The microblog: 2016.01.01 19:40:32

2016.01.01 19:40:32 (682994835846987776) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)" (682987714237587460):

@wbm312 You said "There is no fourth amendment protection at the U.S. border." But that's not true. There has always been _some_ protection.


2016.01.01 18:52:37 (682982774173790208) from "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)":

@hashbreaker I did not make a mistake-decided not to go into intricacies of border law. Happy to share slides from talk on border searches

2016.01.01 18:54:39 (682983286315085825) from "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)", replying to "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)" (682982774173790208):

@hashbreaker current case law is narrow and Supreme Court has not ruled on many issues.

2016.01.01 19:10:45 (682987338855804928) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)" (682983286315085825):

@wbm312 Even before recent cases (House, Cotterman, Kim, and the obvious impact of Riley) "4th doesn't apply at border" was an exaggeration.

2016.01.01 19:12:15 (682987714237587460) from "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)":

@hashbreaker generalization, yes. And a fair statement, but not wrong. The border search exception is an exception to the 4th amendment.