, is that voluntary? If you say “yes” I just think “voluntary” doesn’t hold much meaning. What happens if you don’t volunteer to go with them? Surely, they say, “come with us now or you’ll be arrested.” And if you don’t volunteer at that point, they’ll physically restrain you and take you away.

      Since most people are able to understand the subtext of the situation, they’re able to tell that, “please come with us” actually means “you are required to come with us now. You may either walk of your own accord, or we will take you captive and punish you beyond whatever we initially intended.” So, there’s not any consent happening. Just deciding whether being beaten and dragged away in public would be helpful to you, and in many cases it is not.

      You might be confusing US law around unlawful search and seizure with US law around border crossings. While the ACLU’s position is that the 4th amendment trumps CBP, CBP’s position is that it does not and that you cannot stop them.

      • Cosmic ClericEnglish
        2•4 hours ago

        Consent in a situation like this is difficult to establish, to the point of it being pointless.

        Hard disagree.

        Did they ask him if they could search and he said yes, or no? Or did they just take his device away from him and did a search without his permission?

        Consenting to a search, or have one mandated by a judge’s order, is one of the fundamental pillars of citizen rights and laws in this country.

        Was it a legal or illegal search? That’s not a pointless question to ask.

        This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

    • @bstix@feddit.dkEnglish
      0•3 hours ago

      WTF is a voluntary search?

      “Attention all flight passengers. This is ICE on the speaker. If you want to be searched, please raise your hand and we will get to you shortly.”

    • @catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      28•1 day ago

      It’s “voluntary” in the sense that either you allow it or you don’t get into the country.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashedEnglish
          4•12 hours ago

          Since, like the moment I learned about the US Borders.

          It’s always been a thing, you see a lot of these in r/privacy and now c/pricacy

          Only US Citizens can refuse the search and still enter* but their devices could still be confiscated.

          *for now

          • Aatube
            1•12 hours ago

            I have a quote above. As SF said, agents who do that would be violating court rulings.

          • Aatube
            6•23 hours ago

            A 2-1 circuit split means that the 2 currently prevails, thus making border searching of electronics illegal unless you’re within the 11th’s jurisdiction (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, while the guy was arrested traveling to a Texas conference), no?

            In 2014, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Riley v. California, which held that law enforcement officials violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched an arrestee’s cellphone without a warrant. The court explained, “Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life.’ The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.”[15]

            In 2013, before Riley was decided, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals held that reasonable suspicion is required to subject a computer seized at the border to forensic examination. […] In May of 2018, in U.S. v. Kolsuz, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is unconstitutional for US border officials to subject visitors’ devices to forensic searches without individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.[22] Just five days later, in U.S. v. Touset, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals split with the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, ruling that the Fourth Amendment does not require suspicion for forensic searches of electronic devices at the border.[23] The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case.[24]

            • @khannie@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4•15 hours ago

              My understanding is that any protections like that only apply to citizens while at the border and not foreigners looking to travel.

              • Aatube
                2•12 hours ago

                held that it is unconstitutional for US border officials to subject visitors’ devices to forensic searches without individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing

                It’s not like the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to people with just visas either.

            • Snot FlickermanEnglish
              11•23 hours ago

              I’m just gonna go out on a limb here and say they’re ignoring whatever court precedent actually exists at this point anyway.

              Also, a phrase I’ve heard a lot “you can beat the charge but you can’t beat the ride.” Meaning, like Luigi Mangione, you can argue in court about illegal seizures after it has already happened. I’m guessing most border patrol agents just plan on losing court cases like this, because they know, in the moment, they can get away with it.

              I mean they fucking tortured a white European green card holder recently.

              • @bassomitron@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3•16 hours ago

                I mean they fucking tortured a white European green card holder recently.

                What is this news? I haven’t heard of that yet.

                • Snot FlickermanEnglish
                  14•16 hours ago

                  https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-03-14/green-card-holder-from-new-hampshire-interrogated-at-logan-airport-detained

                  “It was just said that his green card was flagged,” said Astrid Senior, his mother. She said she didn’t hear from her son directly until Tuesday, when she learned he’d been hospitalized.

                  Senior described Schmidt being “violently interrogated” at Logan Airport for hours, and being stripped naked, put in a cold shower by two officials, and being put back onto a chair.

                  She said Schmidt told her immigration agents pressured him to give up his green card. She said he was placed on a mat in a bright room with other people at the airport, with little food or water, suffered sleep deprivation, and was denied access to his medication for anxiety and depression.

                  “He hardly got anything to drink. And then he wasn’t feeling very well and he collapsed,” said Senior.

                  He was transported by ambulance to Mass General Hospital. He didn’t know it at the time, but he also had influenza.

                  On Tuesday, Schmidt was transported to the regional headquarters for ICE in Burlington, Massachusetts, and then transferred to the Wyatt facility. The family, including his partner, who is a cardiologist in Nashua, have acquired attorneys and been working with the German consulate in hopes to have him released on bail.

                  Schmidt and his mother moved to the U.S. in 2007, and received green cards in 2008. He moved from California to New Hampshire in 2022.

                  Senior described her son as a hardworking electrical engineer with a partner and 8-year-old daughter who are both U.S. citizens.

      • Cosmic ClericEnglish
        -10•1 day ago

        It’s “voluntary” in the sense that either you allow it or you don’t get into the country.

        Was that explicitly said to him? Did they tell him that if he refused the inspection that he would be denied entry?

        BTW, what you described is a mandatory inspection.

        This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0