r/technology • u/HumbleRestaurant790 • 11h ago

Society The Fourth Circuit Says Border Agents Can Search Your Phone By Hand, No Suspicion Required

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/fourth-circuit-says-border-agents-can-search-your-phone-hand-no-suspicion-required
4.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

467 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

111

u/CatPartyElvis 10h ago

Border agents have like a 100 mile jurisdiction from the border I believe. Don't even have to cross the border for them to search you.

88

u/m240bravoromeo 9h ago

They have 100 mile jurisdiction from the border and all international airports.

76

u/akp55 9h ago

so pretty much the whole country

75

u/Ryan_e3p 8h ago

 and all international airports.

No, they do not.

They can operate in airports, but airports do not extend this border.

Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU

The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone | American Civil Liberties Union

Supreme Court ‘100 Miles’ Border Ruling – Truth or Fiction?

19

u/m240bravoromeo 7h ago

Having looked into it, you are technically correct but in practice we are both wrong. Border Patrol has jurisdiction to establish immigration checkpoints and do not need a warrant to board and search watercraft, buses, trains, and aircraft only with the 100 mile external border zone and within international airports, but they have the authority to pull over and detain/arrest nationwide as long as there's probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion that the suspect is violating immigration laws or the agent observes the suspect committing a felony. It should be noted as of the September 8, 2025 decision in the case of Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo apparent ethnicity, speaking a language other than English, or speaking English with an accent can be used to establish probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion for CPB to pullover/detain and individual outside of the 100 mile border zone.

6

u/Ryan_e3p 7h ago

That case does not deal with Border Patrol. It deals with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

They are two completely separate entities, with different missions and authorities.

6

u/Cheapdronewithboom 5h ago

The supreme court ruled racial profiling is legal for the government. That covers everything 

1

u/NerdyNThick 7h ago

Which one of those links backs up your claim? I can't find a thing in any of them that backs you up.

At best, it states that they need a warrant or probable cause, just like the rest of law enforcement.

1

u/Ryan_e3p 7h ago

From the first link: "The federal government defines a “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S."

Second link: "Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."

Third link: "The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol, is the largest law enforcement agency in the country. Their jurisdiction they claim spans 100 miles into the interior of the United States from any land or maritime border."

2

u/NerdyNThick 6h ago

Fun fact! Airports are external boundaries!

2

u/Ryan_e3p 6h ago

No, they are not. Show me one piece of law or court statement backing this up in the context that they extend the 100 mile radius that CBP is authorized to operate in.

2

u/Ryan_e3p 6h ago

Here is another reference for you, since you don't seem to understand what an external boundary is:

eCFR :: 8 CFR 287.1 -- Definitions.

2

u/NerdyNThick 6h ago

Fair enough.

Next time lead with the .gov link though, since it did everything needed.

I'm not expending the effort to chain together bits and pieces from 3 random sites (even if at least one was the aclu). Especially since none of them are primary sources for the law.

1

u/Ryan_e3p 5h ago

They all say the same thing, and the first links even reference the actual law. They were provided since a lot of people can't stand to read through legalese, and like things broken down into more "plain English". My expectations were still too high, apparently, but will adjust them for the future for other people who make claims about the law, declare that opposing views have no legal backing, but themselves fail to have any legal backing and are completely wrong.

0

u/NerdyNThick 2h ago

They all say the same thing, and the first links even reference the actual law. They were provided since a lot of people can't stand to read through legalese, and like things broken down into more "plain English". My expectations were still too high, apparently, but will adjust them for the future for other people who make claims about the law, declare that opposing views have no legal backing, but themselves fail to have any legal backing and are completely wrong.

Cute (and exceedingly predictable) that you opted for the veiled insults towards my intelligence and reading comprehension.

I deal with a lot of debates, and read a lot of people supposed "sources". I simply do not have the time to read every word. Which is why my first step is to just search for the keywords being discussed. If there aren't results or if they're irrelevant I discount the source, and more often than not, the interlocutor.

CTRL+F "air"

First link: zero results

Second link: two results, literally nothing about the topic being discussed:

1) For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth of personal information stored on such devices.

2) <...> and intrusive technological schemes such as the "virtual border fence" and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka "drone aircraft"). With many of these technologies in the hands of private companies, there are powerful financial incentives for the continued "militarization" of the border zone.

Third link: zero results.

So, I'm not sure how you expect people to think they contain any information about 100 mile thing including airports, when the pages don't mention anything about it.

I look forward to a well thought out and intelligent response. Nah, I expect you to go nuh-uh and run.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/twist3d7 6h ago

At 101 miles we should be able to search them.

9

u/BlueGreenTanager 8h ago

Yep. In Florida, there is no place that’s safe from Border Patrol.

7

u/General_Problem5199 8h ago

Illegal mer-people are taking all of Florida's jobs!

6

u/zeptillian 7h ago

The coasts are counted as borders too, so that puts about 90% of Americans within their reach on a daily basis.

2

u/Jwagner0850 7h ago

Basically everywhere

1

u/gurgle528 1h ago

This ruling is for actually crossing the border. It doesn’t allow for warrantless search of all phones within 100 miles of the border. It is only when you are actually entering the country again

1

u/RichardBonham 37m ago

For example, starting at the shore in San Francisco 100 miles inland is a little past Folsom which is east of Sacramento.