North Carolina Central University (NCCU), School of Law: History and Scholarship Digital Archive

Johnson, Alexzandria

English

We Deserve Better: How Hip Hop Perpetuates the Rape Culture of Black Women

Shah, Morial

Genetic Warfare: Super Humans And The Law

Atkinson, Mark

The Right of Publicity for North Carolina: Focused on the Identity-Holder, Privacy-Basd and Limited Alienability

North Carolina Central University

North Carolina Central Law Review 
Volume 42 Number 1 Article 1 
2019 
Contents 
North Carolina Central University 
Follow this and additional works at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr 
Recommended Citation 
North Carolina Central University (2019) "Contents," North Carolina Central Law Review: Vol. 42 : No. 1 , 
Article 1. 
Available at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr/vol42/iss1/1 
This Title and Contents is brought to you for free and open access by History and Scholarship Digital Archives. It 
has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Central Law Review by an authorized editor of History and 
Scholarship Digital Archives. For more information, please contact nperry@nccu.edu. 
North Carolina Central Law Review
VOLUME 42 2019 NUMBER 1
CONTENTS
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR...................................................
ARTICLES
TEACHING SOCIAL JUSTICE THOUGH "HIP HOP
AND THE LAW"........................andre douglas pond cummings
THE TAKEOVER: HIP HOP'S EVOLUTION AND INFLUENCE
IN THE LAW SCHOOL CLASSROOM................Todd J. Clark
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR ABOUT STUDENT ARTICLES -
REMIXING RIVERSIDE: ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM AND
HIP HOP AS A MIRROR OF SOCIETY..........Charles E. Murphy
AMERICA'S MASS SHOOTINGS AND HIP-HOP: THE HISTORY,
MYTHS, AND HIP-HOP'S INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
MASS SHOOTING PREVENTION..........................Bria Riley
WE DESERVE BETTER: HOW HIP HOP PERPETUATES THE
RAPE CULTURE OF BLACK WOMEN.......Alexzandria Johnson
Page
1
3
51
95
97
121
139
1
: Contents
Published by History and Scholarship Digital Archives, 2019
2
North Carolina Central Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 [2019], Art. 1
https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr/vol42/iss1/1


Milczakowski, Hayley C.

Pretrial Release for Undocumented Immigrants in United States v. Flores: The Bail Reform Act Leaves No Room for Debate

Clark, Todd J.

The Takeover: Hip Hop\u27s Evolution and Influence in the Law School

Murphy, Charles E.

Remixing Riverside: Environmental Racism and Hip Hop as a Mirror of Society

North Carolina Central University Science & Intellectual Property 
Law Review 
Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 1 
2019 
Front Matter 
Follow this and additional works at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/siplr 
Recommended Citation 
(2019) "Front Matter," North Carolina Central University Science & Intellectual Property Law Review: Vol. 
12 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. 
Available at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/siplr/vol12/iss1/1 
This Articles is brought to you for free and open access by History and Scholarship Digital Archives. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Central University Science & Intellectual Property Law Review by an 
authorized editor of History and Scholarship Digital Archives. For more information, please contact 
nperry@nccu.edu. 
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY 
 
SCIENCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REVIEW 
 
VOLUME XII SPRING 2019 
 
 
BOARD OF EDITORS 
 
PAULINA LOPEZ 
Editor-In-Chief 
 
ABIGAIL HOLLOWAY 
Executive Editor 
 
RASHAWNDA MURPHY 
Articles Editor 
 
SAMUEL KELLUM 
Notes and Comments Editor 
 
DESIRAE HUTCHINSON 
Symposium Editor
XAVIER LIGHTFOOT 
Managing Editor  
 
SENIOR EDITORS 
 
JOHN ASHBY    KADEIDRA BAKER    COREY CASE   
       
  
STAFF 
 
DANIEL ADAMS   CAITLIN CALDWELL    ALLISON NEWTON  
MARK ATKINSON   JOHNELL DAYE   DANA SISK  
         
 
 
