United States v. Alfredo Aguilar, Jr., 973 F.3d 445

At a Texas port of entry, Aguilar attempted to cross from Mexico with two women who carried cans that, on inspection and x-ray and after a K‑9 alert, were found to contain methamphetamine.
Aguilar was detained; agents took custody of his cell phone the next day and nine days later performed a warrantless forensic extraction of the SIM card, revealing calls to Mexico.
Aguilar was indicted for drug importation, possession, and conspiracy; he moved to suppress the phone evidence. The district court denied suppression on good‑faith grounds.
Aguilar submitted to a stipulated bench trial (reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling) and was convicted on all counts; he appealed only the denial of the suppression motion.
The Fifth Circuit considered (1) whether Aguilar preserved appellate review of the suppression ruling and (2) whether the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule justified denying suppression of the forensic phone search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.)	Defendant's Argument (Aguilar)	Held
Whether Aguilar’s stipulated bench trial left the suppression ruling reviewable on appeal	The conviction on stipulated facts moots suppression; no substantive reliance on phone evidence.	Aguilar expressly reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling when agreeing to stipulated trial.	Aguilar preserved the right; the court has jurisdiction to review the suppression denial.
Whether the warrantless forensic search of Aguilar’s phone must be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment (Riley and border‑search law)	Agents acted in objective good faith based on then‑existing law allowing warrantless border searches and requiring at most reasonable suspicion for forensic searches; suppression unnecessary.	Riley creates heightened privacy rights for phones; forensic border searches require a warrant (or at least greater protection) and the search here was unlawful.	The court declined to decide definitively whether Riley requires a warrant at the border but held the good‑faith exception applies: at the time agents reasonably believed reasonable suspicion (and no warrant) sufficed, so suppression was not required.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (heightened privacy interests in cell phones recognized)
United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (forensic border computer/phone searches require reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018) (forensic phone searches at border require reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Cano, 934 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2019) (post‑search decision limiting forensic phone searches to cases with reasonable suspicion about phone’s contents)
United States v. Molina‑Isidoro, 884 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2018) (upholding reliance on pre‑Riley caselaw for border phone searches as objectively reasonable)
Flores‑Montano v. United States, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) (diminished Fourth Amendment protections at the border; routine searches allowed)
United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) (routine border inspections may be conducted without particularized suspicion)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (standards for assessing reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Garcia‑Ruiz, 546 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2008) (preservation of suppression issues when defendants reserve appeal after stipulated facts)
United States v. Ramirez‑Lujan, 976 F.2d 930 (5th Cir. 1992) (description of the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)