55,318 Phone Searches. Zero Warrants.

The Fourth Circuit just heard arguments on whether CBP needs a warrant to search your phone at the border. The answer could reshape digital privacy for five states.

Travelers walking through an airport terminal corridor with luggage

TL;DR:

  • What: EFF, ACLU, and NACDL filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo arguing the Fourth Circuit should require warrants for all border electronic device searches
  • When: Oral arguments heard May 8, 2026. Ruling expected within weeks to months
  • The numbers: CBP searched 55,318 devices in FY 2025, up 17% from the prior year. 92% were "basic" searches with zero suspicion required
  • Why it matters: The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, home to Dulles Airport, the case's origin. A ruling could create a circuit split pushing this toward the Supreme Court
  • What's at stake: Whether the "border search exception" (a legal doctrine from the era of physical luggage) applies to the entire digital contents of your life

The Case: A Phone Search at Dulles

Jose Belmonte Cardozo, a U.S. citizen, flew into Dulles International Airport from Bolivia. CBP flagged him for secondary inspection. Officers manually searched his cell phone: no warrant, no probable cause finding, no judge involved. They found child sexual abuse material. He was convicted of child pornography and sexual exploitation of minors. [1]

Belmonte Cardozo moved to suppress the phone evidence, arguing the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion. Now the Fourth Circuit will decide whether that was right.

The facts make this a hard case for privacy advocates: the search found genuinely horrific material. But that's exactly why it matters. Constitutional rights get tested on ugly facts. If the Fourth Amendment only protects people we like, it doesn't protect anyone.

What EFF Is Asking For

On May 8, 2026, the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments. The EFF, national ACLU, ACLU affiliates in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed their amicus brief arguing one thing: all electronic device searches at the border need a warrant. [1]

Not just forensic searches where agents plug your phone into extraction software. All of them. Manual scrolling through your photos, texts, and emails included.

Their argument boils down to three points:

  • Riley v. California already answered this. In 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously held that police need a warrant to search an arrestee's phone. The logic was simple: a phone isn't a wallet. It contains "the privacies of life." That reasoning doesn't stop at the border. [1]
  • Getting a warrant isn't hard. EFF argues "the process of getting a warrant is not unduly burdensome" and "would not impede the efficient processing of travelers." If officers have probable cause, they can retain the device and let the traveler continue while they get a warrant. [1]
  • The manual/forensic distinction is meaningless. Whether an agent scrolls through your photos by hand or uses Cellebrite to extract everything, the privacy invasion is the same. Both reveal your entire digital life. Both should require a warrant. [1]

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a separate brief focused on what warrantless searches do to journalists, and to anyone whose sources, notes, or communications might be on their device. [1]

55,318 Searches. One Year.

In fiscal year 2025 (October 2024 through September 2025), CBP searched 55,318 electronic devices at U.S. ports of entry. That's up 17% from approximately 47,000 in FY 2024. [2][3]

Here's the breakdown:

  • 50,922 (92%) were "basic" searches: agents manually scrolling through your device without connecting it to external equipment
  • ~4,396 (8%) were "advanced" or forensic searches: agents using extraction tools to copy and analyze contents
  • ~41,000 targeted non-citizens
  • ~13,500 targeted U.S. passport holders

CBP frames this as trivial. 55,318 searches out of hundreds of millions of travelers is "less than 0.01% of all arriving international travelers." But that framing obscures the point. Fifty-five thousand people had their phones searched without a warrant last year. Each one of those searches exposed text messages, photos, emails, browsing history, location data, health information, and financial records. [2]

And the number keeps climbing. Up 17% in one year. Under the current administration's aggressive border enforcement posture, there's no reason to expect that trajectory to reverse.

The Circuit Split That Could Reach the Supreme Court

Federal appeals courts are divided on this question, and the division is getting messier:

  • Fourth Circuit (2018): In U.S. v. Kolsuz, the court said forensic border searches require "some measure of individualized suspicion" but declined to say whether that means reasonable suspicion or a full warrant. [4]
  • Fourth Circuit (2019): In U.S. v. Aigbekaen, the court held that forensic device searches at the border for purely domestic investigations require a warrant. [4]
  • Ninth Circuit: Requires reasonable suspicion for forensic searches, but not for manual ones. [4]
  • Eleventh Circuit: In U.S. v. Touset, ruled that no suspicion is ever required for device searches at the border, opening the circuit split. [5]

The Fourth Circuit is now being asked to go further than any court has gone: require a warrant for all device searches, manual and forensic alike. If they do, and the Eleventh Circuit maintains its "no suspicion ever" position, the conflict would be deep enough to attract Supreme Court review.

We covered the parallel Third Circuit case in March. The EFF is running the same play across multiple circuits simultaneously, building the record for an eventual Supreme Court petition.

Why This Matters More in 2026

Border device searches have always been a civil liberties flashpoint. But three things make 2026 different:

The political environment. The current administration has made aggressive border enforcement a centerpiece. CBP's 17% year-over-year increase in device searches isn't an accident. It's policy. Journalists, lawyers, and activists have reported increased scrutiny of their devices at borders. [3]

The technology. In 2017, a phone search meant scrolling through some texts and photos. In 2026, it means access to encrypted messaging apps (if unlocked), cloud-synced content, biometric data, health records, financial apps, and location history going back years. The privacy invasion of a 2026 phone search is orders of magnitude greater than what courts were considering a decade ago.

The five-state footprint. The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. That includes Dulles International Airport, Reagan National, Baltimore-Washington International, some of the busiest international arrival points on the East Coast. A warrant requirement here would immediately affect millions of travelers.

What You Can Do

  • Know your rights now. CBP can ask you to unlock your device. U.S. citizens can refuse, but CBP can seize the device. Non-citizens face potential denial of entry. There is no good option under current law, which is exactly the problem
  • Travel light. Consider a travel phone with minimal data. Don't carry devices you're not willing to have searched
  • Support the legal fight. EFF's border search project is running these cases across multiple circuits. They need funding and public attention
  • Watch this case. A Fourth Circuit ruling could come within weeks. If they require a warrant, it's a landmark. If they don't, EFF will keep pushing until the Supreme Court has to decide

References

  1. EFF: EFF to Fourth Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant (May 2026)
  2. CBP: Border Search of Electronic Devices at Ports of Entry (FY 2025 Statistics)
  3. VisaHQ: CBP Electronic-Device Searches Jump 17 Percent; Wearables Now in Scope (March 2026)
  4. Global Investigations Blog: Circuits Split About Border Search of Electronic Devices
  5. Lawfare: Summary: Circuit Split on Device Searches at the Border in U.S. v. Touset
  6. Knight First Amendment Institute: United States v. Belmonte Cardozo