A U.S. citizen was detained for hours at Houston Bush Intercontinental Airport, told by Customs and Border Protection officers that he had no Fourth Amendment rights at the border, and pressured to unlock his phone for inspection. He refused. Now he is suing.
And he should.
CBP Says Americans Have No Fourth Amendment At The Airport
A troubling case at Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH) highlights how far Customs and Border Protection believes its authority now extends. On July 21, 2025, Wilmer Chavarria, a U.S. citizen returning from Nicaragua, says CBP detained him “for no given reason,” separated him from his spouse, and took him into secondary screening. He was held for about four hours.
During that detention, he says agents repeatedly pressured him to hand over his laptop, phone, and tablet, along with the passwords to access them. When he objected, he says CBP told him he had “no Fourth Amendment rights at the border,” warned that asserting his rights was “suspicious,” and denied requests to contact family or a lawyer. After hours of isolation and pressure, he says he ultimately gave in and turned over the devices and passwords.
View From The Wing covered this case in detail, and I agree with him completely. This is not a close call. What CBP is asserting here is not routine border authority. It is an extraordinary and dangerous expansion of government power that should concern anyone who travels internationally, especially Americans who assume their constitutional rights follow them home.
I’m so tired of the canard that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy from their government.
CBP’s Claim Is Sweeping And Alarming
According to the lawsuit, CBP officers told this U.S. citizen that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at the border. That statement alone should stop every traveler cold.
The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not contain an airport exception. It does not evaporate because you landed on an international flight. And it certainly does not disappear simply because your phone happens to contain vast amounts of personal data. As a reminder, the Fourth Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is a fundamental bedrock American right, and I’d argue that the contents of a mobile phone are akin to papers, which should not be available for fishing expeditions lacking probable cause.
A Smartphone Is Not A Suitcase
Courts have already recognized that digital devices are fundamentally different from physical luggage. A smartphone contains years of communications, medical information, financial records, location history, photos, and access to cloud accounts that extend far beyond the device itself.
Treating a phone search like opening a bag is legally incoherent.
Even if CBP has broad authority to inspect goods at the border, that authority has limits. A phone is not contraband. It is not merchandise. It is an extension of the person carrying it, especially now.
Detention As Coercion
What makes this case particularly troubling is the use of prolonged detention as leverage.
Holding a U.S. citizen for hours, denying entry into his own country unless he surrenders his privacy, and asserting that constitutional protections do not apply is sickening coercion.
Consent obtained under those circumstances is not meaningful consent…
This Will Affect More Than “Suspicious” Travelers
Some will argue that this only impacts people with something to hide. That is both naïve and wrong.
Business travelers routinely carry privileged communications. Journalists carry sensitive sources. Doctors carry patient information. Lawyers carry client data. Ordinary travelers carry intimate details of their lives that have nothing to do with national security.
Once the government claims the power to compel phone access without a warrant, suspicion becomes optional. No terrorist attack or fear of one can justify this.
If CBP’s position stands, then the airport becomes a constitutional vacuum zone. One where Americans can be detained, compelled, and searched without meaningful judicial oversight. Indeed, it is already happening
That is not how rights work (or at least should work). And it is not how borders are supposed to function in a constitutional republic.
The plaintiff in this case is doing exactly what more Americans should be willing to do. Push back. Force the courts to draw a clear line. Demand that constitutional protections mean something even when it is inconvenient for the government.
Sadly, I’m not sure he’ll get very far because many courts appear to be rubber stamps for the police state America is fast becoming.
CONCLUSION
Travel already requires surrendering a great deal of privacy. That does not mean we surrender our rights. If CBP truly believes the Fourth Amendment does not apply to Americans at the border, then this lawsuit is not just justified. It is essential.
You can review the case documents here. Read it and tell me whether you think the conduct of US government officers was reasonable.
> Read More: The Appalling Treatment Of A Woman At LAX By Misogynistic US Border Agents
I would have to dust off what I have learned in the past, but as a general matter, the decisional law addressing the border station exception in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would surprise most Americans. And it is also troublesome, but CBP may indeed be operating in a manner consonant with that jurisprudence.
A constitutional amendment is one option. Perhaps a more direct option would involve Congress explaining that CBP’s funding is contingent on reforming its practices so as not to push the Fourth Amendment envelope as far as it does. But on balance, I anticipate that many Americans would be troubled that their Constitution permits far more than they anticipate.
