Some additional protections just fell into place prevented US Customs and Border Protection from searching smartphones without a warranty.
While the ruling didn’t actually help the defendant who brought the case, and only applies to the Eastern District of New York where the case was brought, it may help set a privacy precedent.
The case itself centered around Kurbonali Sultanov returning to the US at JFK, wherein border agents told him he needed to hand over his smartphone and the passcode needed to access it. Child sexual abuse material was found on the device, and Sultanov was indicted.
According to the court ruling, Sultanov sought to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained illegally.
Per Knight Columbia:
“In support of his motion to suppress the physical evidence, Sultanov argues that the Fourth Amendment requires the search of a cellular device at the border to be supported by a warrant and probable cause — neither of which was present here.”
The government later obtained a search warrant for a more detailed examination of two devices owned by the defendant, which Sultanov sought to have thrown out given that these stemmed from an unconstitutional search. The court would refuse his request, citing that the law enforcement agent had acted in good faith, and that the material found during the initial search was not the only grounds for the search warrant being issued. However, it did rule that a warrant is required for any search of a phone.
In 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 11 individuals who had their phones searched at the border.
The ruling, though signfificant to both US citizens and foreign nationals, stands as largely academic, since CBP can deny admission to a foreign visitor even if they are in possession of a visa or visa waiver. Anyone refusing a search would likely have their admission to the country denied. Still, it helps cite a precedent towards privacy, which could be applicable in future cases to come.
Stay tuned for additional details as they become available.
Via 9to5Mac and the Knight First Amendment Institute
