[harshreality]

The trial court judge's take on the motion to suppress:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.55...

It's a tough call. On one hand, the feds were really reaching by singling out the defendant for inspection based on:

1) a vague notion that South America is a higher risk of CSAM and sex trafficking (the government's CBP witness couldn't even say that that background CSAM rate in the countries the defendant had traveled from was higher than in Virginia, the state of the defendant's port of entry), and

2) a vague FinCEN report that there was some unspecified payment activity between the suspect and an account or accounts believed to be of underage individuals.

On the other hand, the defendant consented to the initial search after being read a miranda warning and signing a waiver, and did in fact have a pattern of catfishing victims to get them to send CSAM. He also had banned coca products (doesn't sound like cocaine, probably just coca leaves or something) that they were citing him for.

I'd like to think the feds or any LE should need some reasonable suspicion of a particular crime before investigating them for that particular crime. I don't think they had that. This wasn't a generic border search and enhanced questioning (to find out if there was anything specific worth investigating).

I think the judge was lazy in concluding that the search was justified, and wanted to leave it to appellate courts to exclude evidence if it meant letting the defendant go.

Is the current state of the law really that anyone who within the last few years ever transferred any money to a minor, and happens to be coming from any country outside the 1st world, is subject to an inspection and initial cursory search of digital devices for specific illegal material because it's "Look for CSAM month"? I find that difficult to believe, and appalling if true, regardless of any crimes that were uncovered.

[vasco]

> BY MS. HALPER:

> Q Do you have any particular training in child exploitation?

> A Yeah. I've taken a few trainings.

[nerdsniper]

I was under the impression that at the border, no reasonable suspicion was required.

[monksy]

south america is also a high risk of empanadas.

[limagnolia]

If the defendant consented, why is this even in dispute? Are they arguing the defendants consent was invalid?

[harshreality]

I think the question is whether border patrol can decide ahead of time to do a targeted search for a specific crime, and specifically search phones, which everyone understands and acknowledges store a massive amount of information about people, without reasonable suspicion of that particular crime.

Extended questioning, a pat-down or other physical search, and cursory search of luggage for physical contraband (all at international port of entry, of course) is still not the same as scrolling through someone's media gallery and files.

Correction to my previous (GP) post above: The miranda warning and waiver of rights was after the consensual search of his phones. That could be very important. If law enforcement suspects you of a specific thing enough to want to search your phone, but they don't have enough evidence that you're a suspect who merits a miranda warning, what are they doing asking to search your phone?

While everyone can save themselves from this scenario by saying no to searches, it's obvious that this was a fishing expedition. I think EFF should (but probably won't) prevail on the theory that phones have too much of our lives to be allowed to be searched like that, even voluntarily.

Suppose cops went door to door asking to enter and take a look around for contraband. I doubt courts would uphold cops' power to ask to look at people's phones (maybe asking for a cup of coffee while they do it). Regardless of whether the individual consents, it's too much of a breach of privacy without any particular reasonable suspicion of anything in particular.

Case law seems to focus on length and intrusiveness of temporary detention. I'd say this was too lengthy, too specific, and too intrusive for the measly "evidence" (coming from Colombia, and a FinCEN report that didn't allege any impropriety, just financial transfer(s) to a minor) they purported to have.

It's possible this was parallel construction.