Sounds like you’d agree with commenter @Mark F over at VFTW, who cited United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977); yet, Chavarria’s lawsuit basically seeks to challenge that “border search exception” to the Fourth Amendment. I agree with Chavarria’s premise, because a smartphone contains vastly more personal and private data than a suitcase or a paper letter. It holds the entirety of one’s personal life, professional documents, medical history, and location data. Searching it is a massive intrusion into privacy. And an administration that is clearly racially and ideologically profiling its own citizens, should not have that much access. In essence, they’re picking winners and losers, in and out groups, all of which is against our entire principles as a nation. All created equal. E pluribus unum (out of many, one). It’s imperfect, but we’re trying. Citizens like Chavarria are fighting the good fight. I applaud him.
This. I’m not sure why Matthew writes as if 4A applies at border patrol in the exact same manner that it applies elsewhere, when caselaw has made it abundantly clear that federal officers may conduct routine inspections and searches of persons attempting to cross the international border without a warrant or any particularized suspicion of unlawful activity. Obviously, there are limits to the border exception, but Matthew should know better than to write this article without discussing the exception.
jfhscott is correct. I feel people are misinformed about what rights you have as an alien entering the country under any circumstances. CBP has far more power than corporate media seems to believe and want you to know.
Nun, let’s make the distinction between ‘alien’ (non-citizen) as you said and actual citizens, who have a presumption of greater protections; however, it is CPB that needs to properly identify who is and is not a citizen, so that’s where this gets mirky, and they’ve been given a lot more discretion than most would expect.
Maybe I missed it, but the article didn’t mention if he had, or showed, a US Passport.
He did. Was a US citizen.
It is mentioned multiple times in the article, plus it is mentioned in the headline.
I have always assumed you have no protections until you actually are cleared past the border.
For non-citizens, that is a reasonable, if debatable, understanding. For citizens, whether you had or had not cleared immigration doesn’t matter…you are an American citizen in the United States.
Matt, thank you for adding to Gary’s article. I could not agree more with your statement: “Smartphone Is Not A Suitcase.” Yet, as you and Gary conclude, while this lawsuit is absolutely necessary, the Supremes are likely to go 6-3 in favor of this administration, regardless of law, facts, and conscience. It’s incredibly disturbing. We all lose.
I anticipate that SCOTUS might go more than 6-3. The border station exception is actually well established, but surprising to many. Just looking at Scalia’s jurisprudence, I recall that his ordinary search and seizure jurisprudence looked like it was outsourced to the ACLU. But he was equally resolute that any originalist would preserve the border station exception. As surprising as it may be to millions, the border station exception is rather incontestable.
The other branches of government do, however, have certain power to rein the CBP in, preventing the CBP from using the border station excepti0n to its full force.
Some theorize that the political spectrum is like a horseshoe… for instance, libertarians and progressives might agree on some economic and privacy issues. See former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan, who has frequently stated her belief that many laws are “on the books” but have been historically underenforced, arguing that businesses stopped abiding by them because enforcement agencies became dormant.
So, with CPB, yeah, they and any President can be extreme in their use of force and search at the border, yet, most have not done so because it would really upset citizens and non-citizens, alike. Maybe some rules shouldn’t be enforced to the n-th degree. See speeding. If you go 1 mph over, you are technically breaking the law. Fine, maybe a mere traffic infration, as opposed to murder… yet, still, ‘the law.’ Hmm.
“Don’t touch my junk”
4 hours? And then he wasn’t found guilty of anything. I got pulled over once just because the officer was bored and needed something to do for an hour.
CBP believes that they are the law out of fear. All is justified as long as it for their protection. Even if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court we know how they will vote. The only was for this to change is if some Congress family members gets swept up into it. The Media and public are dangerously naive about security operations at the borders.
The complaint claims the man is a successful K-12 professional. During the deposition, h3 may be questioned at length about that.
The complaint says 91% of Americans own a smartphone and 98% own a cellphone. I don’t think that is true. Many toddlers don’t.
One issue that will affect us is whether a cellphone is a suitcase. The court will allow suitcase searches.
It’s nothing new. This started with the power congress vested to the former US Customs Service (USCS) in 1789. Since the formation of USCS and now with Customs and Border Protection, no one, citizen or not has any protections from search or seizure at the border. You can be searched on a whim, no reasonable suspicion or probable cause necessary. That includes all of your effects, electronic or otherwise, as well as your person to include what’s inside of you. Courts have long upheld this. In fact, the courts held that an individual held for a monitored bowel movement (yes, that’s a thing) was justified in being held for more than 30 days.
Something triggered this intensive exam, it’s not done for fun. Those of you who are appalled by this are the first to complain that nothing happened if CBP failed to catch a malicious electronic file that could take down the US power grid or if they had evidence of child porn or the abuse of children or if CBP were to miss the plans for another 9/11 attack. You can’t have it both ways.
This is a backwards Wire Tap. No probable cause, no judge or warrant needed. Just take the phone contents and look for a crime or blackmail data? A sneaky lazy way to get around the law. What happens with innocent gathered information? Who has access to it and for how long? Question authority.