## Facts

- Eleven U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents had smartphones, laptops, or other electronic devices searched by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the border or its functional equivalent.
- CBP and ICE policies distinguished between:
  - “Basic” searches: manual review of a device and accessible contents without external tools.
  - “Advanced” searches: use of external equipment (forensic tools) to copy, review, or analyze device contents.
- Under the challenged policies, neither basic nor advanced searches required a warrant; advanced searches required reasonable suspicion (or a national security concern) by policy, while basic searches could be conducted without individualized suspicion.
- Plaintiffs alleged the searches exposed highly personal and sensitive information (including privileged, journalistic, political, and religious material) and violated the Fourth and First Amendments.
- The district court applied the border search exception but required reasonable suspicion that the device contained “contraband” for both basic and advanced searches; it rejected a facial First Amendment challenge.
- The government appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed seeking, among other relief, a warrant requirement for device searches.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant and probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion, for border searches of electronic devices.
2. Whether the border search exception is limited to searches for “contraband,” such that any suspicion must relate to contraband on the device.
3. Whether the First Amendment independently requires heightened safeguards for border searches of electronic devices containing expressive or associational material.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court.
- The court held the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant or probable cause for border searches of electronic devices.
- The court held basic (manual) device searches are routine border searches and may be conducted without individualized suspicion.
- The court rejected the district court’s rule limiting permissible device searches to suspected “contraband” on the device; border searches may seek evidence of border-related crimes.
- The court upheld the agencies’ distinction between basic and advanced searches and accepted the policy-based reasonable-suspicion threshold for advanced searches, without treating it as constitutionally required.
- The court rejected the plaintiffs’ facial First Amendment challenge and denied the requested injunctive and declaratory relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under the border search exception, routine searches at the border are reasonable by virtue of occurring at the border and generally do not require a warrant or probable cause.
- Manual inspection of electronic devices at the border qualifies as a routine search and may be conducted without individualized suspicion.
- The border search exception is not confined to interdicting physical contraband; border searches may also target evidence of border-related offenses tied to customs, immigration, and national security enforcement.
- The heightened privacy concerns associated with digital devices recognized in domestic search settings do not, standing alone, impose a border warrant requirement.
- On a facial challenge, content-neutral border device-search policies do not violate the First Amendment merely because devices may contain expressive or associational materials.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit sustained CBP and ICE authority to conduct warrantless electronic-device searches at the border, permitting suspicionless basic searches and rejecting limits tying device searches to digital contraband, while also holding the policies were not facially invalid under the First Amendment.


Alasaad v. Mayorkas, 988 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2021)