152

Yesterday my cousin arrived to Chicago from Mexico, she is visiting family there to spend the holidays, this is not the first time she visits.

She was stopped by immigration, because they thought it was weird that she was spending the holidays away from her family. She was taken to an interrogation room and the first thing the officer asked her to do was to give him her cell phone (not sure if this is legal) she gave him the phone and he started looking through the phone and questioning her. After 2 hours they gave her back her phone and let her go.

When she left the airport she saw that the officer had used her phone to call a what I assume, was his number so he could record her cell number. Now she is receiving text from him, this is what they say in Spanish, "Hello Laura (smiling face blowing a kiss) It is me the officer."

That is it, she has not responded but she does not know what to do and does not know what that means.

hippietrail
  • 79,417
  • 54
  • 271
  • 625
DiegoJ
  • 1,283
  • 2
  • 8
  • 9
  • 91
    Typical case of sexual harassment/stalking in the starting phase. I would find it logical to go to the police. I believe there is a film, Crossing Over, where Ray Liotta plays an immigration officer helping Alice Eve, an illegal immigrant getting legalized in return for sexual favours. Take out the illegal immigration out of the picture, it seems more like stalking. – DumbCoder Dec 22 '15 at 16:31
  • 85
    I think you've just won a free trip to the closest police station to press charges against this stalker. – JoErNanO Dec 22 '15 at 16:33
  • 57
    Pls, press charges. This is totally unacceptable behavior. – Quora Feans Dec 22 '15 at 19:43
  • 1
    @QuoraFeans if it was me I definitely would. I hope my cousin (cousin in law actually) wants to do it too. – DiegoJ Dec 22 '15 at 19:50
  • 2
    Was the immigration officer from Mexico, or Chicago? (depends who you report this to). And... too late now, but in the future, she should have refused to give them her phone. It would be unlawful (in the US) for them to take it and go through it without her permission, but she gave them implicit permission by handing it over. – SnakeDoc Dec 22 '15 at 21:26
  • 2
    @SnakeDoc Do you have a cite that it's unlawful? Refusing to give over passwords for electronics and allowing them to be pawed through, imaged etc. is not a viable option for a visitor to the U.S.- it will probably result in being refused entry. – Spehro Pefhany Dec 22 '15 at 21:38
  • 2
    @SpehroPefhany Yes, it's in the constitution (4th amendment). Unlawful Search and Seizure. They would need a warrant issued by a court to compel you to turn over your device (and it's contents). You are correct that this could lead to the person being denied entry... however for the situation where the officer is literally just fishing for something, you will likely be too much trouble to be worth it, and they'll just send you on your way (or they risk having to explain to their supervisor why they felt compelled to harass you to this extent, over nothing substantial). – SnakeDoc Dec 22 '15 at 22:12
  • 17
    @SnakeDoc, the courts have ruled that border patrol agents have the authority to search electronics (and many other things) at the border. See Abidor v. Napolitano, for example. – Kevin Dec 22 '15 at 23:27
  • 14
    @SnakeDoc You are totally wrong on border searches. Please don't post this again. – Andrew Lazarus Dec 22 '15 at 23:31
  • 11
    Gee, @SnakeDoc, whom should people consult on border search law: an anonympus herpetologist or multiple decisions of the Supreme Court? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception (If you want to discuss your Constitution theories further, we can take it to chat.) – Andrew Lazarus Dec 22 '15 at 23:46
  • @AndrewLazarus You seem to be under the impression you must turn over all personal and private belongings to a border agent upon request. You are wrong. The SCOTUS decisions simply state they have the ability to search your belongings without a warrant. That's not the same as you willfully handing over items on your person for extensive multi-hour searches, in which the border agent saves your phone number, reads your text messages, and searches your pictures for nudes. Of course, if you want to just travel, turn over all your privacy and you'll have no troubles (unless you're the OP's cousin) – SnakeDoc Dec 22 '15 at 23:59
  • 25
