United States v. Alisigwe
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date Filed: Sept. 11, 2024
Background: In 2019 and 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents conducted warrantless searches of Chinwendu Alisigwe’s cellphone at John F. Kennedy International Airport after he returned from trips abroad. Using evidence collected during both searches, federal prosecutors charged Alisigwe with bank fraud and money laundering. He was later convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.
Alisigwe filed a motion to suppress the evidence collected during the warrantless searches, but the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion, finding that a warrant isn’t required to search a cellphone at the border if there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime, even if it’s not related to border security.
Alisigwe appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Our Position: The Reporters Committee and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in the case, arguing that the Second Circuit should reverse the district court’s ruling and hold that the government’s warrantless searches violated the First and Fourth Amendments.
- Government searches of electronic devices burden First and Fourth Amendment freedoms.
- The government’s warrantless searches of Alisigwe’s cellphones were unconstitutional.
From the Brief: “Journalists are especially vulnerable to the chilling effects of electronic device searches, both because sources may refuse to speak with reporters for fear that their identities and anything they say may end up in the government’s hands, and because reporters may fear reprisal at the border if their reporting is perceived to be critical of the government.”
Related: The Reporters Committee and the Knight Institute have jointly filed friend-of-the-court briefs in similar cases challenging the constitutionality of warrantless electronic device searches at the border.
“A warrant, and nothing short of it, is necessary to safeguard the newsgathering activities of journalists and the speech and associational rights of travelers,” attorneys for the Reporters Committee and the Knight Institute previously wrote in U.S. v. Xiang.