Manual Searches at Border without Individualized Suspicion
The issue in this case was what searches are reasonable and unreasonable when the Government searches a cell phone at the border.
The Fifth Circuit observed the circuits are divided whether reasonable suspicion is required for a forensic search of a cell phone at the border. But every circuit to have addressed the issue has agreed that no individualized suspicion is required for the Government to undertake a manual border search of a cell phone. The Fifth Circuit decided not to depart from this consensus.
Alvaro Castillo and two others crossed the international bridge to Presidio, Texas, in an RV that was towing a passenger car behind it. Reaching the port of entry, the RV was sent to secondary inspection. During the search of the RV, an officer found a .357 revolver taped between two frying pans that had been wrapped in packing foam and taped inside the oven. The officer also found ammunition for a .357 inside a pressure cooker that had been taped shut, and some marijuana inside some luggage.
Alvaro was placed in a holding cell, and gave officers the passcode to unlock his phone. The officers conducted both manual and forensic searches of the phone and “other electronic devices” in Alvaro’s possession. These efforts produced images of child pornography.
Alvaro was later indicted on six charges involving child pornography. He sought to suppress the evidence. The district court denied Alvaro’s motion. Alvaro was convicted on all six counts and sentenced to 720 months in prison.
The Fifth Circuit first observed Riley does not require a warrant for manual phone searches at the border. The larger question was whether reasonable suspicion was required for a more intrusive forensic search of a cell phone at the border. Here, the Fifth Circuit held the Government can conduct manual cell phone searches at the border without individualized suspicion. It was a manual search that produced evidence of child pornography. Believing that search to be valid, “then it’s hard to see who that would not justify the subsequent forensic searches for additional evidence of child porngraphy.”