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.
Matt’s commentary:
“The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not contain an airport exception.”
really is inconsonant with settled jurisprudence. I could say more, but the following does so better than I would.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/searches-at-international-borders
I’m well aware of the exceptions that have been carved…that doesn’t mean the Fourth Amendment is being interpreted correctly, even with 100 years of precedent.
As this SCOTUS pays no attention to stare decisis, I’d love to see them re-examine these laws…but of course the majority is not going to do that. That said, nothing is “settled jurisprudence” any longer…
There will be a day in which we have another Warren Court because the pendulum of history swings back and forth. Historically, I’ve been a Scalia guy, but the federal government has too much power…it is not what the framer’s intended and not what we, the people, intended…
Well said. The pendulum has moved way too far. Scary..
Well, I do not like CPB’s power. But CBP in no way arbitrarily concocted power or somehow decided to make things up as they went along. And I rather suspect that CPB officers are informed by legal counsel – I have been professionally involved in litigation which was settled with CBP agreeing to provide explicit guidance to officers concerning photography at ports of entry. You explain “[w]hat CBP is asserting here is not routine border authority”. While CBP does no exercise such authority routinely, under current decisional law CBP routinely “wakes up” with such power.
Rather than finding scandal in this particular incident, stating the Fourth Amendment “does not have an airport exception”, perhaps the scandal is that this is perfectly legal and that indeed there is an “airport exception” (along with exceptions for sea ports of entry and land ports of entry).
I respect your opinion of where you think the law SHOULD be, but your article is about where the law PRESENTLY stands, and you make absolutely no mention of the border exception, which is precisely the issue.
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.
*whoosh*
Yes…but he is not a “real” U.S. citizen…his last name sounds Spanish. 4th amendment was meant for “real” Americans. That is what is at the heart of the matter. Thats what determines whether you area patriot or a criminal thug…
Also something negative about Biden. Please if you are reading thus dont cancel my citizenship and deport me, thanks!
LOL. Gotta include the ‘/s’ sir.
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.
Actually, it’s what?, 100km?
Since he landed at the airport, well within the country’s border, he should have the protection of the 4th amendment. He was detained at customs and passport control.
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.
You are dead wrong. I’d more likely see 5-4 decision reigning in the had-booted thugs aka CBP. They’ve already ruled that way when it came the cell phones and other cases.
Gregg, you refer to Carpenter v. United States (June 22, 2018), where the Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the government generally needs a warrant to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI) from wireless carriers, which shows where a person has been.
However, that was Trump term 1, where he was less-authoritarian, still had guardrails, and a 5-4 conservative majority, with just 1 Trump approved justice; now, this is 2025, Trump term 2, far more authoritarian, with a 6-3 conservative majority, including 3 Trump appointed justices, a truly sycophantic rubber-stamp court for the administration. So, I would not bet on this court caring about anything but appeasing the Dear Leader and his billionaire backers.
I disagree. I think SCOTUS will back the traveler. The left-leaning justices will rule in his favour just because of their personal political persuasions, whereas the right-leaning judges will rule in his favour because the fourth amendment explicitly protects against unwarranted searches. It’s right there in black and white. This isn’t like Roe, which manufactured a new constitutional right that didn’t exist except in the minds of the SCOTUS judges of the time. If there’s one thing that Thomas and Alito are dedicated to, it’s a capital-O Originalist interpretation of the constitution.
Are you an American based in Australia, or an Australian based in Australia? Either way, sorry to learn of what happened at Bondi. I’ve really enjoyed my visits to that country and place.
Anyway, I don’t think originalism means anything to those justices; that’s faux-intellectualism; all they care about is doing the bidding of their backers. Sure, they’ll find a way to justify whatever the outcome is, citing some long-gone text or law or Biblical passage, but it’s a farce, 6-3 in-favor of the admin. Bet on it.
Well my friend is about time for law and order hope for a Marshal law soon to clear from law lessness
Gus, what are you talking about? C’mon, malaka. Greece has been through a civil war and military junta. If you didn’t live through it yourself, certainly your ancestors did. Martial law is not the answer, here, there, anywhere. Sheesh.
“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.
Ah, so you’re one of those ‘nothing to hide’ folks, eh? Psh.
But, but… national security… ‘Patriot’ Act.
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.
I don’t think that is necessarily true in this era…
As an officer who began with the US Customs service in the 80’s and retired from Customs and Border Protection 5 years ago let me say that Grumpy1k is totally correct. This has been established law for over 200 years. Border search authority has been upheld by the courts many times during our history. Juat because people don’t like it now doesn’t make it unreasonable.
‘Just following orders’ and ‘but, but, it’s the law’ much?
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.
No matter what America does going forward, every American will have to live with the decision they as a whole made to give up hard fought values of freedom, liberty, and opportunity. No one will ever forgive you.
I love the 4th amendment, and I hope he prevails. While it makes sense to look at this from a legal perspective, it also makes sense to look at it from a practical perspective. He is a US citizen entering the United States. There is no mechanism to deny him entry; deporting him isn’t even a possibility as deporting a US citizen (as has happened recently) is in effect kidnapping.
