‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Returning from vacation? The government can search your phone without a warrant

411 points · 378 comments · rbanffy

  1. spiclk · · focus · HN ↗
    Does "search your phone" include any externally-hosted content that can be accessed by said phone?
    1. someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
      Yes of course. Basically they have ruled the entire warrant requirement for searches and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is suspended within 100 miles of any border or international airport (which is most of the US).
      1. close04 · · focus · HN ↗
        The question is about your data stored in the cloud (not sure if it matters that it’s outside the 100mi) not on the phone.

        Is the search limited to the phone itself and the data physically residing inside or can they open any door for which that phone is the key?

      2. spiclk · · focus · HN ↗
        A comparison would be physical keys found during a police search - under what circumstances can the police legally use those keys to search other, locked locations?
      3. ekejjedjndbd · · focus · HN ↗
        How true is that? Can police search a house without warranty in NYC say and have that entered as evidence (plus anything that lead from that) in court?
        1. someothherguyy · · focus · HN ↗
          no, because that would clearly be an unreasonable search
        2. galangalalgol · · focus · HN ↗
          No, but cbp could have a k9 at any bottleneck they want and those dogs read their partners body language, so if they are a racist idiot it might alert on excessive melanin providing probable cause. Assuming they didn't just train it to alert on command. And if it alerts yeah they can demand to search your phone. I don't hear about it getting used, but that could be because they are careful not to use it on anyone who might start a case that could get it ruled unconstitutional. They openly use it where they think there is actually smuggling.
      4. galangalalgol · · focus · HN ↗
        The law makes it clear that the rules are only suspended in the customs zone of the airport and within 100 miles of the airport. They seem to follow that. The checkpoints you see in Washington state or down near the border with Mexico do not show up around denver or dfw. The reality is bad enough we don't need to exaggerate it. And they can't just grab every phone as they walk around LA either, they have to signal their dog to alert on you to give them probable cause...
        1. iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
          The rules are not suspended within 100 miles of the airport, it’s only land and sea borders. (Look it up.) The person you were responding to is wrong and we need to push back against this becoming accepted “folk wisdom” or it will lead to more rights violations.
          1. alistairSH · · focus · HN ↗
            This.

            It's 100 miles of land & sea borders. Plus the airport zone. The airport does not create a new 100 mile zone.

            For example, ATL is not within 100 miles of a sea or land border, so the CBP zone is just the airport, not the 100 mile circle around the airport. But, ORD and LGA are both within 100 mile zones.

            Of course, it's all kind of a moot point, as the current administration seems happy enough to deploy immigration forces nationwide and Congress is spineless and incapable of pushing back.

            1. ElevenLathe · · focus · HN ↗
              Any standard that claims the entire city of Chicago to be a border zone is an absurd standard, just laughably overreaching if it were ever put in front of a fair court.
              1. iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
                Oh it’s absolutely an absurd standard, it’s just not as absurd as some claim. It still ropes in something like 2/3 of the US population as is.
              2. alistairSH · · focus · HN ↗
                Yeah, it's pretty laughable, given Lake Michigan is fully within the US. But CBP considers all the Great Lakes as basically one giant international body of water.

                DC also, because of proximity to the Chesapeake Bay. Austin TX within 100 of the Gulf of Mexico. And on and on.

                As noted in a sibling, the 100 mile zone captures about 2/3 of the population.

      5. iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
        This gets repeated in every discussion here and it’s absolutely not true. (It’s only land and sea borders which is bad enough as is.) Please stop repeating it or it will become accepted “folk wisdom” and then they’ll actually push it as a policy.
    2. someothherguyy · · focus · HN ↗
      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbp.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;2026-01&#x2F;cbp_directive_3340-049b_jan_2026_508.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbp.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;2026-01&#x2F;cbp_directiv...

      3.2 Electronic Device: Any device that may contain information in an electronic or digital form, such as computers, tablets, disks, drives, tapes, flash drives, SIM cards, global positioning systems, unmanned aircraft systems, vehicle infotainment systems, smart watches, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players.

      3.3 Basic Search: Any border search of an electronic device that does not qualify as an advanced search as described in section 3.4, in which an officer conducts a review or analysis of information residing in electronic or digital form on the device. A basic search may include documenting information observed on the device during the search that relates to immigration, customs, or other law enforcement actions in CBP systems.

      3.4 Advanced Search: An advanced search is any search in which an officer connects equipment, wired or wireless, to copy and&#x2F;or analyze the contents of an electronic device. Use of external equipment (including a CBP standalone computer) merely to make the contents of the device available for inspection (including, for example, to bypass a password, overcome encryption, translate content, view files contained in an external drive or other electronic device lacking a screen, or charge a device) does not constitute an advanced search. Documenting notes and observations, as noted in section 3.3, does not constitute an advanced search.

      5.1.4 An officer may perform an advanced search of an electronic device only in instances in which there is reasonable suspicion of activity in violation of the laws enforced or administered by CBP or, in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion when there is a national security concern. All advanced searches require supervisory approval at the Grade 14 level or higher (or a manager with comparable responsibilities). In cases where the inspecting officer and approving supervisor rely on the presence of a national security concern, without reasonable suspicion, to conduct an advanced search, approval from the Director, Field Operations; Chief Patrol Agent; Director, Air Operations; Director, Marine Operations; Special Agent in Charge; or their delegate, is required prior to conducting the search. In compelling circumstances where operational considerations prevent prior approval, notification shall be made as soon as possible. Notification must include an explanation of the national security concern, the compelling circumstances that precluded prior approval, the relevant facts and information supporting the search, and the results of the search.

      5.1.5 All searches of electronic devices will be documented in appropriate CBP systems. Officers will document any supervisory approvals required under this Directive and, in the case of an advanced search, the factors establishing reasonable suspicion of a violation of a law enforced or administered by CBP or a national security concern, as well as relevant observations, impressions, and actions taken, as appropriate.

      5.1.6 Searches of electronic devices should be conducted in the presence of the individual whose information is being examined unless there are national security, law enforcement, officer safety, or other operational considerations that make it inappropriate to permit the individual to remain present. Permitting an individual to remain present during a search does not necessarily mean that the individual shall observe the search itself. If permitting an individual to observe the search could reveal law enforcement techniques or potentially compromise other operational considerations, the individual will not be permitted to observe the search itself&quot;

      1. spiclk · · focus · HN ↗
        It sounds like the person whose device is being searched could legally disable the data connection before the search.
    3. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.