    I recommend that anyone reading this thread click the Wikipedia link, and you will see that your baggage can indeed be searched without a warrant, and that they can indeed read your text messages. (Whether you must assist them in decrypting messages is a separate and quite interesting legal issue.) The conduct in this case far beyond that. When the officer used this information for personal purposes, he broke regulations concerning his job, and he should be fired. Would you like to take this to chat? If so, bring in the precedents you believe support your take on the border search issue. – Andrew Lazarus Dec 23 '15 at 00:08
  • 3
    @SnakeDoc - I don't understand the difference between the border patrol being authorized to conduct routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion and you willfully handing over said personal items - if the border patrol is authorized to search you and your personal effects, they can do so whether you hand them over willingly or not. A more invasive search, like a body cavity search requires more evidence of suspicion, but searching personal effects does not. – Johnny Dec 23 '15 at 00:40
  • 8
    Sometimes I wish it were possible to downvote comments. This is one of those times. – phoog Dec 23 '15 at 05:14
  • 4
    @SnakeDoc it seems like you're getting confused between ports of entry and internal border patrol checkpoints. Fourth amendment protections do exist at the internal checkpoints, but travelers' rights at ports of entry are considerably less. – phoog Dec 23 '15 at 05:17
  • 2
    @AndrewLazarus According to your own link, the only federal appellate court ruling on the issue so far has said that customs can not conduct a forensic examination of an electronic device without at least reasonable suspicion. So, show them your phone, but don't tell them the PIN. Problem solved. Also, none of the decisions mentioned in that link for electronic materials were from the Supreme Court, but rather from lower federal courts. On the contrary, that link states that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter. – reirab Dec 23 '15 at 07:18
  • 2
    @AndrewLazarus Also, while Abidor v. Napolitano was mentioned, it appears to have been dismissed for lack of standing, not ruled in favor of the government. In particular, the (district judge, not Supreme Court) ruled that reasonable suspicion did exist against Abidor and that the other associations (and their members) had not suffered and were not likely to suffer any injury for which they could seek legal relief, so none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit. – reirab Dec 23 '15 at 07:49
  • 1
    Tell your story to Tabloid will also help you. – Him Dec 23 '15 at 12:48
  • @reirab A forensic examination is a higher level of investigation, where they take your device for (in the case mentioned) days. The Ninth Circuit holds that reasonable suspicion is necessary for a forensic search; other circuits have held even that isn't necessary. (I believe the latter is the case in Abidor.) Exactly zero courts hold you don't have to give them the phone. From a technical standpoint, even if you use a passcode, agents will be able to unravel some of the activity on your phone (maybe not your files). – Andrew Lazarus Dec 23 '15 at 16:30
  • 12
    Warning to lurkers: Don't take legal advice from a bunch of software engineers, including me. But the USA has been conducting border searches since 1789. Even the (liberal) Ninth Circuit holds that your equipment may be searched. As I said, the level to which you must reveal passwords is still an undecided (or disputed) issue. Reread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception – Andrew Lazarus Dec 23 '15 at 16:34
  • @AndrewLazarus agreed LOL. Thank you all for the info, that's good info. The answer below to file a complaint is really helpful. Thanks again. – DiegoJ Dec 23 '15 at 17:16
  • 3
    @reirab certainly, the customs officers can take your phone without suspicion, to examine it (for example, to see whether it contains smuggled goods), just as they can take your suitcase for the same purpose. So SnakeDoc's assertion that she should not have given the phone is really incorrect, as AndrewLazarus has been arguing. Also, the use to which he put the phone was clearly illegal, so it doesn't matter what he might or might not legally have been allowed to do once he had the phone in his possession. – phoog Dec 23 '15 at 20:54
  • 3
    Take care of yourself, in addition to any legal action. Taking care of yourself here includes getting a counselor as well as leaning on friends, family, and any religious community you may belong to. If you are a student at a U.S. school, you may have privileges with your school's counseling center. In any case, Psychology Today has a good search engine for therapists, some of whom have a sliding scale. They can help you in a situation like yours. – Christos Hayward Dec 26 '15 at 18:01
  • 1
    Please update us of the steps taken in future :) – B Faley Dec 28 '15 at 08:22

