A Florida activist’s lawsuit has reignited scrutiny of customs officials’ authority to inspect digital devices at international entry points without a warrant.

The individual, identified only as Kennedy in court documents, alleges he was detained at Miami International Airport in 2023 after CBP officers seized and copied data from his phone. He contends the action was retaliatory, citing prior encounters with law enforcement in 2021 when Miami police surveilled him following public criticism of Governor Ron DeSantis. In a filing submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Kennedy stated, “I believe CBP flagged me because of my organizing and political work around immigrants’ rights in Florida. This isn’t the first time that law enforcement targeted and harassed me because of my political viewpoint.”

Federal jurisprudence permits warrantless searches of persons and belongings at borders under the so‑called border exception to the Fourth Amendment. This doctrine extends to electronic devices, allowing customs officials to copy data without prior judicial approval under certain conditions. According to CBP’s public statements, such examinations occur only when there is probable cause to suspect the presence of evidence related to violations of laws the agency enforces, including immigration or customs statutes.

CBP reports that device inspections are infrequent. In fiscal year 2025, the agency processed more than 419 million travelers across all ports of entry and conducted electronic device searches on 55,318 individuals, representing approximately 0.0013% of total encounters. The agency emphasizes that these searches are “very rare” and typically limited to cases where a specific investigative need exists.

The incident at Miami Airport echoes a 2017 episode at San Francisco International Airport, where a local artist reported being pressured by border agents to surrender his phone, with threats of punitive action if he refused. Critics argue that the broad discretion granted to customs officials can lead to abuses, particularly when searches appear to target individuals based on political expression.

Kennedy’s complaint asserts that the seizure and data extraction of his phone violated his First Amendment rights by chilling political speech. He seeks injunctive relief and damages, maintaining that CBP exceeded its authority. The case was first disclosed by the Miami New Times.

Legal scholars note that while the statistical likelihood of a device search remains low, the absence of a warrant requirement raises ongoing concerns about oversight and the potential for misuse, especially in contexts where political activism intersects with border enforcement practices.