My greater point is that if he refused, even for 8 hours, I suppose they could detain him indefinitely, but there doesn’t seem to be any rule he’s violating or any actual punishment they could levy. CBP would ultimately have to give in.
If you want to go the decline to cooperate route, make sure you don’t have biometric unlock enabled on your devices. While they can’t force you to tell them your password, they can certainly hold up the phone to your face or force your finger to unlock it.
Pacific Legal Foundation is behind this, that says it all, professional politicos on the left.
Says what all, exactly? Behind what? Filing a lawsuit? Hysterical.
Surely it’s only to be expected in Trumpton? It won’t be too long before you all have to have your social media vetted by Criminal Trump’s regime on a week by week basis with long prison sentences for anyone who offends the Trump child.
Still, you knew what you were voting for and Vance is ready to take over at the next election. So much for you all to look forward to.
With the company I work for, you are not allowed to leave the country with your work laptop. Why would this person have student information on his personal laptop? Also, was he possibly targeted for his sexual orientation?
Some workplaces require employees to use their personal devices..I know of 3 schools that require their employees using their personal devices for work..if they don’t, they don’t have devices for work.
As a flight crew member, coming home on an international trip it never fails to amaze me how much of a surveillance/police state we already reside in.
I always tell CBP not to scan my face, but they will do that without asking unless you tell them not to. I’ve been detained multiple times, in uniform, for no apparent reason
As working crew, we often only have to show a badge to get out of the airport in a number of countries.
On vacation, I couldn’t believe how efficiently I moved in and out of Ben Gurion TLV. Such a starck contrast with the 45 minute line with militarized police and k9 sniffing my crotch in Detroit customs.
Even security in Rio is relatively chill compared to our system. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. We made the changes on the plane to avoid another 9/11. The power grabs and money laundering to security contractors has to stop.
What is more, the 100 mile exclusion zone that grants CBP the authority to search without probable cause needs to be held to constitutional fire once and for all. The idea that Chicago can be considered a border town just proves the ridiculous lengths CBP has taken their power.
No one should cross any border with sensitive or personal documents. You upload everything like that to an encrypted cloud to which you access via bootable live Linux USB that will give you full Internet and online applications to access and use your data. That USB is read only and the minute you shut it off it reverts to a live Linux Os. You are not required to provide passwords to cloud services, but if you don’t tell them they won’t know anyway.
Maybe if the dems didn’t allow every loser to walk into our country and turn treat them like hero’s. We wouldn’t be in this situation.
Any cited or sourced statistics or figures about any of that from legitimate, credible sources?
I totally agree, now enforce the 2nd amendment right to bear arms just like the 4th amendment.
This article reminds me of an old saying “we have a solution in search of a problem”.
Bingo
That is correct. The 4th Amendment applies in criminal proceeding. Basic removal of illegal aliens is a civil procedure.
It cannot result in criminal conviction and imprisonment and/or fine.
I work at the Border. Over 20 years. Cell phones are only looked at when there is a real suspicion of something else going on…terrorist, pedophiles and those suspected of illegal activities. The paperwork that is required by CBP to do a phone search is quite extensive and time consuming….no one wants to do this unless nessicary. Also…most lie about there experience….they pulled me in for no reason and held me there for hours…bs…there was a reason.
@ 1973: Sadly, you are the one lying. I just traveled with a British and a German citizen who both separately confirmed they were required to open their phones to CBP thugs to get into the country.
The authority of Customs and Border Protection officers to search individuals and their possessions at the physical
border, the functional equivalent of the border, or the extended border is a longstanding border search authority, and an exception to the 4th Amendment as recognized in numerous Supreme Court rulings. That authority also include the right to search electronic devices.
CBP Directive. 3340-049A January 4, 2018 relates specifically to the search of electronic devices and can be found online.
Having a US Passport does not exempt any individual from a border search when crossing the US border.
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Jan/CBP-Directive-3340-049A-Border-Search-of-Electronic-Media-Compliant.pdf
We could hope for a Supreme Court decision offering more 4A support to citizens at borders. Or, we could, I know this a shockingly naive idea, insist our elected officials pass a set of restrictions for treatment of US citizens at the border.
The absolute silliness of all this is that there is absolutely no difficulty getting anything that could be on your device into the US without it being on your device when crossing borders. Of course, not all criminals figure this out, as we regularly hear of the arrest of individuals with explicit photos of [those who should not be in such photos]. I assume this material could be on their device or in the cloud in a manner that law enforcement could not recover.
All this is part of a Global Martial Plan to herd people and operate full control over private lives. The UK wants to introduce digital ID and already have facial recognition in many locations such as China does very well.
Everybody must simply refuse to hand over their devices for scrutiny. They can’t jail us all, or maybe they will!!
All this is because of the extreme Muslim terrorist threat so wel all have to suffer.
Tourism will take a hit in countries who go over the top with this kind of repression.
