> It is insane to me that judges consistently rule that the constitution doesn't apply because there's a "border" within 100 miles.

People keep misconstruing this.

The border search exemption only applies when someone is actually crossing a border, and it does grant broad authority to search whatever they're carrying with them at the time. The authority to do border enforcement within a 100-mile zone around borders does not grant a broad authority to search. It does grant a narrow authority to do things like traffic checkpoints, but those don't permit searches for anything smaller than a person without additional evidence.

I do think the ruling establishing the authority to run checkpoints other than actual border crossings was wrongly decided and harmful, but it's not what's at issue in this case.

▲

gpt5 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To add to that, the ruling intentionally did not make a decision on two important distinctions:

1. Forcing you to unlock - in this case, Alisigwe unlocked their phone willingly after being asked.

2. Forensic extraction - the ruling does not give authorities the power to run a sophisticated off-site break-in on your phone without reasonable suspicion.

So if you are a US citizen, and you are willingly unlocking your phone at the border (or you don't have a passcode), the Fourth Amendment no longer protect you from a suspicionless manual search of the phone at the border

▲

FireBeyond 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But what they can do is confiscate your phone, _image_ it, without the access attempt, and keep the phone as evidence until or unless they feel the need to apply for a warrant for the access.

	▲	gpt5 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No. They cannot keep the phone, and they cannot copy the phone data without reasonable suspicion under this ruling (connecting the phone to an external device to copy is considered advanced forensic and already has case law around it).

▲

iAMkenough 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

True, but Egbert v. Boule (2022) the SCOTUS determined there's no penalty established or monetary damages owed to you if Border Agents cross the boundary of the exemption and violate your Fourth Amendment right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_v._Boule

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/egbert-v-boule/

▲

lokar 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The remedy is disallowing evidence collected. This is the same for almost every case in which law enforcement searches without proper cause or a warrant.

And I don't know what that would be surprising. Where monetary damages are due they are because statute establishes them, or you can show some specific and direct financial harm (thus money damage is the remedy).

▲

iAMkenough an hour ago | parent [-]

Doesn't stop further action based on your private data and retribution for evidence of anti-American speech or potentially-criminal travel patterns. In terms of government surveillance, evidence doesn't need to be submitted to court. It can be provided to a government surveillance contractor like Palantir or Flock for national security purposes.

The current Exectutive Branch has a history of keyword-search driven action, without a chain-of-command of proper review before action.

At least one American citizen has successfully been un-deported based on bad information resulting in deportation action. DHS has a Predictive Policing division willing to conduct unconstitutional, warantless parellel construction.

Warrantless surveillance is well established, and anti-American evidence may exist on your device depending on the reasonable suspicion provided by other Palantir-esque analysis of your online activity and your level of support of the ruling power. The law enforcement agent you encounter won't receive that context, just that the system they usually use flagged you as suspicious without your knowledge (depending on the jurisdiction you're in).

To your point, it only needs to be justified in court if you take legal action. Per Egbert v. Boule (2022), no remedy for American citizens seeking damages for unjustified violations of the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment when it comes to immigration enforcement-related action exists unless explicitly defined by Congress (which it has not, yet).

Edit:

> “People in the government violated my privacy by reading my private information”, on its own, is not a harm the court can fix.

Basically, the average American should treat Border Patrol agents like they're the Gestapo going after their private, Constitutionally protected information with no legal recourse for that potential violation of Constitutionally-protected right to privacy.

If you're rich you can fight it, but the SCOTUS will likely determine Border Agent overreach is something that just happens until Congress establishes a penalty.

	▲	lokar 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		To seek damages in a court you must show that you have suffered specific harm that the court can remedy. “People in the government violated my privacy by reading my private information”, on its own, is not a harm the court can fix. If the legislature wants to assign a monetary value to that, they can.