• The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE
Menu

The Complex Litigator

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
a California-centric collection of comments and resources about complex litigation and class action practice

The Complex Litigator

  • The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE

Ninth Circuit notices that we still have some constitutional rights, holding that rights exist at border crossings

March 18, 2013 H. Scott Leviant
NinthCircuitSealNew100x96a.jpg

I was concerned when United States v. Cotterman was originally decided by the Ninth Circuit in 2011.  In that decision, the panel held that personal property, such as laptops and other digital storage devices, could be transported to a secondary site for a thorough inspection, even with no reason for suspicion.  En banc review was granted in 2012.  On March 8, 2013, in United States v. Cotterman (9th Cir. 2013), the Court, en banc, modified that terrible holding.

The Court observed:

Every day more than a million people cross American borders, from the physical borders with Mexico and Canada to functional borders at airports such as Los Angeles (LAX), Honolulu (HNL), New York (JFK, LGA), and Chicago (ORD, MDW). As denizens of a digital world, they carry with them laptop computers, iPhones, iPads, iPods, Kindles, Nooks, Surfaces, tablets, Blackberries, cell phones, digital cameras, and more. These devices often contain private and sensitive information ranging from personal, financial, and medical data to corporate trade secrets. And, in the case of Howard Cotterman, child pornography.

Slip op., at 5-6.  Framing the issue, the Court continued:

Although courts have long recognized that border searches constitute a “historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general principle that a warrant be obtained,” United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 621 (1977), reasonableness remains the touchstone for a warrantless search. Even at the border, we have rejected an “anything goes” approach. See United States v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Slip op., at 7.  The Court recognized that a search of electronic devices must be reasonable, even at the border, given the character of digital information:

Electronic devices often retain sensitive and confidential information far beyond the perceived point of erasure, notably in the form of browsing histories and records of deleted files. This quality makes it impractical, if not impossible, for individuals to make meaningful decisions regarding what digital content to expose to the scrutiny that accompanies international travel. A person’s digital life ought not be hijacked simply by crossing a border. When packing traditional luggage, one is accustomed to deciding what papers to take and what to leave behind. When carrying a laptop, tablet or other device, however, removing files unnecessary to an impending trip is an impractical solution given the volume and often intermingled nature of the files. It is also a time-consuming task that may not even effectively erase the files.

Slip op., at 22.   "This is not to say that simply because electronic devices house sensitive, private information they are off limits at the border. The relevant inquiry, as always, is one of reasonableness. But that reasonableness determination must account for differences in property."  Slip op., at 24.

In this case, the majority concluded that, under the circumstances of the case, the search was reasonable.  Regardless, I am encouraged that, as of now, the mere use of a password to protect data does not provide a reasonable basis for detailed inspection of a computer.

By H. Scott Leviant. Editor and site author H. Scott Leviant can be found on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn, among other places.

In Complex Litigation: Constitutional Issues, Web/Tech Tags Ninth Circuit, Privacy Rights, Constitutional Law, 4th Amendment
← Episode 2 of the Class Re-Action Podcast records tomorrowHappy 5th Birthday to The Complex Litigator! →

Subscribe to The Complex Litigator RSS feed.

Troester v. Starbucks Corporation Briefs/Links (with Opinion Link)


The Complex Litigator Home
In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing, Ninth Circuit extends Syed, holding that FCRA precludes all surplussage in background check disclosures
about 2 weeks ago
Petition for Review of PAGA decision denied in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA
about 4 months ago
Check out the September 12, 2018 edition of the Daily Journal for a pithy comment on Troester
about 5 months ago
Central District of California Local Rule 23-3 finally addressed in published Ninth Circuit opinion
about 5 months ago
Petition for Rehearing Denied in Troester v. Starbucks; Minimal change to Opinion
about 5 months ago
Episode 19 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is Now Available
about 6 months ago
BREAKING: Opinion in Troester v. Starbucks now available -- Holds No Federal De Minimis Defense to CA Wage and Hour Laws and no CA De Minimis Defense on Facts in Record
about 6 months ago
BREAKING NEWS: Troester v. Starbucks opinion will be released tomorrow
about 6 months ago
Eastern District of California, reeling under its load, requests additional judgeships
about 7 months ago
Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 is officially vacated by Ninth Circuit
about 7 months ago

  • In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing, Ninth Circuit extends Syed, holding that FCRA precludes all surplussge in backgro… https://t.co/3QsoYtA0Fl
    about 2 weeks ago
  • Twitter Permanently Bans GayPatriot Bruce Carroll, Cites Kafka for Precedent https://t.co/rmC208kTsY #VodkaPundit v… https://t.co/Wvd7YgRdAZ
    about 3 months ago
  • RT @BreitbartNews: If the BB account gets banned for poasting this link, it's still worth it. https://t.co/U1mlXBuAmD
    about 4 months ago
  • Petition for Review of PAGA decision denied in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA https://t.co/QHi0VNFB3J
    about 4 months ago


  • January 2019 (1)
  • October 2018 (1)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (6)
  • June 2018 (3)
  • May 2018 (7)
  • April 2018 (3)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • September 2017 (6)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • January 2017 (1)
  • December 2016 (5)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (3)
  • September 2016 (7)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (3)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (3)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (3)
  • May 2014 (3)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (8)
  • January 2014 (4)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • November 2013 (3)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (6)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (4)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (6)
  • March 2013 (13)
  • February 2013 (7)
  • January 2013 (3)
  • December 2012 (7)
  • November 2012 (5)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (5)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • July 2012 (1)
  • June 2012 (5)
  • May 2012 (5)
  • April 2012 (9)
  • March 2012 (2)
  • February 2012 (7)
  • January 2012 (13)
  • December 2011 (2)
  • November 2011 (4)
  • October 2011 (4)
  • September 2011 (3)
  • August 2011 (4)
  • July 2011 (7)
  • June 2011 (9)
  • May 2011 (7)
  • April 2011 (19)
  • March 2011 (6)
  • February 2011 (9)
  • January 2011 (15)
  • December 2010 (16)
  • November 2010 (12)
  • October 2010 (14)
  • September 2010 (14)
  • August 2010 (18)
  • July 2010 (16)
  • June 2010 (11)
  • May 2010 (15)
  • April 2010 (25)
  • March 2010 (19)
  • February 2010 (12)
  • January 2010 (17)
  • December 2009 (11)
  • November 2009 (16)
  • October 2009 (19)
  • September 2009 (21)
  • August 2009 (16)
  • July 2009 (16)
  • June 2009 (16)
  • May 2009 (21)
  • April 2009 (13)
  • March 2009 (17)
  • February 2009 (21)
  • January 2009 (22)
  • December 2008 (14)
  • November 2008 (11)
  • October 2008 (12)
  • September 2008 (12)
  • August 2008 (19)
  • July 2008 (26)
  • June 2008 (28)
  • May 2008 (36)
  • April 2008 (30)
  • March 2008 (3)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

note: although this site contains no offers to provide legal services, is not intended as such, and is not such an offer, some jurisdictions may nevertheless assert that this site constitutes an advertisement by an attorney.  please be aware of the possibility of such a classification as you view this site.

powered by squarespace