Searches draw praise, scorn from Oklahomans
Some experts call border agent checks, seizures intrusive, others say they’re necessary
BY SONYA COLBERG
Comments 
15
Published: October 19, 2009
You, a local terrorism expert and terror suspect Najibullah Zazi could potentially share a border crossing experience.
Multimedia
Laptop checks
Homeland Security officials understand concerns about the broad policy, but spokeswoman Kelly Ivahnenko points to instances where laptop searches sniffed out everything from jihadist material to videos of explosions to child porn.
Agents’ laptop searches led to development of these federal cases:
• A 2006 search of a laptop carried by an Amsterdam man with a student visa revealed video clips of improvised explosive devices being exploded. Another file showed the man reading his will and included pictures of al-Qaida officials. He was convicted of visa fraud and deported.
• Agents at San Francisco International Airport inspected a laptop in 2007 that contained violent jihadist material. The evidence led to testimony that identified the laptop owner as a target for terrorist group recruiting. He is being deported.
• Flint, Mich., resident William Leroy Ferguson, 55, was arrested Oct. 1 at Bush International Airport in Houston on child pornography charges based on images agents found on his laptop, according to the criminal complaint. Officials say they found about 15 child porn videos on the computer. If convicted, he faces five to 20 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.
• A 24-year-old airport shuttle driver, Najibullah Zazi, is under investigation in a terrorism probe in New York and Colorado. A laptop search showed images of handwritten notes on how to build explosives, court affidavits state. Zazi, who pleaded not guilty Sept. 29 to plotting a New York terrorist attack, was being watched by law enforcement before the laptop search.
Suspicion not needed
Unlike the Zazi case, agents may specifically conduct searches without suspicion.
"They could,” Ivahnenko said. "And that’s an important part of our authority. I would go back to the numbers and I would go back to the fact that you have 327 ports of entry and over 1 million people a day coming into the country. It’s important that we have the authority to thoroughly inspect travelers and what they’re bringing into the country to make sure there are no laws being broken.
"The average Joe Schmoe traveler doesn’t have to worry. We are really looking for someone violating the law.”
The controversial suspicionless search authority was addressed in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s Aug. 27 directive clarifying border agents’ powers. The ACLU and others also criticize a provision that allows agents to copy files and send them, or send the entire laptop to other federal agents.
"They’ll copy it and try to crack it. The question is, is that right?” Salem said.
Bill West, a retired chief of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s National Security Section in Miami, Fla., condones the searches.
"I can definitely say having a border search authority, even things as personal as laptops, is a definite necessity with national security efforts,” he said. "It’s something that’s critical to any terrorism efforts or other national security enforcement.”
Chuck Thornton, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, said searches of such personal information would make founding fathers shudder.
"You can run into abuse when you have a policy that grants so much discretion to a law officer,” he said. "It needs to be reined in.”
The Oklahoman’s Watchdog Team: Looking out for you. Visit NewsOK.com/watchdog.
Related Topics:
Domestic Policy, Political Policy, Politics, War and Conflict, Terrorism, Trials, Criminal Trials, Domestic Security Policy, Border Control and Customs
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Policies are not the same as laws, although they carry the weight of law & are enforced just like laws. The good & bad thing about policies is they can easily be changed by those in charge of the program. The citizen may get their bad policy arrest overturned, but only after arrest, booking, charges & attorneys are involved.
If you have photos of naked children that are your own kids or grandkids in the bathtub, how will you feel about being arrested for child pornography? Sure it will be thrown out, but only after you've been arrested, booked, dressed in orange, contacted an attorney, bonded out, etc.
The "if you're not doing anything wrong" argument is totally bogus when it comes to searches for this very reason.
The other problem with this policy is the broad power to 'secretly' copy anything for permanent retention. If the officers already don't need reasonable cause to search, why should they keep ANYTHING that is not justified by the search itself? Are you ready for Trooper Martin & your least favorite politician to permanently & secretly retain your electronic records just because they wanted to keep them for future possible action?
I don't agree with policies like these when it involves unwarranted phone taps of citizens & I certainly don't agree when it involves unwarranted secret collection of citizen's data.
J. Edgar Hoover would be SO proud!
What I find disturbing is that some prefer a few (other) people be endangered and possibly killed instead of themselves being inconvenienced a little.
Hey, I was in Will Rogers a couple of years ago for a flight to Vegas. The metal detector went of because of the metal in my knee. They had me take off my belt and raise my arms. Then everyone had to see a TERRIBLE sight as my trousers dropped. Yes, I was wearing clean underwear.
Wake up and smell the violation of our Constitutional Rights! If we allow the government to get away with this, what’s next? How about in the name of national security they start to search random people on the street, or randomly search your home?
Sure some lives might be saved with this program, but is it worth the price? How many people died so that we can live in a FREE country? Each day more of our rights are been eroded while you sit back an watch.
****shall not be violated,*****
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (4th Amendment to the Constitution)
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” (Benjamin Franklin)
'nuff said.