Spears Manning & Martini Advocates for Cellphone Privacy Interests in the Second Circuit
In a case before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Spears Manning & Martini’s Brian Spears and Leslie Cahill argued that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant before seizing and forensically searching a cellphone at the United States border.
The issue in United States v. Kamaldoss, 24-0824, builds on the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), which held that in the context of a search incident to arrest, because a cellphone holds vast troves of personal information, a warrant is required in order to search its contents. Attorneys Spears and Cahill argued that there was no reason to treat border searches differently and that forensic cellphone searches at the border are equally invasive and far exceed the purposes normally served by the government’s border search authority, i.e., preventing unwanted persons and contraband from coming into the country.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the position advanced by Attorneys Spears and Cahill. As the ACLU noted in its amicus brief, “border searches of electronic devices have risen almost five-fold in eight years” and “tens of thousands” of travelers have had their devices searched at ports of entry into the United States.
The Kamaldoss appeal is fully briefed. Attorney Spears and ACLU Attorney Esha Bhandari argued the case in the Second Circuit on March 31, 2025.
Spears Manning & Martini wishes to extend special thanks to the ACLU and Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for their support of our client and for their efforts to protect privacy and First Amendment interests in the context of electronically stored information.