Can US Customs and Border Protection search your tech, including a cellphone and laptop?

The panel reversed the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from warrantless searches of his cell phone by Customs and Border Protection officials, and vacated his conviction for importing cocaine. Applying United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9thCir. 2013) (en banc), the panel held that manual cell phone searches maybe conducted by border officials without reasonable suspicion but that forensic cell phone searches require reasonable suspicion. The panel clarified Cotterman by holding that “reasonable suspicion” in this context means that officials must reasonably suspect that the cell phone contains digital contraband. The panel further concluded that cell phone searches at the border, whether manual or forensic, must be limited in scope to whether the phone contains digital contraband; and that a broader search for evidence of a crime cannot be justified by the purposes of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The panel held that to the extent that a Border Patrol agent’s search of the defendant’s phone – which included the recording of phone numbers and text messages for further processing– went beyond a verification that the phone lacked digital contraband, the search exceeded the proper scope of aborder search and was unreasonable as a border search under the Fourth Amendment.  The panel held that although the agents had reason to suspect the defendant’s phone would contain evidence leading to additional drugs, the record does not give rise to an objectively reasonable suspicion that the digital data in the phone contained contraband, and the border search exception therefore did not authorize the agents to conduct a warrantless forensic search of the defendant’s phone. The panel held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply because the border officials did not rely on binding appellate precedent specifically authorizing the cell phone searches at issue here. Read the full case here: United States v. Cano, 934 F.3d 1002 (2019),  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-50151/17-50151-2019-08-16.html Anton Vialtsin, Esq. LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law https://lawstache.com (619) 357-6677 Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt? https://lawstache.com/merch/ Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101 Want to learn about our recent victories? https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/ If you"d like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra: *Calvin Klein Men"s Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf *Calvin Klein Men"s Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y *Harley-Davidson Men"s Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски? https://russiansandiegoattorney.com Based in San Diego, CA Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...