United States v. Arnold
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States v. Arnold, 533 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2008), is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.[1]
United States v. Arnold | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Decided | April 21, 2008 |
Citation(s) | 523 F.3d 941, amended on denial of rehearing en banc, 533 F.3d 1003 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 454 F. Supp. 2d 999 (C.D. Cal. 2006) |
Subsequent history | Amended July 10, 2008; Petition for writ of certiorari denied. |
Holding | |
A search of an individual's laptop computer does not require reasonable suspicion when entering the United States at the border or equivalent thereof. | |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Milan Smith, Michael W. Mosman |
This decision has caused worry and some controversy among Fourth Amendment advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Especially troubled are those that legitimately store sensitive business, legal, or customer data; who worry that federal agents might leak information found from laptop searches. Several legislators have discussed and introduced measures to counter the ruling in order to provide more protection to travelers, but none have become law.