The three-judge panel held that under circuit precedent in United States v. Kolsuz, a manual search is considered routine and Jose Belmonte Cardozo cannot suppress evidence that he was transporting child pornography discovered by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer.
“Considering the differences in forensic and manual searches and balancing the government’s interest in preventing contraband from entering the country at the border with individuals’ privacy expectations in the data in their cellphones, we hold that manual cellphone searches are routine border searches that do not require individualized suspicion,” Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. said in the opinion. “The concerns particular to forensic searches identified in Kolsuz are not present here. And the differences between manual and forensic searches compel a different result.”
Belmonte Cardozo was met by a border patrol intelligence officer when he landed at Washington Dulles International Airport on a flight from Bolivia in May 2024. The officer requested that Belmonte Cardozo unlock two cellphones and after complying, the agent found evidence of child pornography after only two minutes of searching the devices, the opinion said.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was notified and federal agents arrived at the airport and arrested Belmonte Cardozo for transporting child pornography. Belmonte Cardozo was later indicted by a grand jury on five counts of child sexual exploitation and other child sex-related crimes, the opinion said.
Belmonte Cardozo sought to suppress the evidence recovered from the search of his cellphones, arguing that they were illegally searched by the border officers. The suppression motion said border patrol lacked reasonable suspicion to search the phones and the manual search of Belmonte Cardozo’s devices constituted an illegal breach of his Fourth Amendment rights, the opinion said.
A federal court recognized that there was an open question on whether federal agents needed individualized suspicion for the search, but still denied Belmonte Cardozo’s motion. Belmonte Cardozo ultimately entered into a plea deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to 18 years in prison with 25 years of probation, the opinion said.
Belmonte Cardozo appealed the decision not to suppress the evidence, claiming officers needed to have a specific reason to be suspicious before searching his phones. The Fourth Circuit found that because the search was manual, it constituted a routine search and did not need an individualized suspicion.
The panel specified that the holding in Belmonte Cardozo’s case is distinct from more thorough searches including a forensic analysis of a cellphone. Law enforcement must meet the heightened suspicion requirement if they need to perform a forensic review, as it is not a routine border search, the opinion said.
The panel found that because searches by law enforcement at the border have “long been recognized” as standard, they are allowed to search electronic devices manually. A manual search, in the Fourth Circuit’s view, depends on the length of time used to search the phone, but also the depth of the probe.
The officer in Belmonte Cardozo’s case only searched his phone for approximately two minutes before discovering the illegal content, which constituted a legal search. The panel found that the search conformed to the circuit’s precedent on reasonable searches, the opinion said.
The decision also confirms similar holdings from the First, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth circuits, which have all ruled that individual suspicion of a crime is not needed to perform the search. The panels all found that the searches are allowed under the Constitution as long as they do not require enhanced searching methods such as forensic analysis, the opinion said.
The Fourth Circuit also found that the searches are routine as long as they do not “deprive an individual of their phone for extended periods of time.” The panel did not elaborate in the opinion about what would constitute an unconstitutional amount of time for federal agents to search a device.
A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and an attorney representing Belmonte Cardozo did not immediately respond to request for comment Monday.
U.S. Circuit Judges Albert Diaz, G. Steven Agee and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. sat on the panel for the Fourth Circuit.
The government is represented by James Reed Sawyers, Todd W. Blanche, Lindsey Halligan, Lauren Halper, Jacqueline R. Bechara and Robert K. McBride of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Belmonte Cardozo is represented by Todd M. Richman, Geremy C. Kamens and Salvatore M. Mancina of the Office of the Federal Public Defender.
The case is USA v. Belmonte Cardozo, case number 25-4239, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
–Editing by Stephen Berg.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.