Total Views: 309 | Philippine News
SAN FRANCISCO — A former Math teacher lost his bid to protect his laptop computer – allegedly containing child pornography taken in the Philippines – from being searched at an airport. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Michael Timothy Arnold’s claim that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol of the Los Angeles International Airport conducted an illegal search on returning from a trip to the Philippines in July of 2005.
The 46-year-old former math teacher of Anaheim’s Orangeview Junior High School, was charged by the grand jury on three accounts of “knowingly transporting child pornography,” “knowingly possessing a computer hard drive and compact discs which both contained more than one image of child pornography,” and “knowingly and intentionally traveling in foreign commerce and attempting to engage in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place, namely in the Philippines, with a person under 18 years of age,” says a 13-page opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on the United States of America versus Michael Timothy Arnold.
The federal appeals court effectively reversed an earlier decision by the district court to grant Arnold’s motion to suppress and declared that the inspection of a laptop containing porn does not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
“Arnold has failed to distinguish how the search of his laptop and its electronic contents is logically any different from the suspicionless border searches of travelers’ luggage that the Supreme Court and we have allowed,” said Judge O’Scannlain in the opinion.
Arnold argued that laptop computers are an extension of our “human mind” in that it can store ideas that can be found in “emails, Internet chats and web-surfing habits,” according to court papers. Arnold said his First Amendment rights were violated by the search, adding that freedom of speech should rightfully be applied to his laptop computer in a way that it be defined as a form of “expressive material” and should therefore, require a search based on a higher level of suspicion.
Arnold argued that laptop computers are an extension of our “human mind” in that it can store ideas that can be found in “emails, Internet chats and web-surfing habits,” according to court papers. Arnold said his First Amendment rights were violated by the search, adding that freedom of speech should rightfully be applied to his laptop computer in a way that it be defined as a form of “expressive material” and should therefore, require a search based on a higher level of suspicion.
Arnold also argued for “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” says the opinion. A 2006 decision by District Judge Dean Pregerson supported Arnold and had given an explanation disagreeing with the government’s handlings in inspecting persons without cause. “Electronic storage devises function as an extension of our own memory. They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound,” said Judge Pregerson.
Last Monday’s opinion overruled Judge Pregerson and overall, stressed the nation’s priority in protecting its borders from any possible threats was of highest concern. Judge O’Scannlain maintained that searches of international passengers in American airports are classified as border searches, and it is the responsibility of the United States to protect its territory along with its integrity.
Last Monday’s opinion overruled Judge Pregerson and overall, stressed the nation’s priority in protecting its borders from any possible threats was of highest concern. Judge O’Scannlain maintained that searches of international passengers in American airports are classified as border searches, and it is the responsibility of the United States to protect its territory along with its integrity.
“Generally, searches made at the border…are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” concluded Judge O’Scannlain. “The government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border.”
Arnold’s case has already caused ripples of concern, with one community leader raising questions about privacy. “If anything and everything is justified, where do we draw the line? Once you open the doors, where does privacy stand?” asked Rodel Rodis, an attorney specializing in immigration law and civil litigation. “It disturbs me that we are increasingly losing our individual rights in the eyes of protecting society,” Rodis added. In light of modern-day checks and balances, there is one statement Rodis feels strongly in dealing with the constant battle between the citizens and their government. “In leaving it up to them, you are surrendering your privacy rights, and there should be no excuses for that," said Rodis.
No comments:
Post a Comment