This is even more important than it sounds because the US federal goverment considers 100 miles inland from any international border (including the great lakes, etc) as being "the border". And that is where 80% of the people in the USA live.
The associated regulations, 8 C.F.R. §287.1, interpret "reasonable distance" to mean up to 100 miles from the actual border. But: "In fixing distances not exceeding 100 air miles pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, chief patrol agents and special agents in charge shall take into consideration topography, confluence of arteries of transportation leading from external boundaries, density of population, possible inconvenience to the traveling public, types of conveyances used, and reliable information as to movements of persons effecting illegal entry into the United States."
The statute and regulation just mean that agents don't need to patrol the border at the literal border--which in some cases runs through the middle of bodies of water. But they must justify the determinations of what's a "reasonable distance" from the border must be based on what's needed to prevent illegal entry into the United States, based on factors such as topography and transportation routes.
The ACLU has a page about it: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
The 100 mile "reasonable distance" is used to define where vessels and vehicles may be searched for aliens.
But the warrantless search may only be applied to persons seeking admission for whom an officer has suspicion of reasonable cause for denying the person entry.
Of the 80% of people living within that distance (which is an upper bound, btw; the agents in charge are required to set a bound not to exceed that by taking into account such things as "density of population, possible inconvenience to the traveling public.") almost none can be suspected of being under reasonable cause for denial of entry.
So to do the thing you are fearing, 1) the chief patrol agent has to set the distance to encompass an inappropriately large area in violation of this law, 2) an agent has to stop and search cars randomly, and 3) somehow become suspicious that an occupant is seeking entry and ought to be denied entry, and 4) believe that searching that person's device would reveal information demonstrating that the suspicion is correct.
It's not great, but it's not "80% of Americans can have their devices searched without a warrant".
> The U.S. Border Patrol has stated: "Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions 'Are you a U.S. citizen, and where are you headed?' they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S."
I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026.
Exactly. Everyone reading extremely fine distinctions into the relevant laws should at least do the work of also showing that those laws are currently applied in the manner they imply. To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application.
It's not speculation. It's lived experience. And while I understand most probably don't have it, it doesn't invalidate it.
Then it should be easy to cite recent case law backing up their claims, hmm?
But I get it. Until it starts happening where you live you won't be able to believe the USA federal government is lawless. I didn't. It's just how humans work. I can assure you, the border is very nebulous now and the actions of the feds don't follow the law but instead obviously illegal loophole interpretations who's only basis are internal memos.
The reasoning fails precisely because several government agencies are now operating as scofflaws. If the armchair lawyers above want to repair their arguments, they also need to show that the law is still being upheld in practice, even by these scofflaw agencies. (They can’t do that, because it isn’t.)
In fact, we're finding out very quickly that "what the government can do" is in practice, only limited by the rest of the government's willingness to push back. The set of things grows every time the government tries something new and receives no push back from the other two branches of government that are captured by the same political party.
Unfortunately, right now the people voted for obscene corruption and dismantling of institutions and selling pardons and a destruction of law and order.
Republican politicians support this and do not stop Trump because stopping Trump will get them voted out.
Hey, you misspelled "murdered".
Certain to happen.
> 2) an agent has to stop and search cars randomly,
Not at all. "Based on my training and experience, Mexicans drive Subarus. Your driving a Subaru gives me a reasonable suspicion to conduct a non-random stop on you.". Yes, it gets very close to that stupid, and a lot of times they even believe stuff like that. Even if they don't believe it, they know the lie isn't falsifiable. A system that lets random officers get away with unreviewed searches is a problem even if they do have to commit perjury to take advantage of it. Because they will.
> 3) somehow become suspicious that an occupant is seeking entry and ought to be denied entry,
Well, yeah, they're sitting right there in the freaking Subaru. Boom. Reasonable suspicion.
> 4) believe that searching that person's device would reveal information demonstrating that the suspicion is correct.
Well, if the suspicion were correct, it probably would. And if the suspicion is incorrect, even if the suspicion is a deliberate bullshit lie, anything they do find becomes fair game.
Sorry, no. Probable cause. And independent judicial review on your probable cause. Not trivial legitimization of totall bullshit suspicions.
Border searches need a nexus to an actual border crossing.
This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer... or is there newer now?
> ACLU itself had backed off it, last I checked
They did, the current page greatly narrows the scope of their border-zone guidance to the SCOTUS case I linked before: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
Which would encompass all large coastal cities, the gulf coast and much of Texas/new Mexico /Arizona / socal due to proximity to Mexican border + Chicago/Michigan/etc due to proximity to Canadian border
> Employees traveling internationally on behalf of an organization must take steps to protect sensitive, confidential, or proprietary data carried on electronic devices. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has broad authority to inspect electronic devices—regardless of citizenship—at U.S. airports, land borders, seaports, and preclearance facilities abroad.
https://www.potomaclaw.com/news-Border-Search-Inspection-of-...
It's extremely complicated:
https://cdt.org/insights/no-warrants-and-half-a-dozen-differ...
This line[1] encompasses places even as far inland as Columbus, Ohio, and Columbus, Georgia, which are good examples of being perhaps least border-feeling, non-coastal cities that I've ever spent time in.
I wouldn't blame anyone for having never visited the grand metropolis of Fort Wayne, Indiana, but that's within 100 miles of the line, too.
Lots of other unlikely cities are this way are this way as well.
[1]: Here's a map on ArcGIS. I only found it; I did not have any part in creating it: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=f43e...