U.S. Border Agents Can Search Your Phone Without Suspicion, Federal Court Rules

U.S. border agents can continue manually searching travelers' phones without any individualized suspicion after a federal appeals court ruled that brief, hand-conducted inspections qualify as "routine" border searches under the Fourth Amendment.

The July 13 decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adds to a years-long legal debate over how constitutional protections apply to smartphones, which can contain years of messages, photos, financial records, health information, and location history.^[1]

The ruling stems from United States v. Belmonte Cardozo, after U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers manually searched a traveler's cellphone and found child sexual abuse material during the search, leading to his arrest.

This resulted in a legal challenge over whether border agents need individualized suspicion before manually inspecting travelers' phones.

Privacy advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation warn the ruling gives border officers broad authority to inspect some of the most personal data travelers carry.^[2]

Thanks for subscribing!

Please check your email for your first message.

Take back control of your privacy.

Join thousands who get our privacy-first newsletter every week. No spam. No nonsense.

Sign me up

By submitting this form you agree to receive emails from All About Cookies and to the privacy policy and terms.

Court says manual phone searches don't require suspicion

The Fourth Circuit's decision stems from United States v. Belmonte Cardozo, a case involving a traveler arriving from Bolivia at Washington Dulles International Airport.

During a manual inspection of his cellphone, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer discovered child sexual abuse material, leading to criminal charges.

On appeal, judges considered what legal standard should apply before border agents manually search a traveler's phone.

The court ultimately ruled that manually scrolling through a phone qualifies as a "routine" border search, allowing officers to inspect a traveler's device without a warrant or individualized suspicion.

Judges classified manual searches separately from forensic examinations that use specialized software to extract or recover data. According to the opinion, manual inspections are naturally limited because they:

• Are performed manually by a person, not software
• Reveal only information normally accessible on the device
• Can't uncover deleted files or hidden metadata
• Don't automatically create a permanent copy of the phone's contents

The decision extends a decade-long legal debate

The ruling is the latest chapter in a legal battle that's been unfolding since the Supreme Court's landmark Riley v. California decision in 2014.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that police generally need a warrant before searching a cellphone seized during an arrest, recognizing that modern smartphones contain "the sum of an individual's private life." Riley addressed searches following an arrest, leaving courts to determine how those protections apply at the U.S. border.

The Fourth Circuit later established stronger protections for more invasive forensic phone searches.

In United States v. Kolsuz (2018), the Fourth Circuit held that forensic cellphone searches at the border qualify as nonroutine searches and therefore require individualized suspicion.

This week's ruling is the first time the Fourth Circuit has directly addressed the legal standard governing manual phone searches at the border.

Privacy advocates say manual searches are deeply invasive

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed an amicus brief alongside the ACLU and other organizations, criticized the court for drawing a distinction between manual and forensic searches.

"The court rejected that argument and ruled that a lower standard applies to manual searches, allowing the government to conduct extraordinarily invasive electronic device searches without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply because the border officer chooses to search by hand rather than with a forensic tool,” the EFF wrote July 22.

EFF argues that manually browsing a phone exposes many of the same sensitive details as a forensic examination, including personal conversations, photographs, financial information, political affiliations, religious beliefs, and other intimate details of a person's life.

"It does not matter if a search is conducted by an agent's thumbs or by software: the end result is equally as invasive," they added.

The organization also challenged the court's emphasis on the fact that the search lasted only two minutes.

"Scrolling for two minutes through someone's personal text messages or photos is an invasion of privacy that may reveal intimate details about the person even in that short period of time."

EFF added that smartphones' built-in search functions allow officers to surface years of personal information in seconds, reducing the significance of how long a search lasts.

What travelers should know

For now, travelers entering the United States should assume Customs and Border Protection officers may manually inspect phones and other electronic devices without individualized suspicion during border crossings.

The Fourth Circuit noted that significantly longer or more extensive manual searches could eventually trigger greater constitutional protections.

Until courts draw a finer line or the Supreme Court weighs in, officers within the Fourth Circuit can continue conducting manual phone searches without the individualized suspicion required for many forensic examinations.

4.8

AllAboutCookies writers and editors score products based on a number of objective features as well as our expert editorial assessment. Our partners do not influence how we rate products.

Editorial Rating

Get Deal

On DeleteMe's website

2026 Editors’ Choice

Best Data Removal for Couples

Privacy Protection

DeleteMe

PROMOTION: Use the Code PARTNER20 for 20% Off

• Data removal service that covers 85-262 sites and re-scans every quarter to catch anything that reappears
• Sends quarterly privacy reports showing what info was found, which brokers had your data, and how long each removal took
• Includes email masking so you can share a stand-in address instead of your real one

Author Details

Thomas Kent

About the Author

Thomas Kent is a multi-disciplined reporter with over a decade of experience covering online platforms, digital trends, and consumer-facing tech. Tom focuses on digital privacy, data tracking, and user behavior, with a particular interest in how cookies, online surveillance, and platform design shape the modern internet experience. His reporting takes a research-driven, news-focused approach, translating complex technical topics into clear, accessible insights.