FACULTY ADVISOR 
 
AUSTIN MARTIN WILLIAMS, M.L.S., J.D., Assistant Law Library Director  
CHARLES SMITH, J.D., Intellectual Property Law Institute Director and Professor of Law 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The SCIENCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REVIEW is published in cooperation with 
The Intellectual Property Law Institute of North Carolina Central University School of Law.   
Copyright 2019 by the North Carolina Central University School of Law. All rights reserved. 
 The Science and Intellectual Property Law Review is published once a year by the 
students of the North Carolina Central University School of Law. Editorial and business office: 
School of Law, North Carolina Central University, 640 Nelson St., Durham, NC 27707. Phone: 
(919) 530-6115. 
Email: SIPLR@nccu.edu 
 Subscriptions: Domestic, $12.00 annually; Foreign, $25.00 annually; payable in advance. 
 Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless notice to the contrary is received.  
 Change of address notification should include both old and new address with zip codes. 
 All claims for nonreceipt of an issue must be received within sixty days of mailing date 
of the next issue if claimant wishes to avoid a charge for missing issue. 
 Current single issues: $15.00 (postpaid). 
 Back issues: Volumes and complete sets are available by contacting the Science and 
Intellectual Property Law Review business office at the address listed above. 
 Member: National Conference of Law Reviews. 
 Indexed in: Contents of Legal Periodical and Index to Legal Periodicals. 
 Citations generally confirm to A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (20th ed. 2015), 
copyright by the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review Association, the University of 
Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal.  
Cite as: N.C. Sci. & Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 
 The Science and Intellectual Property Law Review invites submissions of unsolicited 
manuscripts, in duplicate typed, double spaced, with footnotes. At the time of submission, please 
inform us with software package was used in printing the work. We regret that unsolicited 
manuscripts cannot be returned unless accompanied by sufficient postage. 
 Except as noted, the author of each article in this volume has granted permission of that 
article to be made available to the classroom use in nationally or foreign-accredited law schools 
or non-profit associations of higher learning, provided that 1) copies are distributed at below 
cost, 2) the author and the Journal are identified, and 3) proper notice of copyright is 
incorporated in each copy. 
 Views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the 
Science and Intellectual Property Law Review, its editors and staff, or the North Carolina Central 
University School of Law. 
 The Science and Intellectual Property Law Review accepts commercial advertising. 
Rates: Inside front and back cover, $10.00; outside back cover, $15.00, pages $7.50.  
  
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY 
SCHOOL OF LAW 
 
OFFICERS OF ADMINISTRATION 
WILLIAM ROPER, M.D., M.P.H., Interim University of North Carolina System President 
JOHNSON O. AKINLEYE, PH.D., Chancellor of North Carolina Central University 
ELAINE O’NEAL, J.D., Interim Dean of the School of Law 
DONALD W. CORBETT, J.D., Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of 
Law     
FINESSE COUCH, J.D., Interim Assistant Dean of Finance and Administration 
KYLE H. BRAZILE, J.D., Assistant Dean of Admissions 
RONALD STEVEN DOUGLAS, J.D., Assistant Dean for Scholarships & Financial Aid 
LISA G. MORGAN, J.D., Assistant Dean of Student Affairs       
ADRIENNE L. MEDDOCK, J.D., Assistant Dean for the Evening Program 
GIOVONNI WADE, J.D., Assistant Dean for Career Services 
FRED J. WILLIAMS, J.D., Assistant Dean of Clinical Education Programs & Associate Professor 
of Law      
BRENDA D. GIBSON, J.D., Director of Legal Writing and Senior Legal Writing Professor 
NICHELLE J. PERRY, J.D., M.L.S. Director of Law Library and Assistant Professor of Law 
CHARLES E. SMITH, J.D., Director of Intellectual Property Law Institute and Professor of Law 
GREGORY W. CLINTON, SR., Director of Information Technology and Facility Management    
CAROL CHESTNUT, J.D., Law School Registrar 
BRETT W. BOWERS, L.P.C.S., L.C.A.S., N.C.C., M.A.C., Wellness Specialist 
 
