United States v. Mendez, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1005

Defendant Jacob Richard Mendez was arrested at a port of entry after agents discovered 21 packages of narcotics concealed in his vehicle.
Agent Woods manually searched Mendez’s cell phone (texts and photos) after asking whether the phone belonged to him; the phone search occurred roughly 1.5–2 hours after arrival.
Magistrate Judge Rateau recommended denying Mendez’s motion to suppress evidence (Doc. 39); Mendez objected and the government responded.
The district court reviewed the R&R de novo for the objected portions, adopted the factual findings, and considered whether the cell‑phone search required a warrant or reasonable suspicion.
The court concluded the manual search of the cell phone was a permissible border search (or, alternatively, supported by reasonable suspicion) and denied the motion to suppress evidence; it separately adopted the R&R’s grant of suppression of statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a warrant was required to search the cell phone at the border	Warrant not required; border-search doctrine permits routine, manual searches of electronic devices without suspicion or a warrant	Riley requires warrant for phone searches and thus applies to border manual searches	Denied: Riley does not overrule border-search precedent; manual review at the border is permissible without a warrant (or, alternatively, was supported by reasonable suspicion)
Whether the cell-phone search was a border search or an investigatory search incident to arrest	The search was a border search aimed at finding contraband or evidence related to smuggling; location/timing at the port makes it a border search	The search occurred after discovery of drugs and after arrest, so it was an investigatory search incident to arrest (requiring Riley warrant protection)	Denied: Search was a border search despite occurring after the arrest and within hours of arrival; scope/duration were reasonable

United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (border searches at the border do not require probable cause or a warrant)
United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (manual review of electronic files at border permissible; forensic exams require reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Arnold, 533 F.3d 1003 (manual powering on and opening files on laptops at border does not require reasonable suspicion)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (warrant required for cell-phone search incident to arrest due to substantial privacy interests)
United States v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993 (discussing limits and reasonableness of border searches)
United States v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d 865 (suspicionless disassembly/search of vehicles at border can be reasonable)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is an objective inquiry)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (definition of reasonable suspicion)