This has nothing to do with free speech (that's the 1st Amendment). This is a problem of illegal search and seizure (at least in the U.S.). Illegal search is covered under the 4th Amendment.
> the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports)
but that line cites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer..., which is weird because it says the opposite.
For example, I live on the border - pretty much. I'm just a short drive to Canada. Border Patrol can't actually stop me and search my car, search my house, or anything like that - unless I'm going through the border.
If I'm not going through the border, they need a warrant. There are no checkpoints other than at the border, but those would be functionally equivalent (in the eyes of the court). I believe temporary checkpoints also count as functional equivalents but that's a guess - I'm not sure if that's been tested in court yet.
Other than those checkpoints and the border, you retain your rights as you would elsewhere. Or so precedent and SCOTUS say - except I speculate that they include temporary checkpoints along with permanent checkpoints.
The ACLU disagrees and says all the CPB needs is probable cause.
>8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) addresses CBP officials’authority to stop and conduct searches on vessels, trains, aircraft, or other vehicles anywhere within “a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” Without further statutory guidance, regulations alone expansively define this “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S., including coastal boundaries, unless an agency official sets a shorter distance.1CBP agentscan also even enter private property without a warrant (excepting dwellings) within 25 miles of any border. In this 100-mile zone, CBP has claimed certain extra-constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol claims the authority tooperate immigration checkpoints. Agents, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, courts have determined that outside of Ports of Entry Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has occurred). In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority, violating the constitutional rights of innocent people. Although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution-free," CBP frequently acts like it is.
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border...
The defendant tried arguing 4th amendment privacy protections over the information obtained in property that implicated him, but the judge said that didn't apply unless he admitted to owning the property which would equally incriminate him if he did, haha.
very narrow protection
Generally, the Fifth Amendment provides protections against producing documents only if the very act of producing them would be incriminating. The relevant term is the foregone conclusion doctrine. The government has to show evidence that the documents they want you to produce exist and that you are able to produce them. For more information, see http://federalevidence.com/blog/2013/january/applying-forego...
The interpretation in favor of allowing the government to compell encryption under this doctrine would be that the government simply has to prove that the encrypted data exists and that you are able to unlock it, and they have to limit the scope of their search to specific documents.