 
FACULTY 
MAYMANAT AFSHAR, J.D. 
Director of Intellectual Property Clinic and Assistant Clinical Professor 
CHERYL AMANA, J.D., LL.M, S.J.D. 
Professor of Law 
TODD CLARK, J.D., M.B.A.         
Professor of Law 
KIMBERLY COGDELL-GRAINGER, J.D., M.P.H.        
Professor of Law 
DONALD CORBETT, J.D., M.A.       
Associate Professor of Law 
PHYLISS CRAIG-TAYLOR, J.D., LL.M. 
Professor of Law  
NAKIA C. DAVIS, J.D.  
Director of Family Law Clinic and Senior Clinical Professor  
APRIL G. DAWSON, J.D.   
Associate Professor of Law  
SHELLY DEADDER, J.D.   
Assistant Professor of Legal Writing         
MALIK EDWARDS, J.D., PH.D.   
Associate Professor of Law 
KEVIN C. FOY, J.D.          
Professor of Law              
ANGELA GILMORE, J.D.  
Professor of Law 
PAMELA S. GLEAN, J.D.  
Director of Dispute Resolution Institute and Senior Clinical Professor  
DIONNE R. GONDER-STANLEY, J.D.  
Director of Criminal Litigation Clinic and Senior Clinical Professor  
DAVID A. GREEN, J.D., LL.M.  
Professor of Law   
DOROTHY HAIRSTON MITCHELL, J.D. 
Director of Juvenile Law Clinic and Assistant Clinical Professor  
SUSAN HAUSER, J.D. 
Professor of Law            
C. SCOTT HOLMES, J.D.  
Director of Civil Litigation Clinic and Assistant Clinical Professor  
IRVING L. JOYNER, J.D.  
Professor of Law 
LISA A. KAMARCHIK, J.D.  
Assistant Legal Writing Professor  
LYDIA E. LAVELLE, J.D., M.R.R. 
Professor of Law 
DOROTHY HAIRSTON MITCHELL, J.D. 
Clinical Assistant Professor  
REGINALD MOMBRUN, J.D., LL.M. 
Principal Investigator for Low Income Taxpayer Clinic and Professor of Law 
MARK W. MORRIS, J.D., LL.M. 
Professor of Law 
DOROTHY NACHMAN, J.D. 
Associate Professor of Law 
BRENDA REDDIX-SMALLS, J.D., LL.M.   
Professor of Law 
KIA H. VERNON, J.D. 
Associate Professor of Law 
FRED J. WILLIAMS, J.D. 
Associate Professor of Law 
MARY WRIGHT, J.D., M.A. 
Professor of Law 
             
ADJUNCT AND VISTING FACULTY    
CHARLES L. BECTON, J.D.  
VICTOR BOONE, J.D.   
T. JEFFERSON CARMON, III, J.D.         
MARVIN D. GENZER, J.D. 
STEPHEN GHEEN, J.D.  
HARELDA GRAGG, J.D.  
TENIKA HALL, J.D.  
G. NICHOLAS HERMAN, J.D.  
LEONARD JERNIGAN, J.D. 
ERIKA JONES, J.D.  
VEDIA C. JONES-RICHARDSON, J.D. 
JOHN B. KASPRZAK, J.D. 
BRENDA MARTIN, J.D. 
JENNIFER MAY-PARKER, J.D.  
WYATT ORSBON, J.D. 
DONNA RINCK 
LAURA SHEPHERD, J.D.  
PAMELA THORPE-YOUNG, J.D. 
GERALD WALDEN, JR., J.D. 
TIMOTHY WIPPERMAN, J.D.  
 
EMERITUS PROFESSOR  
THOMAS RINGER, JR., J.D.  
 
ACADEMIC PROGRAM PERSONNEL 
LANCE BURKE, J.D., M.S.L.S. 
Senior Reference Librarian 
KRISHNEE G. COLEY, J.D. 
Director of Academic Success 
DERIA HAYES, J.D. 
Interim Director of Pro Bono Programs 
TITICHIA M. MITCHELL-JACKSON, J.D. 
Director of Bar Preparation and Support  
JAMES MATTHEW, J.D. 
Director of Low Income Tax Clinic  
ZANADA JOYNER, J.D., M.L.I.S., M.A. 
Reference Librarian - Faculty Services 
MATTHEW NEELY, J.D., M.DIV., M.L.I.S. 
Reference Librarian - Digital Services 
JANICE PAUL, J.D. 
Director of Center for Child and Family Health 
PAMELA THOMBS, J.D., M.P.A. 
Director of Consumer Financial Transactions Clinic 
CRYSTAL L. TODD-YELVERTON, J.D. 
Academic Success Specialist 
AUSTIN MARTIN WILLIAMS, M.L.S., J.D. 
Assistant Law Library Director 
 
