Background
Daniel Eta was under investigation for a transnational cyber fraud scheme when he arrived at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport from Nigeria. Customs and Border Protection officers manually searched his three cell phones, finding evidence of criminal activity. Eta moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, and Eta conditionally pled guilty while reserving his right to appeal.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that brief manual searches of electronic devices at the border are routine searches that do not require a warrant or individualized suspicion. The court rejected Eta’s argument that the search was non-routine due to its duration or scope, noting that manual scrolling is less intrusive than forensic imaging. The court also ruled that the search did not require a genuine border-related justification beyond the fact that it occurred at the border. Additionally, the court found that even if the search were unconstitutional, the good-faith exception would apply because officers acted in reliance on binding precedent and had reasonable suspicion based on informant tips and Eta’s nervous behavior.
What it means going forward
Law enforcement may continue to conduct brief manual searches of travelers’ cell phones at the border without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, provided the search remains manual and brief.