U.S. Customs And Border Protection Seizes Nurse’s Phones And Laptops After Refusing To Give Passwords At Washington-Dulles Airport

A prolonged encounter with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) has turned into a court battle after federal officers confiscated a nurse practitioner’s electronic devices when he refused to provide his passcode.

The traveling couple, a nurse and a software engineer, were back in the U.S. from an attempted family trip to Istanbul, Turkey, after CBP officers pulled them into secondary inspection, where they were questioned for three hours.

An organization in the U.S. that represents the couple has filed a motion in a U.S. District Court to intervene as CBP’s actions at the border violated the Fourth Amendment.

CBP Confiscates Nurse’s Electronic Devices For Refusing To Provide His Mobile Password

Psychiatric nurse practitioner Muhammad Numaan Imam and his wife, software engineer Khadijah Mansoor, with their one-year-old child, were stopped at IAD by CBP officers for a secondary screening. Imam was extensively questioned about his employment, social media accounts, and group chats.

When asked to unlock his phone, Imam refused, citing patient confidentiality. Then, a supervisor allegedly informed him that CBP would confiscate their laptops, including one that belonged to his wife.

Another supervisor also warned them that they could do things the “easy way or the hard way,” claiming that CBP could access everything on their devices, and the process could take months.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the largest Arab American civil rights organization in the U.S., has filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of the traveling family, demanding the immediate return of the seized devices.

Valentina Pereda, Managing Director of Communications at ADC, told TheTravel in a statement that they are “seeing a surge of cellphones and other personal electronic devices confiscated at airports — especially of journalists, activists, and people of Arab descent.”

Details Of Nurse And Wife’s CBP Incident At IAD

ADC President and Legal Director Jenin Younes also said that CBP is intensifying its use of “retaliatory and viewpoint-discriminatory searches and seizures of smartphones.”

“We’re seeing a pattern where officers use their border-search authority not to advance any legitimate border-related purpose, but to punish individuals for refusing to provide access to their personal electronic devices and for having expressed views the government didn’t approve of,” Younes said in a statement sent to TheTravel.

Citing the Fourth Amendment, Younes explained that the law does not grant federal border officers unlimited access to travelers’ personal property.

“The Fourth Amendment does not permit the border-search exception to become a means of coercing compliance through the threatened or actual confiscation of travelers’ personal property,” Younes said.

ADC said that all four devices: two iPhones and two laptops, were eventually confiscated “without identifying any individualized suspicion of criminal activity, warrant, investigation, or other justification for their continued retention.”

The following day of the incident, Imam was informed that his Global Entry membership had been revoked, as he no longer meets the program’s “trusted traveler standard.”

TheTravel reached out to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for comment.

CBP Claims Fourth Amendment ‘Does Not Apply’ At The Border

ADC said that despite professional and ethical obligations to protect patients’ information, the CBP officers allegedly said that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at the border, he had no right to a lawyer, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protections did not stop them from accessing his mobile phone.

The motion was filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which allows an individual aggrieved by unlawful or warrantless searches and seizures to file a Motion for the Return of Property in the federal district.

ADC argues that the seizure and continued retention of two iPhones and laptops violate the Fourth Amendment and the Fourth Circuit’s existing legal precedent governing forensic searches of electronic devices at the border.

“Under that precedent, forensic searches involving external equipment to extract data require individualized suspicion of criminal activity connected to a legitimate border-enforcement purpose,” ADC’s motion said.

This means that the federal officers need more than just general suspicion. They must have a specific reason to believe that Imam and his wife may be involved in criminal activity related to the border.

The motion also argues that CBP’s actions may have been retaliatory, citing the officers’ threats to seize the couple’s devices after Imam refused to unlock his mobile phone and the revocation of his Global Entry membership thereafter.

At a U.S. port of entry, CBP has exceptionally broad inspection authority, including on electronic device searches. A basic search means that an officer manually reviews information on the device, while an advanced search involves external equipment used to review, copy, or analyze its contents.

Ken Scott, a senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst at U.S. Entry Waiver Services, told TheTravel that CBP officers conduct an advanced search if it’s reasonable or when they encounter discrepancies or suspect a violation of law.

“CBP may also temporarily detain an electronic device when its examination cannot be completed at the port. Its policy calls for the examination to be completed as expeditiously as possible and states that, absent extenuating circumstances, detention ordinarily should not exceed five days,” Scott told TheTravel.

Thus, CBP’s alleged claim that it takes months to process might be unlawful.

Warrantless Phone Search May Be Legal Under U.S. Appeals Court’s New Ruling

Imam’s case was not the first time to happen at a U.S. port of entry. In September, Pakistani-Canadian travelers’ phones and fingerprints were also taken during their eight-hour interrogation with CBP officers.

They were eventually found inadmissible and were issued an application for withdrawal and were sent back to Canada without their phones. CBP, however, sent them their phones several days later.

CBP’s policy on electronic device searches at all ports of entry previously required probable cause or reasonable suspicion, or a national security concern, before advanced searches could be conducted. However, a new court ruling may consider warrantless phone searches lawful.

In a similar incident, U.S. permanent resident Chinwendu Alisigwe’s phone was also searched at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) without a warrant. His camp challenged the court, citing a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, in a September 17 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected his motion, saying that “no suspicion is required before the government searches a traveler’s property at the border.”

“Because a cellphone is property, our precedents establish that the government does not need to have reasonable suspicion before searching a traveler’s cellphone at the border,” the court ruling reads.

The court said that “searches of property are made reasonable by that person’s decision to enter this country.” A legal counsel argued that cellphones are “private thoughts and associations,” thus requiring a judicial warrant.

What CBP’s Phone Searches At The Border Mean For Travelers

Phone searches at the border can mean that travelers’ personal information, messages, emails, photos, videos, and other online activities may be exposed to CBP.

While CBP distinguishes between a basic search and an advanced search, travelers must understand the law and take actions before crossing into the U.S. For easier and smoother entry into the U.S., travelers should keep the following in mind:

• Know the distinction between a basic search and an advanced search.
• Reconsider what to bring when crossing the border, such as personal and sensitive information.
• Ask for documentation about the device being searched and seized.
• Keep important contact numbers of families, friends, or legal counsel saved offline.

Imam’s case with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection is just one of the growing tensions at the border. The court’s decision remains to be seen, but travelers must be aware of their constitutional rights and protections.