LAW SCHOOL FELLOWS 
COURTNEY BRYANT, J.D. 
Legal Writing  
SHIRLEY FAULKNER-SPRINGFIELD, PH.D. 
Legal Writing  
SHELLY FULLWOOD, J.D. 
IP Law Institute  
TYRONE MCCLEAN, J.D. 
Academic Success  
ALICIA D. WILLIAMS, J.D., LL.M. 
IP Law Institute 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY  
THE SCIENCE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REVIEW 
Volume 12 Spring 2019 
 
CONTENTS 
 
ARTICLES 
 
GENETIC WARFARE: SUPER HUMANS AND THE LAW  
Morial Shah 
 
NOTES AND COMMENTS 
 
THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY FOR NORTH CAROLINA: FOCUSED ON THE IDENTITY-
HOLDER, PRIVACY-BASED AND LIMITED ALIENABILITY 
Mark Atkinson 
 
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND LIVES: STUDENT ATHLETES’ PUBLICITY 
RIGHTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE  
Allison Newton  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Front Matter

North Carolina Central University Science & Intellectual Property 
Law Review 
Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 5 
2019 
Cover 
Follow this and additional works at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/siplr 
Recommended Citation 
(2019) "Cover," North Carolina Central University Science & Intellectual Property Law Review: Vol. 12 : Iss. 
1 , Article 5. 
Available at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/siplr/vol12/iss1/5 
This Title and Contents is brought to you for free and open access by History and Scholarship Digital Archives. It 
has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Central University Science & Intellectual Property Law Review by 
an authorized editor of History and Scholarship Digital Archives. For more information, please contact 
nperry@nccu.edu. 
Science and 
Intellectual 
Property Law 
Review
Volume XII 2019
Spring Issue
©®
TM
North Carolina Central University School of Law
GENETIC WARFARE:  SUPER HUMANS AND THE LAW
Morial Shah
THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY FOR NORTH CAROLINA: 
FOCUSED ON THE IDENTITY-HOLDER, PRIVACY-BASED
AND LIMITED ALIENABILITY
Mark Atkinson
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND LIVES: STUDENT
ATHLETES’ PUBLICITY RIGHTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
Allison Newton
In conjunction with 
The Intellectual Property Law Institute


