The Pacific Legal Foundation has sued the Department of Homeland Security after Vermont superintendent Wilmer Chavarria says CBP agents detained him for more than four hours at Houston's international airport and pressured him to surrender his electronic devices and passwords. PLF argues CBP's broad reading of the border exception permits warrantless searches and copying of device data—practices that have risen sharply in recent years. The complaint highlights privacy risks: copied data may be stored for up to 15 years and accessed by thousands of DHS staff. The suit asks a federal court to rein in CBP policies and restore normal Fourth Amendment protections for electronic data.
U.S. Superintendent Says CBP Detained Him for Hours Until He Consented to Device Searches — PLF Files Suit
Wilmer Chavarria | Office of Sen. Richard Blumenthal
Last July, Wilmer Chavarria, a naturalized U.S. citizen and superintendent of Vermont's Winooski School District, was returning from a visit to family in Nicaragua when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents detained him at Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport. According to a complaint filed this week by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Chavarria was held for more than four hours and released only after he agreed to hand over his smartphone, tablet, and laptop and provide their passwords.
The PLF alleges that CBP officers repeatedly pressured Chavarria, told him he had no Fourth Amendment right to refuse, labeled him suspicious for asserting his rights, and denied requests to contact family and counsel during the detention. Chavarria was particularly alarmed because the laptop he carried belonged to the school district and contained student records. He says agents assured him they would not access student data, but the searches were performed out of his presence, leaving no way to verify that promise.
Legal Challenge: Border Exception vs. Digital Privacy
PLF attorneys Amy Peikoff and Molly Nixon argue the searches violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" against unreasonable searches and seizures and generally requires warrants based on probable cause. While the Supreme Court recognizes a limited "border exception," PLF contends that exception cannot reasonably be stretched to justify warrantless, suspicionless searches of the vast stores of personal data travelers carry on electronic devices.
Under CBP's current policies, agents may examine electronic devices anywhere within 100 miles of a U.S. border — a zone that includes roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population — without articulable suspicion or a judicial warrant. Policy also permits copying and retaining device data when officials cite "a national security concern" or "reasonable suspicion" and obtain supervisory approval.
Scope, Scale, and Privacy Risks
The complaint and PLF reporting highlight sharp increases in these searches: annual warrantless electronic-device inspections rose from roughly 8,500 in 2015 to more than 46,000 in 2024. PLF says the trend continued in 2025, with CBP reporting 14,899 device searches in the third fiscal quarter — the highest quarterly total on record.
In a 2022 letter to then-Commissioner Chris Magnus, Senator Ron Wyden cited a CBP briefing that said the agency copies data from "less than 10,000" phones in a given year; the copied material often includes text messages, call logs, contact lists, photos, and other sensitive files. Senator Wyden noted that CBP confirmed it stores such data — obtained without a judge-signed warrant — for up to 15 years and allows approximately 2,700 Department of Homeland Security personnel to search it.
PLF warns that the typical traveler now carries enormous amounts of personal information: some laptops hold up to four terabytes and some smartphones up to two terabytes. That data can include years of messages, photos, location information, medical and employment records, and other highly sensitive details. While the agency classifies roughly 90 percent of inspections as "basic" (a manual review during inspection), about 10 percent are "advanced," involving external tools to copy and retain device contents for later analysis.
Practical Consequences and the Lawsuit
PLF argues the current regime forces travelers into an untenable choice: leave devices at home and lose access to work and personal records, or travel with devices and risk intrusive, warrantless searches and long-term data retention. Chavarria says the experience changed his travel behavior — he left his district laptop at home on a subsequent trip to Nicaragua and could not work remotely while visiting family.
Chavarria told WPTZ in Burlington, Vermont: "You feel like you've been abducted by a gang of aggressive, violent people who are trying to manipulate you and who are lying to you... you know that these people are capable of doing anything to you because they don't care." The PLF also notes that a plainclothes officer shook his hand as he was released and praised his "resilience."
The lawsuit seeks to limit or overturn CBP policies that permit warrantless and suspicionless searches and copying of electronic-device data at or near the border, arguing those practices violate the Fourth Amendment and threaten travelers' privacy nationwide.
