Epstein Secrets

ainers in domestic vehicles, "(tjhe luggage carried by a traveler entering the country may be searched at random by a customs officer"); Torres v. Puerto Rico. 442 U.S. 465. 472-74. 99 S.Ct. 2425. 61 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979) (distinguishing between United States—Puerto Rico border and international borders in ho

ng electronic from non-electronic devices— of the *978 sort the Supreme Court has made clear has no place in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 1 l7 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996)—is arbitrary; there is no reason someone carrying a laptop should receive greater privacy

upend (rather than reinforce) those "long-settled understandings," we can only assume it would have expressed itself more clearly. See, e.g., i. Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, — U.S. —, 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1947, 195 L.Ed.2d 298 (2016) ("Congress `does not, one might say, hide elephants

24-25, 157 L.Ed.2d 343 (2003) (for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the execution of a warrant is subject to a reasonableness standard); Ohio v. Robinette 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S. Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) ("We have long held that the 'touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.");

to enjoin prosecutors to conduct their investigation in a particular manner, we can only assume it would have expressed itself more clearly. See, Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cat Tax-Free Trust, — U.S. —, 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1947, 195 L.Ed.2d 298 (2016) ("Congress 'does not, one might say, hide elephants in mou

dment's Confrontation Clause, the "lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness" is a "question of reasonableness"); ? II Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) ("We have long held that the 'touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.' "); 3