The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers  and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated.”    U.S.  Const.  amend.  IV.    “[W]arrantless   searches   are   typically   unreasonable   where   a   search   is   undertaken  by  law  enforcement  officials  to  discover  evidence  of  criminal  wrongdoing.”    Carpenter  v.  United  States,  138  S.  Ct.  2206,  2221  (2018)  (quotation omitted).

The   border   search   exception   is   a   “longstanding,   historically   recognized  exception  to  the  Fourth  Amendment’s  general  principle  that  a  warrant be obtained” for a search.  Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 621.  “[T]he border-search exception allows officers to conduct ‘routine inspections and searches of  individuals  or  conveyances  seeking  to  cross  .  .  .  borders’  without  any  particularized suspicion of wrongdoing.”  United States v. Aguilar, 973 F.3d 445, 449  (5th  Cir.  2020)  (quoting  Ramsey,  431  U.S.  at  619)  (emphasis  added).    Moreover,  even  “[s]o-called  ‘nonroutine’  searches  need  only  reasonable  suspicion,  not  the  higher  threshold  of  probable  cause.”    United  States  v.  Molina-Isidoro, 884 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2018).  “For border searches both routine and not, no case has required a warrant.”  Id

The  border  search  exception  reflects  “the  long-standing  right  of  the  sovereign  to  protect  itself  by  stopping  and  examining  persons and property crossing into this country.”  Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616.  “The  Government’s  interest  in  preventing  the  entry  of  unwanted  persons  and  effects  is  at  its  zenith  at  the  international  border”  and  has  been  recognized  “since  the  beginning  of  our  Government.”    United  States  v.  Flores-Montano,  541  U.S.  149,  152–53  (2004).    “Historically  such  broad  powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from entry.”  Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 619. 

Accordingly,  when  it  comes  to  manual  cell  phone  searches  at  the  border,  our  sister  circuits  have  uniformly  held  that  Riley  does  not  require  either a warrant or reasonable suspicion.  See, e.g., United States v. Xiang, 67 F.4th  895,  900  (8th  Cir.  2023)  (“No  Circuit  has  held  that  the  government  must  obtain  a  warrant  to  conduct  a  routine  border  search  of  elect

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...