A federal appeals court has ruled that border agents may search a traveler’s cellphone at the international border without a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a significant decision on the government’s authority to inspect electronic devices at ports of entry.
The ruling
In United States v. Alisigwe, decided September 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a cellphone search at the border can qualify as a routine border search and therefore does not require individualized suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. The court also rejected the argument that the First Amendment creates a separate warrant requirement for cellphone searches at the border.
Case background
The case involved Chinwendu Alisigwe, a lawful permanent resident whose cellphone was manually searched by federal officers at John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2019 and again in 2021. Evidence found during those searches was later used in a criminal case involving bank fraud and money laundering offenses.
The district court had concluded that cellphone searches required reasonable suspicion, while finding that officers had such suspicion in both searches. The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of Alisigwe’s motion to suppress but went further on the constitutional question. The majority concluded that no suspicion was required because the searches fell within the border-search exception.
Scope of the ruling
The ruling does not mean that every possible forensic examination of an electronic device has been resolved by the decision. The searches at issue involved officers manually scrolling through the cellphone and photographing information they found. The court’s holding addressed those searches in the context of the border-search exception.
Judge Eunice C. Lee concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority’s broader conclusion that cellphone searches should be treated as routine searches requiring no individualized suspicion. She agreed that neither a warrant nor probable cause was necessary to resolve Alisigwe’s appeal.
What this means going forward
The decision is binding within the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont. It adds to an evolving body of federal appellate law addressing how traditional border-search authority applies to modern electronic devices containing extensive personal information.