> The idea was that an electronic search did not serve the purposes of a search incident to arrest, which focuses more on ensuring officer safety. The same ide

> The idea was that an electronic search did not serve the purposes of a search incident to arrest, which focuses more on ensuring officer safety. The same idea applies here: the scope of the search at the border does not include data on electronic devices, as the government does not have an interest that we need to weigh against the person's liberties. It exceeds the "reasonable" part of the fourth amendment. (The memo filed by the EFF includes this reasoning.) I don't see this as a "debatable" thing. The constitution is clear on the need for a warrant, and while border crossing is one of those exceptions to the 4th allowing searches despite not having suspicion, the exception doesn't apply to search anything and everything, including data. (Also, in one of these incidents, the electronics were seized and held for months. While I think this is unconstitutional — clone the drive and call it day.)