Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
1–10 of 181 posts
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#2Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#3This isn't a landmark case...Courts have been ruling against warrantless border searches for years, see US v Cano (2019), US v Aigbekaen (2019).
Indeed, this same federal court has already ruled against warrantless phone searches in US v Smith (SDNY 2023).
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#4> Judge Nina Morrison in the Eastern District of New York ruled that cellphone searches are a "nonroutine" search, more akin to a strip search than scanning a suitcase or passing a traveler through a metal detector.
Does a strip search also require a warrant though?
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#5This isn't a landmark case...Courts have been ruling against warrantless border searches for years, see US v Cano (2019), US v Aigbekaen (2019). Indeed, this same federal court has already ruled against warrantless phone searches in US v Smith (SDNY 2023).
Yeah. This wasn’t even an appeals court, so all this means is this judge thinks that.
As it is I wouldn’t be surprised if the government doesn’t appeal to avoid setting a wider precedent.
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#6Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?
SCOTUS can absolutely decide differently when one of these gets there.
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#7Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?
This is a ruling by a District Court. It could be appealed to the Circuit Court, and then to the Supreme Court.
In the federal court system, District Court decisions are not binding precedent. Circuit Court decisions bind the District Courts in their circuit, and Supreme Court decisions bind all lower courts.
This District Court is in the Second Circuit. Another District Court in the same Circuit made a similar decision in US v. Smith, but the Second Circuit Court has not yet ruled on warrantless border searches of cell phones. Several other Circuit Courts have, however, and their rulings were all opposite of this one: the First Circuit in Alasaad v. Mayorkas; the Fifth Circuit in US v. Castillo; the Seventh Circuit in US v. Wanjiku; and the Ninth Circuit in US v. Cano.
In short: this decision is not binding precedent, and a substantial amount of binding precedent exists in the opposite direction within other circuits.
(Credit for case law information to: https://www.wilmerhale.com/insights/client-alerts/20231115-o...)
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#8Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?
Alternatively, when the Supreme court composition has changed and shown a willingness to view old decisions as bad law, its a great time for a district court to break rank with precedent.
We have a couple decades to shape the country however you want, you don’t have to act like a victim because the justices lied during their confirmation hearings on one specific topic, just bring different cases for other various inconveniences you have.
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#9This isn't a landmark case...Courts have been ruling against warrantless border searches for years, see US v Cano (2019), US v Aigbekaen (2019). Indeed, this same federal court has already ruled against warrantless phone searches in US v Smith (SDNY 2023).
US v. Cano: "we hold that manual searches of cell phones at the border are reasonable without individualized suspicion, whereas the forensic examination of a cell phone requires a showing of reasonable suspicion". Neither "without individualized suspicion" nor "a showing of reasonable suspicion" are a warrant requirement. This is not a court "ruling against warantless border searches".
US v Aigbekaen is an individualized suspicion requirement, not a warrant requirement: "individualized suspicion of an offense that bears some nexus to the border search exception’s purposes of protecting national security, collecting duties, blocking the entry of unwanted persons, or disrupting efforts to export or import contraband."
Re: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border
#10Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?
A textualist interpretation of the constitution would likely take a very dim view of the federal government trying to stretch its powers and get around the Fourth Amendment. I don’t think we have much to worry about on this topic from the current court.