Second Circuit OKs Warrantless Phone Searches at US Borders
Court of Appeals ruling allows border agents to search travelers' devices without suspicion, rejecting First Amendment arguments.
What to know
- Second Circuit ruled border agents can search phones without warrants or suspicion; court rejected constitutional arguments from First Amendment and privacy advocates.
- Knight Institute and journalism organizations argue the decision endangers confidential sources and chills protected speech for journalists and ordinary travelers.
- Decision stems from United States v. Alisigwe, where two warrantless phone searches at the border yielded evidence the government used in prosecution.
The dispute Whether the ruling's actual scope is limited to manual searches without forensic tools, or whether it permits deeper device inspection. · positions read across 11 posts and comments
Burner phones and data encryption offer practical protection for travelers and journalists.
-
“Take a burner phone to the airport (and elsewhere?), and since devices are subject to warrantless search anywhere and everywhere, keep your data at home and encrypted.”
k310 · Hacker News ↗
Practical workarounds are unrealistic for most travelers who need their devices abroad.
-
“To the extent that our smartphones are a very helpful device to have in our day-to-day lives at home, they're even more useful in a foreign country where they become our only available computing device.”
rconti · Hacker News ↗
The ruling reflects and extends a broader constitutional problem: a 100-mile border zone where normal protections do not apply.
-
“it's not just a device problem, the whole constitution is suspended 100 miles around the entire border of the US, we have no rights”
ck2 · Hacker News ↗
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling courtKnight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University Amicus curiaeReporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Amicus curiaeScott Wilkens Senior counsel, Knight First Amendment Institute
How it unfolded 1 development · click the chart to see its coverage articlespostscomments
-
1
“Today's decision leaves Americans' most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all.”
— Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute -
first by HN Frontpage, 5d ago
-
Everyone please read Surveillance Self Defense from EFF [0]My advice, take a burner phone to the airport (and elsewhere?), and since devices are subject to warrantless search anywhere and everywhere, via exceptions to the fourth amendment [1] (the constitution seems designed to be bent or outright ignored), keep your data at home and encrypted…
2 more of the top 3 · 11 posts in this stretch
-
The resources you link to are helpful; however, this is not really practical advice for most people most of the time. To the extent that our smartphones are a very helpful device to have in our day-to-day lives at home, they're even more useful in a foreign country where they become our only available computing device; indispensable for keeping in…
-
it's not just a device problem, the whole constitution is suspended 100 miles around the entire border of the US, we have no rights(look at FLORIDA, the entire state!)*
-
-
background
District court denies motion to suppress phone evidence from border searches — In United States v. Alisigwe, a district court refused to suppress evidence obtained from two warrantless searches of the defendant's cell phone at the border.
What people are saying 8 voices from 1 site · best of 11 · verbatim
- Does this ruling allow authorities to use forensic tools on devices, or only manual searches?
- Does the ruling apply equally to U.S. citizens and non-citizens?
- If a traveler refuses to unlock their phone, can border agents use forensics tools without a warrant after confiscation?
- Sep 18
-
doesn’t this affirm an existing ruling in a different appeals circuit or the Supreme Court?
-
"Hey Mr. Border Guard, this is a burner phone, have at it!""Okay can you login to your email for me? If not I'm going to have to keep you here until you do."
-
has anybody ever challenged the PATRIOT Act on compliance with the 4th Amendment?Not that it really matters, with the current Supreme Court being what it is, but still...
-
When I travel internationally, I do not take any electronics with me.If I need a cell phone, laptop, etc., then I will buy or rent something cheap at the destination.I got into the habit while traveling back and forth the mainland China as it was our corporate policy (and we never brought any electronics back, either).
-
Doing a bit of research, this applies to what’s considered a “manual search” as in a CBP agent spending time manually looking at your phone. It does not appear to allow (or speak to?) plugging your phone into forensic tools for a deeper inspection.Not great, but I think that’s what’s being specifically adjudicated here.They still cannot deny an US…
-
Since removing a nation-state rootkit is not structurally possible, how is this any different from requiring the device to be forfeited? If all search == seizure and destruction, does that change the legal basis?
-
So store your data in a secure location and only access it with devices if your a journalist?
-
The article is not that clear in one way. Does this only apply to non-US Citizens ?