> A border officer searched plaintiff Zainab Merchant’s phone, despite her informing the officer that it contained privileged attorney-client communications. (

> A border officer searched plaintiff Zainab Merchant’s phone, despite her informing the officer that it contained privileged attorney-client communications. (The following (what I say) does not mean to imply that I don't agree with the ruling:) I don't get why this is a factor at all or even relevant. In particular the 'despite her informing the officer'. Why would the officer be in a position to determine a) If the plaintiff is even an attorney to begin with b) If the plaintiff was asserting that as some kind of defacto 'diplomatic immunity' (to only make a comparison) in order to prevent the phone from being searched because it might in fact contain contraband? Very convenient, right? Why in particular would the lawyers rights (because they are an attorney) be greater than any ordinary individual? Further why would it matter if an officer saw the attorney client information to begin with? The assumption is that anything they (the officer) sees would have to be kept private no matter what it was. Lastly could someone (a business person) then assert that there was material non public information on the phone and that as a reason to not search it? The point is if they did see it the officer could (in theory) trade on that information. Where does this stop?