RIP the modern world in intensive care forever.
When flying international, travel with Chrome book and a new phone. Problem solved. People just don’t read the news about other traveler’s encounter the CBP or foreign immigration officals.
I work for a very well known drug cartel. Whenever I cross Americas borders I use a burner phone I don’t care about. I also have a “distress PIN” which i freely give any agent. Fun fact; the distress PIN silently and effectively wipes every bit of personal data and over writes it all while in the palm of their hand. Lol phuck tsa
That Guy is right!
Im finding all of your comments fascinating; I only wish that I too could add such a educated, experienced and well thought out argument or idea to the already large number of comments here but I thought that maybe someone might find it useful to also hear a point of view from someone who isn’t a lawyer or person who necessarily maneuvers in the circles of those who understand legal jargon. With that being said, my opinion is more of an observation as well as concern for what seems to be a very clear contradiction by the current administration of what it is rnjoy the protection of our constitutional; after all we are the same people who refused to mask during covid, bore consequences for not getting vaxxed, we also have freedom to educate our children as we see fit and demand constantly that all of our constitutional rights be upheld.
So if privacy seems to be so highly regarded, infact our freedom is valued more than any material asett, why does that only apply some of the time? Additional security checks and with diminished privacy law protection at the entry points is understandable, we complain about privacy invasions until there is a terrorist attack, then we demand to know how that person(s) was able to get past airport security, to my knowledge this is how the Patriot Act was allowd to push through with no pushback after 9/11. We want to feel safe without compromising our privacy or giving up our rights and that may not be possible.
But I do find it concerning that the ramping up of security checks on non citizens entering the US (which I agree with wholeheartedly) should now so show include United States citizens simply returning home from a trip. I always rather liked the feeling of landing back on US soil, a sigh of relief after traveling abroad knowing all of the risks associated with not being on US soil, it feels wrong and sad to picture US boarder agents treating America citizens as if they were no different than a suspicious person of interest flying from a hostile country into our land, but I hold out hope that this is the case, and cannot assume the validity that this article which has already been pointed to by many here as having several inaccuracies in regards to actual written law and case law.
On the other side of it though,it really only takes a moment to acknowledge the violations of personal privacy rights being committed in almost other country in the western world right now, including but not by any means limited to the UK and Australia.
This is not the vision of our future that our founding fathers and constitutional authors had, but then again, they would have believed that an America that had already seen the consequences of a secular, oppressed people would never have allowed the depreciation of our freedom and that entails. Not after what it took to gain it.. the more we look outward to the cause of our troubles, the less likely we are ever to find real solutions. The greatest threat to us, is us.. we let it happen, we’re still letting it happen. We can be lazy, co trolled and taken care of or we can be strong, vigilant and free… We cannot be both.
As a school employee with an app on my electronic devices that holds student/family/faculty personal information, this is troubling.
As an ordinary American, it’s concerning that our medical providers could have our personal information compromised if their devices were to be released to any Willy nilly government agent who claims rights to them.
Highly highly concerning.
The Constitution only applies to ho.e grown citizens born and raised r people with legal citizenship..doesn’t matter. If you anywhere on American soil as an American then your rights exist..the building doesn’t matter.
I say just buy a cheap phone one doesn’t give a shit about. Hell just go to a pawn shop or Walmart get a cheap tablet or Chromebook when going overseas. Leaving the good ones behind. I’m sure there is some internationally internet storage site one can access from abroad.
This is what scum like Dick Cheney and co were working towards. Leopards eating faces comes to mind
Law’s are not settled in stone, they are written to be responding certain things that are relevant to that moment in wish they were written.
Life evolved, now some others things exist that there were not way to predict, like cells phones and laptops.
The law needs to be re written and the ones who do that should take in consideration the people.
Fear is driven madness to society, the laws should not encourage paranoia, abuse, disregard for basic human rights because if they do they are not better than the ones they try to government.
Government and law’s work for the people, no the other way around.
I would show this to the head of the CBP so those agents can be fired.
So here is my only thought, I find through a bit of research, what is said by the potential victim, usually doesn’t line up with actions. This is usually seen by security cameras. Alot of the time, they claim they were peaceful and followed every instruction. Until the camera shows a person getting belligerent or running or something to draw attention
Sue the hell out of them
Can a US citizen bring contraband through customs, because he demands no one check? $500,000,000 in bit coin, child porn, seditious plans, government secrets, computer viruses, 2 terabytes of only God knows what??? If you carry in those things, you want the 4th amendment to apply to you. I would rather it did not.
Everyone will have their own opinions, and thats good because it’s life, but I have no issues with this. And this is coming from someone who was held for 3+ hours more than 7 times entering the USA as a citizen.
National security is relatively loose in the states, something we take advantage of. I have no issues with people going through my phones/laptop etc, as like what happened in Russia. Not everyone, but if it happens, it’s just for security reasons.
Annoying? Yes. Could it possibly prevent an attack or espionage? Also yes..
Just my views, everyone’s are different.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” – Benjamin Franklin