The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that federal officers may search a traveler’s cellphone at the border without obtaining a warrant or showing probable cause, with the majority concluding that existing precedent allows such searches without any individualized suspicion.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
NEW YORK — Federal border officers do not need a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion before searching a traveler’s cellphone when that person enters the United States, according to a new ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Sept. 17 decision arose from the criminal case of Chinwendu Alisigwe, a lawful permanent resident who challenged evidence obtained during two searches of his cellphone at John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2019.
A jury later convicted Alisigwe of fraud offenses involving the use of fraudulent identification documents to open bank accounts in the names and Social Security numbers of other people.
“A jury found Chinwendu Alisigwe guilty of fraud offenses based on his use of fraudulent identification documents to open bank accounts using the names and Social Security numbers of real people,” Judge Steven J. Menashi wrote in the court’s opinion.
“Alisigwe argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from two searches of his cellphone at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He argues that the searches violated the Fourth Amendment because the government did not obtain a warrant. We disagree.”
The ruling relies on the long-established border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment, under which the federal government possesses broader authority to inspect people and property entering the country than law enforcement generally possesses elsewhere.
“Under our precedents, no suspicion is required before the government searches a traveler’s property at the border,” Menashi wrote.
“Because a cellphone is property, our precedents establish that the government does not need to have reasonable suspicion before searching a traveler’s cellphone at the border.”
Alisigwe’s attorneys argued that modern smartphones are fundamentally different from ordinary luggage because they can contain enormous quantities of private information.
They pointed to a 2014 Supreme Court decision holding that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cellphone seized from a person during an arrest.
The Second Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court’s cellphone ruling did not displace the separate border-search doctrine.
According to Menashi, the government’s authority at the border extends beyond simply looking for physical contraband such as drugs, weapons or prohibited goods.
“Our precedent holding that the government may perform pretextual searches at the border without a warrant means that the government is not limited to searching for contraband or evidence of border offenses,” Menashi wrote.
“That is because the government’s interest at the border is not limited to detecting physical contraband. Rather, the government has ‘broad authority to control who and what enters the country.’”
“Searching for evidence of criminality among those entering the country is an exercise of that authority.”
The majority also rejected the argument that the First Amendment creates a separate warrant requirement for cellphone searches at the border.
Customs and Border Protection defended its authority following the ruling.
A CBP spokesperson said the agency “has statutory authority to conduct border searches of electronic devices for all persons entering or departing the United States, regardless of citizenship, to enforce laws addressing terrorism, child exploitation, drug- and human-smuggling, visa fraud, and national security threats.”
“The border search will only include an examination of information that is present on the device at the time it is presented for inspection,” the spokesperson said.
CBP said electronic-device searches remain relatively uncommon.
According to the agency, fewer than 0.01% of travelers entering the United States during fiscal 2025 had an electronic device searched.
The decision was not unanimous on the question of how much justification officers should need before examining a phone.
Circuit Judge Eunice Lee agreed that border officers do not need either a warrant or probable cause to conduct a cellphone search.
She disagreed, however, with the majority’s conclusion that no individualized suspicion whatsoever is necessary.
Lee argued in a concurring opinion that officers should at least have reasonable suspicion before searching the digital contents of a traveler’s phone.
“A standard that permits a search of every international traveler’s cellphone without suspicion means that any person who goes on vacation or a business trip anywhere outside the country can be subject, upon their return home, to review of their medical records, financial information, personal messages, internet search and viewing habits, location tracking, and any other private information that may be contained on their cellphone through stored data, apps, or cloud connection,” Lee wrote.
She said the quantity and sensitivity of personal information stored on modern phones make them different from traditional containers inspected at the border.
“This unrestricted authority to search is not a carefully-crafted exception to the Fourth Amendment to address an immigration or contraband-related interest in controlling who or what comes into the country; it eliminates Fourth Amendment protections in this context,” Lee wrote.
Under her approach, border officials would retain substantial search authority while having to identify specific facts creating reasonable suspicion before accessing a traveler’s digital information.
The majority declined to adopt that limitation.
Privacy and civil-liberties groups criticized the decision.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University argued that cellphone searches can expose information extending far beyond the kinds of items historically examined during border inspections.
“Today’s decision leaves Americans’ most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all,” Scott Wilkens, a senior counsel at the institute, said in a statement.
“Our phones hold our private thoughts and associations, photographs of our family and friends, and a log of our nearly every movement. The First Amendment should require the government to get a warrant before searching them. We’re disappointed the court declined to recognize that.”
The ruling adds to an ongoing legal debate over how traditional border-search powers should apply to devices capable of storing years of personal communications, photographs, financial records, medical information and location data.
The Second Circuit majority treated the cellphone as property subject to established border-search precedent.
Lee’s concurrence focused instead on the qualitative difference between inspecting physical possessions and accessing a device capable of revealing extensive details about a person’s private life.
Alisigwe’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.
The case could ultimately provide the Supreme Court with another opportunity to define how its cellphone privacy precedents interact with the federal government’s broad authority at international borders.
Stanford Law School professor Orin Kerr said on X that the dispute may eventually reach the Supreme Court and that it remains uncertain how the justices would resolve the issue.
For now, within the Second Circuit, the majority ruling establishes that federal officers may search a traveler’s cellphone at the border without first obtaining a warrant, establishing probable cause or showing reasonable suspicion.
Original article
Comments