3 ms·
To add to that, the ruling intentionally did not make a decision on two important distinctions: 1. Forcing you to unlock - in this case, Alisigwe unlocked thei
by gpt5 17d ago
To add to that, the ruling intentionally did not make a decision on two important distinctions:
1. Forcing you to unlock - in this case, Alisigwe unlocked their phone willingly after being asked.
2. Forensic extraction - the ruling does not give authorities the power to run a sophisticated off-site break-in on your phone without reasonable suspicion.
So if you are a US citizen, and you are willingly unlocking your phone at the border (or you don't have a passcode), the Fourth Amendment no longer protect you from a suspicionless manual search of the phone at the border
- FireBeyond 17d agoBut what they can do is confiscate your phone, _image_ it, without the access attempt, and keep the phone as evidence until or unless they feel the need to apply for a warrant for the access.
- gpt5 17d agoNo. They cannot keep the phone, and they cannot copy the phone data without reasonable suspicion under this ruling (connecting the phone to an external device to copy is considered advanced forensic and already has case law around it).
- LocalH 16d agoRelying on that presumes an administration that respects the rule of law and doesn’t just do what they want anyway. We don’t currently have such an administration.