I doubt it. They’d likely win in court as the laws applicable at the border are not the same as the rights you have being stopped on the street.

Now if the trial itself leads to public outcry to change those rules that’d be great but as it stands now I think she’d lose.

But is it worth the risk of bubbling up to a court that wants to make a precedence-setting stance against, say, the practice of copying/storing the data when the feds will have little to gain if they win?

Setting precedent by winning one court case would be a lot cheaper than settling N copy cat lawsuits.

True. But all that does is tell the system that each abuse is $X settling dollars instead which, while it might reduce the practice, won't stop it.

Absolutely not. This is well settled law at this point, as much as it sucks. Unless SCOTUS changes it's mind (which would cost a lot to get to - 100k+).

Without a supreme court ruling, she'll get nothing and spent a lot on fees.

They are going to not give a crap about this and probably laughed and threw it in the trash can when they saw it.

This case is basically an attempt to see if courts will reconsider after Riley v. California.

Hey, they can search my phone for a dumptruck full of money any day. While not as ideal as burning in court, that wouldn't be a bad precedent to set either.

All they're going to find in my phone is pictures of my bare ass, which I normally pay people to look at, so consider me in the same boat.

I always wish I would get an aggressive BP agent because a lot of my pics are in a prominent "nothing illegal" folder on the first "page" of my phone.

It doesn’t set any precedent, because it’s done out of the public record, without admitting any wrongdoing. That’s exactly WHY they settle these cases, so there’s no precedent.

Or not decrypt it and sit in prison until you do. Philadelphia cop