12 ms·
It seems cute_boi has it right: the 4th doesn’t apply to border crossings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U
by chb 26d ago
It seems cute_boi has it right: the 4th doesn’t apply to border crossings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Arnold
- Gormo 26d agoUS v. Arnold was a Ninth Circuit ruling, and was later superseded in its own circuit by US. v Cotterman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cotterman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cotterman), which ruled that a "forensic" search does not fall within the scope of routine border inspection, and does require individual suspicion. This was backed up with even more rulings like US v. Kolusz in the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this specific question, but has issued other general rulings about cell phone data, like Riley v. California, which determined that data on a cell phone is protected by the Fourth Amendment against warrantless search and seizure. If the case in the article makes its way up to SCOTUS, it's not unreasonable to expect that the court will combine multiple districts' established precedent that "forensic searches" are not covered by any border exception with its own recent precedent protecting cell phone data, and rule that demanding unrestricted access to phone data without reasonable suspicion is unconstitutional.