I'm reading the statute this comes from [0] and its associated definitions [1] but I don't see that it's as bad as you made it sound. (I don't love it, still.)

The 100 mile "reasonable distance" is used to define where vessels and vehicles may be searched for aliens.

But the warrantless search may only be applied to persons seeking admission for whom an officer has suspicion of reasonable cause for denying the person entry.

Of the 80% of people living within that distance (which is an upper bound, btw; the agents in charge are required to set a bound not to exceed that by taking into account such things as "density of population, possible inconvenience to the traveling public.") almost none can be suspected of being under reasonable cause for denial of entry.

So to do the thing you are fearing, 1) the chief patrol agent has to set the distance to encompass an inappropriately large area in violation of this law, 2) an agent has to stop and search cars randomly, and 3) somehow become suspicious that an occupant is seeking entry and ought to be denied entry, and 4) believe that searching that person's device would reveal information demonstrating that the suspicion is correct.

It's not great, but it's not "80% of Americans can have their devices searched without a warrant".

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1

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

> The U.S. Border Patrol has stated: "Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions 'Are you a U.S. citizen, and where are you headed?' they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S."

I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026.

The truth is law enforcement is not simply a white glove application of the law.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vica_-UEg0Q

> 1) the chief patrol agent has to set the distance to encompass an inappropriately large area in violation of this law,

Certain to happen.

> 2) an agent has to stop and search cars randomly,

Not at all. "Based on my training and experience, Mexicans drive Subarus. Your driving a Subaru gives me a reasonable suspicion to conduct a non-random stop on you.". Yes, it gets very close to that stupid, and a lot of times they even believe stuff like that. Even if they don't believe it, they know the lie isn't falsifiable. A system that lets random officers get away with unreviewed searches is a problem even if they do have to commit perjury to take advantage of it. Because they will.

> 3) somehow become suspicious that an occupant is seeking entry and ought to be denied entry,

Well, yeah, they're sitting right there in the freaking Subaru. Boom. Reasonable suspicion.

> 4) believe that searching that person's device would reveal information demonstrating that the suspicion is correct.

Well, if the suspicion were correct, it probably would. And if the suspicion is incorrect, even if the suspicion is a deliberate bullshit lie, anything they do find becomes fair game.

Sorry, no. Probable cause. And independent judicial review on your probable cause. Not trivial legitimization of totall bullshit suspicions.

Yeah, the law interpreted by a reasonable person isn't the end of the world. But that's not how the DHS's ICE or CBP interpret it or how they operate. And now they're even using their probably illegal interpretation (via internal secret memos) outside of the 100 mile zone.