US Appeals Court Approves Customs Officer's Search of Laptop Computer

In United States v. Arnold, No. 06-50581 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that US customs officers do not need to have reasonable suspicion to search the files on a person's computer or personal electronic storage device at the border. In this case, Mr. Arnold, a US citizen, arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from the Philippines. When Mr. Arnold went to customs, a US customs officer inspected his luggage and found a laptop computer, a separate hard drive, a USB drive and six compact disks. The customs officer told Mr. Arnold to turn on his computer and another customs officer opened some of the folders and files stored on it. The customs officer found photos of two nude women on Mr. Arnold's computer. This prompted the customs officials to examine the rest of Mr. Arnold's computer files. Those files included images of what the customs officers believed to be child pornography. Mr. Arnold was questioned for several hours but was eventually released. The customs officers kept Mr. Arnold's computer equipment and two weeks later Federal agents obtained a warrant. Mr. Arnold was eventually charged with several child pornography related charges. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mr. Arnold filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his computer equipment. Mr. Arnold claimed that the US government searched his computer without reasonable suspicion, therefore its search was unlawful. A district court granted Mr. Arnold's motion and suppressed the evidence obtained from the search. The district court found that the customs officers required reasonable suspicion to conduct their search of Mr. Arnold's computer. The 9th Circuit Appeals Court reversed the district court's ruling and allowed the evidence obtained from the search to be admitted. The Appeals Court cited several judgments which found searches of closed containers and their contents at the border by US officials without any prior suspicion did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Appeals Court found that there are two categories of border searches which require "particularized suspicion":

1. intrusive searches of the person; and
2. some searches of properties that are very destructive.

The Appeals Court found that prior cases relating to intrusive searches of the person did not apply to searches of property because property searches do not deal with the same dignity and privacy concerns as intrusive searches of the person. Furthermore, the customs officers' search of Mr. Arnold's computer did not require reasonable suspicion because it was not destroyed during the search. Essentially, the Appeals Court held that the search of a laptop computer and its stored files by customs officials at the US border is not different from the other border searches of luggage conducted without prior suspicion that US courts have previously allowed. For more information, see: http://tinyurl.com/3nsffc Summary by: Andrei Edwards