Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Howard Cotterman

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 8, 2013No. 09-10139Published

1Dissent

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge,

dissenting, with whom CLIFTON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, join with respect to Part I:

I respectfully dissent. Until today, federal courts have consistently upheld suspi-cionless searches of electronic storage devices at the border. See United States v. Arnold, 533 F.3d 1003, 1008 (9th Cir.2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1176, 129 S.Ct. 1312, 173 L.Ed.2d 595 (2009) (“[Reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border.”); see also United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501, 507 (4th Cir.2005)…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. United States v. Stefan IrvingCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
  3. United States v. Serafin Alfonso, Humberto Rayo, Fabian Mora, Primo Antonio Serrano-TellezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  4. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. United States v. Ivan Sigmond-BallesterosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API