Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, The Constitution Project, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: There has been a dramatic increase in location data generated by cell phones, collected by third parties, and routinely obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) paints a revealing portrait of a person's movements, presenting even greater privacy concerns than the GPS tracker at issue in Jones. The Third-Party Doctrine is "ill-suited to the digital age" and should not apply to CSLI. 

Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), CAIR California, CAIR Florida, CAIR New York, CAIR Ohio, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant.

Argument: Digital devices contain and access vast amounts of highly personal information. The border search exception is narrow. All border searches of digital devices, whether "manual" or "forensic," are highly intrusive of personal privacy and are thus "non-routine." A probable cause warrant should be required for boarder searches of data stored or accessible on digital devices. A probable cause warrant should be required given the highly personal information stored and accessible on digital devices. A probable cause warrant should be required because searching digital data is not tethered to the narrow purposes of the Border Search Exception.

Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, Brennan Center for Justice, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), CAIR California, CAIR Florida, CAIR Missouri, CAIR New York, CAIR Ohio, CAIR Dallas/Fort Worth, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant.

Argument: Digital devices contain and access vast amounts of highly personal information. The border search exception is narrow. All border searches of digital devices, whether "manual" or "forensic," are highly invasive of personal privacy and are thus "non-routine." A probable cause warrant should be required for boarder searches of data stored or accessible on digital devices. A probable cause warrant should be required given the highly personal information stored and accessible on digital devices. A probable cause warrant should be required because searching digital data is not tethered to the narrow purposes of the boarder search exception.

In Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled police cannot search a cellphone’s data without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment’s search incident to arrest exception. The Court recognized that “digital” is different. Riley builds upon the decision in United States v. Jones, which found the warrantless installation of a GPS device on a car constituted a “search.” Defense attorneys can use Riley and Jones to (1) mount constitutional challenges to public surveillance via video cameras or drones; (2) demand particularity in the execution of digital searches and seizures; and (3) argue for limits to electronic searches at the border.