2016.01.01 19:55:20 (682998556987404288) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)" (682995759927590912):
@wbm312 I understand time was limited. Why not say "The govt says it can search anything at the border, but courts have set some limits"?
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.
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 19:44:13 (682995759927590912) from "Whitney Merrill (@wbm312)":
@hashbreaker unfortunately I could not go into the details in my short talk. I'm well versed in 4A issues at the border.