An Appeals Court panel ruled Thursday that officers working on the United States border at airports and land crossings can search travelers' phones without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. The case, brought by one individual who'd had his phone searched and was later convicted of bank fraud and money laundering, tapped into a key issue around the First Amendment and the protections it offers. The majority opinion was written by a judge appointed by President Donald Trump who was joined by a Biden appointee.
Their colleague, another appointee of President Joe Biden, wrote a concurring opinion which also included some warnings. Millions of international travelers, including American citizens and green card holders who are journalists, attorneys and others with potentially sensitive information on their phones, will likely be impacted by the ruling. The First Amendment should require the government to get a warrant before searching them.
We're disappointed the court declined to recognize that.” Newsweek reached out to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comment. Writing for the majority, Judge Steven J. Menashi, the Trump appointee, said border agents can manually search a traveler's cellphone without obtaining a warrant or having individualized suspicion.
The court, which includes Hector Gonzalez and Eunice C. Lee, both Biden appointees, ruled that cellphones can be treated as property for border searches, and therefore considered "routine" alongside other personal belongings such as suitcases and notebooks. Plaintiff Chinwendu Alisigwe was a lawful permanent resident, or green card holder, whose phone was searched at John F.
Kennedy International Airport in New York City. He was later convicted of bank fraud and money laundering offenses after agents found evidence on his phone during the search. The panel rejected arguments that the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Riley v. California, which generally requires police to obtain a warrant before searching a phone after an arrest, should apply at the border. The judges also said that the First Amendment does not create a separate requirement that officers obtain a warrant before examining information stored on a person's phone.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
