alt Hacker News> 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.
Replies
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
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/