Border Device Searches Need Fourth Amendment Protections

I am writing to urge you to support legislation requiring federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching digital devices at U.S. borders. I don't understand how current law could possible allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to conduct warrantless searches of smartphones, laptops, and other electronic devices without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This seems a straightforward violation of the Fourth Amendments prohibition against arbitrary search and seizure. Yet the American Civil Liberties Union has documented border agents seizing devices and conduct "forensic searches" that download and retain full copies of data. CBP can hold devices for five days—extendable by seven-day increments—with reports of phones being held for weeks or even months. Modern smartphones store extraordinarily sensitive information: detailed accounts of our conversations, professional lives, whereabouts, and web-browsing habits. The ACLU notes that this data paints "a far more detailed picture of our private lives than, say, a piece of luggage." Even attorney-client privileged communications receive inadequate protection. The ACLU reports that "communications with your lawyers are insufficiently protected at the border," and CBP policy "still permits government employees to search the phone." Journalists' sensitive work and sources face similarly unclear protections under vague CBP policies. The case of Sam Tunick illustrates the dangers of unchecked border search authority. In January 2025, CBP agents demanded Tunick's phone password at an Atlanta airport without probable cause, ignoring his request to speak with a lawyer. Tunick's phone was running GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused operating system with a "duress password" feature that wipes the device when activated—a legal security tool designed to protect against warrantless intrusion. When Tunick's duress password was entered, the device was erased. The U.S. government responded by indicting him in November 2025, charging him with destroying property under government control. The developer of GrapheneOS defended the software's legality, stating: "GrapheneOS is completely legal. We have no obligation to weaken any of the security protections it provides." Yet Tunick now faces criminal prosecution simply for possessing and using this software as designed. The Supreme Court recognized the sensitive nature of digital data in Riley v. California (2014), ruling that police cannot search a suspect's phone incident to arrest without a warrant because phones contain an "intimate window into a person's life." That principle applies equally at the border. Device searches at the border are escalating dramatically. According to CBP data, more than 41,000 electronic devices were searched in 2023—a jump from just 8,503 in 2015. A warrant requirement based on probable cause would preserve border security while upholding constitutional rights and preventing prosecutions like Tunick's. I strongly urge you to support legislation requiring a probable cause warrant before CBP searches electronic devices at the border. Without such protections, Americans face criminal liability simply for exercising their right to privacy.