Cover

Bates, Jillian

North Carolina Central Law Review 
Volume 41 Number 1 Article 4 
2018 
The forensic Digital Search of Cell phones at the Border in the 
United States v. Kolsuz: Tough on Terrorism or Tough on Petty 
Crime? 
Jillian Bates 
Follow this and additional works at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr 
 Part of the International Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Bates, Jillian (2018) "The forensic Digital Search of Cell phones at the Border in the United States v. 
Kolsuz: Tough on Terrorism or Tough on Petty Crime?," North Carolina Central Law Review: Vol. 41 : No. 1 , 
Article 4. 
Available at: https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr/vol41/iss1/4 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by History and Scholarship Digital Archives. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Central Law Review by an authorized editor of History and Scholarship 
Digital Archives. For more information, please contact nperry@nccu.edu. 
39
THE FORENSIC DIGITAL SEARCH OF CELL PHONES AT
THE BORDER IN UNITED STATES V. KOLSUZ: TOUGH ON
TERRORISM OR TOUGH ON PETTY CRIME?
BY: JILLIANA. BATES
INTRODUCTION
Modern cell phones are no longer just communication devices. For many,
they are extensions of their daily lives. Modern cell phones have the
Sd,dcIEI(_ (- MEPd*/7 (KP ,d*(IS'Ed*) -N I() ')P*, I/SE'RI/L (KP ,EdSP) (KP ')P*
*PL'Ed*E_ &I)I(), (KP ')P*’) ,-EI(ISdE EPd/I/L), d/R RP(dIE) -N (KP ')P*’) )-SIdE,
familial, and professional life. T-Rd_, I/(I0d(P RP(dIE) -N d ,P*)-/’) ,*I&d(P
life are stored on a cell phone. Specific functions and social expectations have
been created to protect this private information. It is a commonly accepted
)-SIdE )(d/Rd*R (Kd( )S*-EEI/L (K*-'LK (KP S-/(P/( -N d/-(KP*’) SPEE ,K-/P
without permission constitutes an invasion of privacy. However, this same
privacy does not apply to the government as long as the person is walking
through customs before or after an international flight. According to a ruling
issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018, government agents at
I/(P*/d(I-/dE dI*,-*() Kd&P (KP *ILK( (- S-/NI)Sd(P d ,P*)-/’) SPEE ,K-/P d/R
conduct a forensic digital )Pd*SK -N dEE (KP Rd(d )(-*PR -/ (KP ,P*)-/’) SPEE
phone as long as they have a reason to suspect that a crime may have been
committed.1 In short, passcodes and social norms cannot withstand the reach
of the United States government as long as government agents reasonably
suspect the person of committing a crime. In this note, I will address the
Y-'*(K !I*S'I(’) NdIE'*P (- S-/)IRP* EI0I(d(I-/) -/ (KP )S-,P -N (KP N-*P/)IS
)Pd*SK -N I/RI&IR'dE’) SPEE ,K-/P) d) I( *PEd(P) (- 0I/-* S*I0P) d( I/(P*/d(I-/dE
airports, in United States v. Kolsuz. I will also address the implications of
such intrusive searches as they relate to government overreach in the policing
of minor crimes as well as the vulnerable communities that will most likely
be disproportionately affected by these intrusive searches.
1. United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133, 146-47 (4th Cir. 2018), as amended (May 18, 2018).
1
Bates: The forensic Digital Search of Cell phones at the Border in the U
Published by History and Scholarship Digital Archives, 2021
40 NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:38
THE CASE
In December 2012, Hamza Kolsuz arrived at John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK) in New York for a flight to Turkey.2 At check in,
customs agents discovered 163 firearms parts, listed on the United States
Munitions List (USML), in his luggage.3 Agents explained to Kolsuz that he
was required to have a specific export license in order to carry the items onto
his international flight, and subsequently seized the weapons parts.4 In
January 2013, Kolsuz, again, attempted to carry weapons parts listed on the
USML on an international flight from JFK to Turkey without the requisite
export license.5 As a consequence, the weapons were seized.6 On February
1, 2016, a Special Agent with United States Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) in New York discovered that Kolsuz had again entered the country
and had an upcoming flight from Washington Dulles International Airport
(Dulles) to Turkey.7 The CBP Officer proceeded to inform other CBP
-NNISP*) d( D'EEP) -N U-E)'^’) NEILK( as well as his history of attempting to
smuggle weapons parts out of the country illegally.8 4,-/ U-E)'^’) d**I&dE
at Dulles, CBP officers searched his checked bags and found multiple
firearms parts listed on the USML.9 Before boarding his flight, Kolsuz was
