| 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. |