Border agents seized this man's truck after he refused to hand over is phone, and refused to give the password to the phone. They searched the truck and found 5 bullets (no truck), then used that as justification to seize the truck. The man did not get back the truck for more than two years. All the while he was required to make payments for truck to be impounded, so that the government would not sell it. The man had to file a lawsuit to get it back. This brings up several issues. Law enforcement using coercive tactics to make people give up their passwords, law enforcement finding flimsy excuses to do things, and civil forfeiture. Gerardo Serrano ticked off the border crossing agents by taking some photos on his phone. So they took his pickup truck and held onto it for more than two years. When Gerardo Serrano refused to hand over the password to his phone, the agents went through the 2014 silver Ford F-250 pickup truck in great detail. They justified its seizure by saying they found "munitions of war" inside - five forgotten bullets, though no gun. Serrano, 62, initially took a gun, for which he has a permit, but a Mexican cousin warned him not to bring it into Mexico. He left the the weapon behind, but forgot about the few bullets the agents eventually found. A one-time Republican candidate for Congress, Serrano recalled being surprised at his treatment at the border in September 2015. "I deleted the photos, but I'm not giving you my phone," Serrano said. Told to park the truck, he said, he complained a bit before one agent reached into the pickup, opened the door, unfastened Serrano's seat belt and yanked him out of the vehicle. "I got rights, I got constitutional rights and he snaps back at me, 'You don't have no rights here. I'm sick and tired of hearing about your rights.' That took me aback," Serrano said. He was handcuffed and held for several hours, refusing to unlock the phone or answer any questions. Eventually, he was told he could go, but without his truck. "I said, 'How am I going to get home?' There's this smirk I can't forget. 'We don’t care how you get home,'" Serrano said. He left the border station on foot, called a relative who lived nearby and hung around the area for several weeks, hoping to reclaim the pickup truck. Serrano finally rented a car and returned home. He continued to make $673 monthly payments on the seized truck. Truck seized over 'munitions of war,' 5 forgotten bullets The case might go to the US Supreme Court now. The article isn't clear on exactly what the court would do. One would hope the man would at least get all the money back he had to pay so that they would not sell his truck while it was impounded. (over $16,000, almost half the cost of his truck)
Sadly, that is all legal. Border Patrol has powers that other LEOs do not have including the ability to demand you unlock your phone. The standard American rights do not apply to Broder Patrol. Adam Conover did an episode about it, and it's been a topic on other shows/presentations as well. Hopefully this goes to SCOTUS and some of these violation of Constitutional rights are abolished from law. Seizure laws in general need to go away. It's one thing to keep the assets of someone convicted of a crime. But when they are not even arrested it is a violation of their property rights to have it seized without due process.
How little tyrants love to abuse their power over those who tick them off! IF they are allowed to do this by "law" already SCOTUS ain't gonna do squat.
Not necessarily. SCOTUS can't just step in and declare a law unconstitutional or in violation of a previous law, unless the case has been brought before the lower courts AND the appeal goes up the chain. And even then those bringing the case must present sufficient evidence and proper arguments as to why they feel their claim is valid. That is why some types of cases are ruled constitutional multiple times prior to being ruled unconstitutional. Insufficient arguments. And the person bringing the case must have standing. You or could not bring the case because we have not been hurt by this law or laws. It's similar to a Utah case against the Browns (Sister Wives). A higher court dismissed the case the Browns brought against Utah, because the state never actually used its power to declare all of the legally married under common law marriage, and then prosecute them for bigamy. This the Browns had no standing. The higher court never said the lower courts rulings were wrong had such been the case. Just that the case had no standing. However, I do believe that the truck owner in this case would have standing, so it could we'll make it up all the way. And I hope it does.
It cost this idiot $16,000 all because he wouldn't unlock his phone for 30 seconds sp the officers could make sure he deleted whatever pictures he took that they had an issue with. Expensive lesson in compliance...
You first have to show that they had a legal right to require those pictures deleted. Now within that context, I am talking about the general rights we are supposed to have and not the legal rights violations that the Border Patrol has been given. Show where any other LEO would have the legal ability to demand those photos deleted.
I'm sure it had something to do with pictures taken of the border wall or some type of infrastructure at the border...
Which means what? Unless there is some kind of warning sign, or something, anything that can be seen from a public place is not illegal to take pictures of.
