[shevy-java]

But why would that be legal? The device is owned by the individual. No judge signed any warrant search for the device. I can do what I want with my device - that is a basic right of property. Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.

[budsniffer952]

You are allowed to refuse access to your device, and they are allowed to refuse entry to the country.

[inigyou]

Most constitutional rights are suspended within 100 miles of a border or international airport.

[morgan814]

Which leaves me wondering - should domestic travel be treated the same as international when it comes to securing your devices?

[owenmarshall]

Because I was curious about this exact same question, I did some looking on this last night.

Case law on this seemingly requires some nexus to a border. In Almeida-Sanchez v US[0], a Mexican citizen was stopped while driving on an east-west road that was near the border but that didn't connect to the border. The marijuana that was found in his car was excluded because there was no proof he was actually crossing a border, just near it.

So I'd expect, under a functioning legal system, a warrant would be required to search your phone if you landed in JFK on a flight from Altoona.

[0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-6278

[inigyou]

Worse, almost the entire population of the USA lives within 100 miles of a border or international airport.

[jakzurr]

> Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.

This jogged my memory, though I couldn't find the example I was thinking of. But here's an item that is pretty similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas_asset_forfeiture...

Edit: Not on the border, btw. Just people travelling inside US. I guess it was their mistake to carry cash instead of getting a bank check or something.

[gradschool]

> Imagine if border guards seize money willy-nilly.

no need to imagine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...