Thread

Border agents can search cellphones without a warrant or reasonable suspicion

235 points · 198 comments · mmh0000

mmh0000 · 1789758170 · focus · HN ↗
It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.
The 4th Amendment says, exactly:
```
   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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.
```
I do not know how that could be unclear. My cellphone is my effect, and arguably, also a "paper". Which SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. But apparently, I'm too dumb to understand the sentence[1].
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Border_search_exception" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
1. Zak · 1789766181 · focus · HN ↗
  > It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.
  People keep misconstruing this.
  The border search exemption only applies when someone is actually crossing a border, and it does grant broad authority to search whatever they're carrying with them at the time. The authority to do border enforcement within a 100-mile zone around borders does not grant a broad authority to search. It does grant a narrow authority to do things like traffic checkpoints, but those don't permit searches for anything smaller than a person without additional evidence.
  I do think the ruling establishing the authority to run checkpoints other than actual border crossings was wrongly decided and harmful, but it's not what's at issue in this case.
  1. gpt5 · 1789766959 · focus · HN ↗
    To add to that, the ruling intentionally did not make a decision on two important distinctions:
    1. Forcing you to unlock - in this case, Alisigwe unlocked their phone willingly after being asked.
    2. Forensic extraction - the ruling does not give authorities the power to run a sophisticated off-site break-in on your phone without reasonable suspicion.
    So if you are a US citizen, and you are willingly unlocking your phone at the border (or you don't have a passcode), the Fourth Amendment no longer protect you from a suspicionless manual search of the phone at the border
    FireBeyond · 1789768963 · focus · HN ↗
    But what they can do is confiscate your phone, _image_ it, without the access attempt, and keep the phone as evidence until or unless they feel the need to apply for a warrant for the access.
    gpt5 · 1789769624 · focus · HN ↗
    No. They cannot keep the phone, and they cannot copy the phone data without reasonable suspicion under this ruling (connecting the phone to an external device to copy is considered advanced forensic and already has case law around it).
    LocalH · 1789842653 · focus · HN ↗
    Relying on that presumes an administration that respects the rule of law and doesn’t just do what they want anyway.
    We don’t currently have such an administration.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.