4 Answers4

150

Taken from How CBP Handles Traveler Complaints:

Complaints concerning allegations of misconduct/discrimination

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection takes allegations of employee misconduct and discrimination very seriously.

  • Allegations of misconduct or discrimination are referred to the CBP Office of Internal Affairs. Personnel are specially trained to investigate and review allegations.
  • If warranted, CBP will take appropriate action against the employee.

CBP INFO Center
OPA - MS1345
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20229

How to file a complaint? Please see the complaints section of the customer service page.

In addition, "complaints section" is a link, which, after a couple of steps, will lead you to Submit a Complaint/Concern.

The behavior may be argued to be discrimination, but it is certainly misconduct. The text message ought to serve as clear evidence of the misconduct, so your cousin's complaint would likely have a real effect.

Community
  • 1
phoog
  • 134,313
  • 19
  • 274
  • 446
  • 9
    In particular I would send a screenshot from the phone. – Andrew Lazarus Dec 23 '15 at 01:53
  • 50
    In a perfect world, the appropriate people handle this situation professionally. In a cynical world, this ensures the traveler in question is flagged for every possible hassle in the book. Do you happen to know where this situation likely falls? I hate to sound like an enabler, but if this means spending multiple extra hours at the airport every time you go through US customs for the rest of your life... you have to weigh that into the decision. I'm certainly hopeful that someone can give assurance "No, they don't work like that" but I think it's worth asking the question. – corsiKa Dec 23 '15 at 06:00
  • 5
    While the objection of corsiKlause seems far fetched on the first look: There are men arranging pat searches,TSA officers lying under oath, missing background checks and unsavory behavior. All in all the TSA has a quite well-deserved infamous reputation. – Thorsten S. Dec 24 '15 at 00:27
  • 4
    This answer is wrong. In the first instance try to get legal representation. – Fattie Dec 24 '15 at 03:21
  • 37
    @corsiKlauseHoHoHo If everyone took the view that complaints against authority are too much trouble, that's what leads to people in authority who believe they can get away with anything. – DJClayworth Dec 24 '15 at 04:58
  • 13
    @DJClayworth Like I said, my comment is definitely one that enables them to get away with it. But not everyone is Rosa Parks, and for every Rosa Parks, there was a thousand people that history forgot who stood up to their oppressors and lost at great expense, and sometimes life. With the increased scrutiny on travelers due to recent attacks, and the (not logically founded) fears of terrorists coming to the US from Canada and Mexico, is now really the time to pick a fight with someone who can slap you on a terrorist watch list? I'm not saying don't report, just saying do some research first. – corsiKa Dec 24 '15 at 07:44
  • In light of the "Me too" movement, which was generated by the awful Harvey Weinsteins, creepy Matt Lauers, and unsuspected Charlie Roses, etc. Have the rules or procedures since changed? In light of today's "no tolerance immigration policy" Would a young immigrant girl have more chances of being taken seriously than 3 years ago? – Mari-Lou A Jul 23 '18 at 15:11
  • @Mari-LouA I doubt the rules have changed. Procedures may have, but I am also doubtful about that. There are certainly many reports of abuse among those detained for crossing the border illegally, but I would consider that a different context. Such a person has far less capacity to make a complaint heard. Someone who has been admitted lawfully is in a much less disadvantaged position than someone in detention who is facing likely removal from the US. – phoog Jul 23 '18 at 15:17
  • Thanks for replying. The problem with the creepy text, which seems bullet-proof evidence, is the officer could claim that the two "clicked" while she was being detained and that she had given him her number. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, if the two had agreed to meet outside working hours, the text suddenly becomes less creepy. Not being believed is the worst, worst thing for anyone who has been abused, so I was wondering if a girl's complaint stood a greater chance of being believed today than 3 years ago. – Mari-Lou A Jul 23 '18 at 15:26
27

Report the office to the officer in charge of the nearest customs office and the head of the airport. This behavior is completely not allowed, and he will face discipline, including possibly being fired. His conduct is dishonorable and unprofessional, so let them know how seriously you take it and they will deal with it.

user3573647
  • 371
  • 2
  • 3
  • 40
    A report to a superior officer risks being suppressed as it could make the superior officer look bad. The internal affairs office exists to protect against that sort of thing. – phoog Dec 22 '15 at 19:51
  • 4
    There won't be a cover up, because a supervisor who punishes his officer for illegal conduct and policy violations is doing his job, while one who covers up illegal behavior will lose his career when the truth gets out. Trust me, his own supervisor probably does not love this guy enough to sacrifice a good paying job with great benefits for him. And I was recommending reporting it to the supervisor of the whole station, who is likely to be that supervisor's boss's boss. That guy will not risk his career to protect some idiot who thinks an investigation is a chance to flirt in a creepy illeg – user3573647 Dec 22 '15 at 23:58
  • 4
    @phoog, if you're a manager in the US federal government, well-documented complaints against bad employees are wonderful to have -- they're almost impossible to fire otherwise. – Charles Duffy Dec 23 '15 at 20:26
  • 1
    @CharlesDuffy sure. Some good managers will have bad employees and want to fire them. But it's also possible that the manager himself is under pressure from above and wants to avoid the impression that she or he can't control the rank and file. I'm not saying that a complaint to the superior officer will necessarily be suppressed. It is just more likely to be suppressed than a complaint to internal affairs. – phoog Dec 23 '15 at 20:40
  • 3
    @user3573647 a supervisor who allows the officer to conduct himself illegally, however, was not doing his or her job. Perhaps there have been prior complaints about this officer, or about officers in general, and the manager doesn't want superiors to learn that complaints are still coming in. Perhaps there's other evidence that the superior officer should have known what was going on. Misconduct can have institutional causes; it is not always the sole fault of a rogue individual. That's why it is safer to complain to internal affairs than to the officer's superior. – phoog Dec 23 '15 at 20:43
  • As phoog says, it is inconceivable you would call "a manager' (ie "one of the team who harmed you"); if you won't get legal advice, then do as phoog says and contact the investigations department phoog gives the contact info for. – Fattie Aug 26 '16 at 15:09
  • 1
    @phoog Well, I won't claim that it's impossible that the supervisor of the station won't decide to risk his whole career, retirement, and years of pension, to cover up serious misconduct by a subordinate he may barely even know (depending on the size of the station)...But I do consider it highly unlikely. He risks his job to gain nothing. That said, report it to internal affairs as well if you want. The more eyes on the case, the more unlikely a conspiracy to cover up this officer's misconduct is. – user3573647 Aug 26 '16 at 17:00
11

