United States v. Miguel Cano
934 F.3d 1002
9th Cir.2019Background
- Miguel Cano was arrested at the San Ysidro Port of Entry after 14.03 kg of cocaine were found in his truck’s spare tire; CBP administratively seized his cell phone and HSI agents Petonak and Medrano searched it.
- Agents performed brief manual examinations (call log, texts) and later ran a Cellebrite logical download that retrieved call logs, message metadata, and other phone data; Medrano photographed messages and recorded numbers.
- Cano moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless phone searches; the district court denied suppression and his conviction followed on retrial (after an earlier mistrial).
- On appeal Cano argued: (1) border-search limits for cell phones and need for suspicion/warrant; (2) searches exceeded scope (search for evidence, not contraband); (3) Brady/Rule 16 violations for withheld FBI/DEA materials.
- The Ninth Circuit (en banc authorities relied on) held manual phone searches at the border may be suspicionless, but forensic/exhaustive searches require reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband; searches must be limited to contraband.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cell phones/data may be searched at the border without suspicion | Cano/EFF: digital data searches fall outside border-search exception or require probable cause | Government: border exception covers phones and their data; no heightened standard needed | Court: phones and their data are searchable at the border, but not beyond established limits; manual searches allowed without suspicion, forensic searches require reasonable suspicion that the device contains contraband |
| Whether forensic (Cellebrite) searches need individualized suspicion | Cano: forensic search is highly intrusive and needs reasonable suspicion or warrant | Govt: border context reduces privacy expectations; reasonable suspicion not required | Court: forensic/exhaustive examinations are nonroutine and require reasonable suspicion that the phone contains digital contraband (adopting Cotterman rationale) |
| Whether the searches exceeded the scope of a border search (search for contraband vs search for evidence of crime) | Cano: agents searched to build criminal case and recorded numbers/messages unrelated to contraband, exceeding scope | Govt: searching for evidence of border-related crimes is tied to border interests and permissible | Held: border searches are limited to locating contraband; searching for general evidence of crime exceeds the exception; here manual actions that recorded/photographed numbers/messages and the Cellebrite extraction exceeded scope and were unconstitutional |
| Whether the government violated Brady/Rule 16 by not producing FBI/DEA files | Cano: prosecutor had access/knowledge or should have obtained interagency files linking cousin/Latin Kings to trafficking | Govt: FBI/DEA refused production; prosecutor lacked knowledge/access to those files | Held: no Brady/Rule 16 violation — prosecutor did not have knowledge or access to FBI/DEA files in this case; case-by-case possession test not met |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (forensic digital device searches at the border require reasonable suspicion)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (search-incident-to-arrest of cell phones generally requires a warrant because of heightened privacy interests)
- Montoya de Hernandez v. United States, 473 U.S. 531 (1985) (distinguishing routine border searches from intrusive nonroutine searches that require reasonable suspicion)
- Flores-Montano v. United States, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) (heightened government interests at the border but recognition that scope and intrusiveness matter)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule when reliance on binding precedent is objectively reasonable)
- United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) (historical basis for border-search exception)
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) (distinction between seizure of contraband and seizure of private papers/evidence)