Fourth Circuit Rules Border Agents Can Manually Search Phones Without Suspicion
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. border agents may perform manual searches of electronic devices without a warrant or individualized suspicion.
This decision creates a legal distinction between "manual" searches and "forensic" searches, subjecting the former to lower privacy standards.
EFF and other civil liberties groups contend that all digital device searches should require a warrant due to the sensitive nature of the data involved.
Background on Border Searches
The "border search exception" historically allows for warrantless, suspicionless searches of luggage and personal effects at the border.
Courts previously established higher standards for invasive searches, such as those involving forensic software that extracts entire device contents.
In U.S. v. Riley (2014), the Supreme Court noted that cell phones contain a unique, comprehensive archive of an individual's private life, necessitating different privacy protections than physical luggage.
The Fourth Circuit Decision
The ruling in U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo involved a two-minute manual search of a phone that uncovered illegal content.
The court categorized manual searches as "routine," justifying them by noting:
Humans, rather than machines, conduct the search.
Scope is limited by an officer’s time and capacity.
Data access is restricted to what is visible to the user.
No permanent forensic copy is created.
The decision departs from prior precedents like U.S. v. Kolsuz (2018) and U.S. v. Aigbekaen (2019), which required suspicion or warrants for forensic digital extractions.
Critical Implications
The EFF argues that the technical method of searching is irrelevant to the level of privacy invasion, as even brief manual scrolling can expose deeply personal information.
Modern native search features on smartphones allow agents to uncover specific sensitive information in seconds, rendering the "time-limited" justification for manual searches increasingly obsolete.
A limited "silver lining" remains: the court’s focus on the two-minute duration leaves a potential opening to challenge longer, more intrusive manual searches in the future.