A policeman in California was recently fired for sexual misconduct that included texting women he arrested. This was the less serious offense; he also forwarded intimate pictures the women had sent to their husbands/boyfriends to his own phone. For that he was himself charged, but managed to avoid prison. And I suspect any officer who would do this would also make a trade like that in return for entry permission.

Andrew Lazarus
  • 14,611
  • 2
  • 33
  • 61
  • 1
    Although an anecdote, this truly gets to the heart of the matter, and is perhaps the most useful thing on here is this answer. – Fattie Dec 26 '15 at 18:30
  • @DiegoJancic, the telephone number is right there for you thanks to the info of BobJarvis below. Telephone: 312-201-9740. Assuming this story is broadly true: In the first instance, your friend is owed millions. In the second instance, the culpable parties are the supervisors of the minimum wage fool in question - who should be facing prison time. It's That Simple. (Regarding the minimum wage fool in question ... *trying to extract sex from a third-world visitor completely in his power* ... after jail time he will need, simply, counseling forever.) Assuming this story is true. – Fattie Dec 26 '15 at 18:36
7

Immediately seek legal advice. Call some attorneys in your area.

With luck one of them will take your case and litigate on your behalf.

Note ...

As @BobJarvis points out in his comment below:

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) might also have some interest in cases such as this, and if they accept it and litigation becomes necessary they would most likely cover the costs as they would be the litigant. It appears you're in Chicago - their contact info is: ACLU of Illinois 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-201-9740. I suggest contacting them."

Community
  • 1
Fattie
  • 6,305
  • 2
  • 35
  • 81
  • 2
    Whether this is good advice rather depends on the outcome sought by the victim. Also, the US does not have "solicitors." – phoog Dec 24 '15 at 04:08
  • 4
    @phoog Sure we do; they're the people who show up at your door trying to sell you something. – Casey Dec 25 '15 at 17:39
  • 2
    @Casey fair enough, but I would not call them under any circumstances, least of all if I needed legal assistance. – phoog Dec 26 '15 at 04:12
  • 1
    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) might also have some interest in cases such as this, and if they accept it and litigation becomes necessary they would most likely cover the costs as they would be the litigant. It appears you're in Chicago - their contact info is: ACLU of Illinois 180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-201-9740. I suggest contacting them. – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Dec 26 '15 at 15:41
  • BobJarvis - a superb point. – Fattie Dec 26 '15 at 18:23
  • Just BTW, the idea presented in another answer of *"phoning the 'industry watchdog' (err, operated by the same department)"* .... I actually thought that was just presented as a *ironic joke. Amazingly, this seems to be actual advice*. So, life is sad. – Fattie Dec 26 '15 at 18:26
  • 4
    @JoeBlow given the relative vote counts for our answers, you really ought to explain your position in more detail. It is not clear why you hold the position you hold, and a lot of people seem to think the way I do. What would calling a lawyer achieve? What negative outcome is likely to result from reporting the incident to the internal affairs division? What lawyer is likely to give advice that doesn't begin with "report the incident to internal affairs" and what is that advice likely to be? – phoog Dec 26 '15 at 19:05
  • 1
    Hi Phoog. (1) Ideally, a solicitor (US English: attorney) will *litigate for money*. This is the only way anything gets achieved. "It's that simple." (2) Regarding the concept of, in the US, addressing a concern (in any field) to one of the US's own "honest, We're An Independent Watchdog" organizations: so, Don't Do That. For God's Sake. If one has been on Mars since say 1950, have a quick peruse of US history since then. The OP should get a private attorney this day, or, as BobJavris usefully provides, ACLU of Illinois Telephone: 312-201-9740. – Fattie Dec 26 '15 at 19:19
  • 1
    It's quite true that -- *very depressingly* -- an experienced attorney may say "You're screwed -- I know I cannot take this case on and win." In that case - you are simply screwed. You lost. That's the end of it. It's incredibly depressing, but that's the case. Exactly like victims of Stalin's gulags or Hitler's camps - there comes a time where tragically you have to simply internally admit "you lost": there is no public force that will win for you. For the OP in question, there is a public force that, with luck, can win for them - but they have to use their hands to telephone one. – Fattie Dec 26 '15 at 19:23