D.Mass. holds that all computer searches at the border require reasonable suspicion, whether they are manual or forensic searches. It's only a trial court ruling, and this is an area w/ lots of circuit precedent, but here's a long thread on the new case. aclu.org/sites/default/…
This is a case seeking injunctive & declaratory relief from CPB policies re border searches of electronic devices. The policies were designed to fit the 9th Cir.'s 4th Amendment rulings, which have said no suspicion needed for manual searches but reas susp for forensic searches.
The court first finds standing, saying that there is enough chance that the plaintiffs will have their devices searched when they travel internationally again that they have standing to sue.
The court then interprets the border search exception as a broad balance of interests: How much does the govt need to search, and how invasive are searches of electronic devices? (This isn't how SCOTUS has looked at it, but the DCT sees it as a broad balancing test under Riley.) 
The district court wants evidence that border searches are solving a lot of big crimes, and concludes that actually the evidence for this from published cases is sparse, just 34 published cases.
The court then rules that almost all electronic searches, manual, or forensic, are non-routine searches (akin to body cavity searches in 4a law). The only exception is "cursory" searches, defined as searches to ID phone, see if it works and has data.
But the district court rejects the "manual" vs. "forensic" distinction adopted by the 9th Circuit. Under Riley, the court says, you can't draw that distinction.
Balancing the interests, the court concludes that any electronic search becomes reasonable when government has reasonable suspicion that the electronic devices contain contraband.
The court then says that this is good enough to satisfy the First Amendment, too. Plus, after seizing a device when the govt has reasonable suspicion it has contraband, the court says, the govt can only seize for a reasonable period of time.
The court limits the remedy to declaratory relief along the lines of the opinion. Expungement of seized data and fruits goes too far, court says. And no injunction at this time b/c that gets into the debate on universal injunctions and more briefing is needed.
That's the opinion. Let me offer my own thoughts on it next, at least for the three people still reading (hi mom!)
First, I'm skeptical that there is standing. The standing test for 4A injunctions is a really tough standard under City of LA v. Lyons. As far as I can tell, the ct doesn't cite Lyons or apply that tough test. I suspect CA1 will, and they may reverse on that procedural ground.
On the merits, this is interesting, but it's only a district court ruling. In the last five years, a handful of federal circuits have weighed in on how the border search exception applies to electronic devices. Circuits are disagreeing, and SCOTUS is going to have to settle it.
Given that, it's hard for a district court case to matter all that much. Of course, pro-privacy rulings get vastly more media coverage than equivalent pro-govt rulings, so there will be buzz. But it's just a trial court decision.
On the substance, I think this is furthering a trend among some lower courts of being skeptical about the border search exception. But note that the court here rejects what the ACLU has been arguing for in its recent briefing: its elimination entirely for electronic searches.
The court here rejects a warrant requirement or a probable cause requirement, only requiring reasonable suspicion even for the most invasive border searches. It rejects the CA9 manual/forensic line, but it's not too far off of the CA9 otherwise.
Unless I'm missing something, this is an interesting but relatively small development in a broader debate working its way up to SCOTUS, and this particular case may run into procedural problems on appeal anyway. /end
P.S. Some are wondering about the distinction between allowing a border search for only contraband vs. evidence. That's currently the subject of a CA9 vs. CA4 split. It's an interesting Q, but with the circuit split, a mere DCT's taking a side doesn't amount to much.
Oops, forgot my hashtag for new cases: #N
