Company News

On May 21, Doug Austin of CloudNine featured the Ride the Lightning (RTL) blog post “4th Circuit Says Border Search of Phones Requires Individualized Suspicion (But Not a Warrant)” in his own post. His blog post, “Fourth Circuit Rules that Warrantless Cell Phone is Warranted: Data Privacy Trends” is featured in CloudNine’s eDiscovery Daily Blog. CloudNine is a legal intelligence technology company with deep expertise in the analysis, processing, and review of electronically stored information (ESI). Ride the Lightning is an electronic evidence and cybersecurity blog by Sensei’s Sharon Nelson.

Excerpt: Don’t let my cute title confuse you.  In this case, the Fourth Circuit issued an interesting decision regarding whether a warrant is required to search an individual’s cell phone.

According to Sharon Nelson’s terrific Ride the Lightning blog (4th Circuit Says Border Search of Phones Requires Individualized Suspicion (But Not a Warrant)), on May 9th, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in US v. Kolsuz, ruling that in light of the immense privacy concerns, forensic searches of electronic devices seized at the border must be justified by individualized suspicion, or some reason to believe that a particular traveler had committed a crime.  But not a warrant.

The appeals court said border patrol officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a forensic search of Hamza Kolsuz’s cellphone, and they were entitled to rely on that standard based on case law that suggested it was, at most, all that was required. The officers had seized Kolsuz’s phone after they found firearms parts that required an export license in his checked luggage. It was the third time weapons parts were found in his luggage.  That certainly seems like reasonable suspicion to me.

See the entire post here.