stopped and transported to a secondary inspection area.10 There, the officers
discovered that he had no active or pending export license and initiated two
searches of his iPhone.11 The first search was a manual search, where agents
manually scrolled through his recent calls and text messages.12 Following an
interview with CBP officers Kolsuz was arrested.13 The officers then
(*d/),-*(PR U-E)'^’) I:K-/P (- d W-0PEd/R 8PS'*I(_ I/&P)(ILd(I-/ -NNISP d/R
conducted a forensic search of his cell phone.14 Data was extracted from the
cell phone itself using a Cellebrite Physical Analyzer.15 This process lasted
for a month and resulted in a report including information regarding
MU-E)'^’) S-/(dS( EI)(), P0dIE), 0P))P/LP* S-/&P*)d(I-/), ,K-(-L*d,K),
videos, calendar, web c*-b)I/L KI)(-*_,7 SdEE E-L), d/R X:8 S--*RI/d(P) -N
2. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d at 138-39.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 138-39.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d at 138-39.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
2
North Carolina Central Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 1 [2021], Art. 4
https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr/vol41/iss1/4
2018] NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW REVIEW 41
his past physical locations.16 This information made up a 896-page report.17
Ultimately, Kolsuz was indicted for attempting to export firearms parts on
the USML without a license, attempting to smuggle goods from the United
States, and conspiracy.18
Kolsuz made a pre-trial motion to suppress the report that was generated
following the forensic search of his cell phone.19 He contended that a month-
long forensic search of his phone at a location situated miles away from the
I/(P*/d(I-/dE dI*,-*( N-EE-bI/L KI) d**P)( M)K-'ER cP (*Pd(PR d) d )Pd*SK
I/SIRP/( (- KI) d**P)(,7 *d(KP* (Kd/ )'cGPS( (- (KP c-*RP* )Pd*SK P`SP,(I-/.20 In
addition, he contended that, under Riley v. California, MSPEE ,K-/P) 0d_ cP
searched inSIRP/( (- d/ d**P)( -/E_ bI(K d bd**d/( cd)PR -/ ,*-cdcEP Sd')P.721
6KP RI)(*IS( S-'*( RP/IPR U-E)'^’) 0-(I-/ (- )',,*P)) d/R KPER (Kd( (KP )Pd*SK
following his arrest constituted a border search, based on the finding that
prior to the forensic search, neither made that search incidental to his arrest
nor rendered the border exception inapplicable.22 Moreover, the court held
that a search that is initiated at the border is subject to the border exception
regardless of whether it was conducted off-site and for a long period of
time.23 6K'), (KP 0d/'dE )Pd*SK -N U-E)'^’) I:K-/P bd) d *-'(I/P c-*RP*
search, requiring no warrant; and the off-)I(P N-*P/)IS )Pd*SK -N U-E)'^’)
iPhone was a nonroutine border search, which required only reasonable
suspicion.24 Ultimately, the court rejected the finding in Riley.25 Kolsuz
d,,PdEPR (KP RI)(*IS( S-'*(’) NI/RI/L (- (KP 4/I(PR 8(d(P) !-'*( -N A,,PdE) N-*
the Fourth Circuit.26 6KI) S-'*( dNNI*0PR (KP RI)(*IS( S-'*(’) RPSI)I-/, d/R KPER
(Kd( (KP N-*P/)IS )Pd*SK -N U-E)'^’) ,K-/P, and the subsequent invasion of
U-E)'^’) ,*I&dS_, bd) G')(INIPR '/RP* (KP c-*RP* )Pd*SK P`SP,(I-/ cPSd')P
there was sufficient evidence for the officers to establish reasonable
suspicion that Kolsuz was actively engaging in an ongoing crime and
possible conspiracy.27
16. Id.
17. Id. at 138-39.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 140.
21. Id.
22. 890 F.3d at 140.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. Id.
27. Id. at 148.
3
Bates: The forensic Digital Search of Cell phones at the Border in the U
Published by History and Scholarship Digital Archives, 2021
42 NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:38
BACKGROUND
6KP Y-'*(K A0P/R0P/( ,*-&IRP) I/RI&IR'dE) bI(K (KP *ILK( M(- cP )PS'*P
in their persons, houses, paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and
)PI^'*P)7 dc)P/( d bd**d/( d/R ,*-cdcEP Sd')P.28 However, border searches
are an exception to this requirement.29 The border search exception applies
R'*I/L d/ I/RI&IR'dE’) P/(*d/SP d/R P`I( -N (KP S-'/(*_ c_ bd_ -N d/
I/(P*/d(I-/dE c-*RP* -* I() MN'/S(I-/dE P+'I&dEP/(,7 )'SK d) d/ I/(P*/d(I-/dE
airport.30 There are two types of border searches, routine and nonroutine.31
D'*I/L d *-'(I/P c-*RP* )Pd*SK ML-&P*/0P/( dLP/() 0d_ S-/R'S( )Pd*SKP) -N
I/RI&IR'dE)’ ,P*)-/ -* ,*-,P*(_ dc)P/( d/_ bd**d/( -* EP&PE -N I/RI&IR'dE
)'),ISI-/.732 Routine searches of electronic devices, such as cell phones,
I/&-E&P d M0d/'dE I/),PS(I-/,7 where government agents may assess the
S-/(P/() -N d/ I/RI&IR'dE’) SPEE ,K-/P MI/ (KP )d0P 0d//P* d) d (_,ISdE
')P*.733 6KI) I/SE'RP) ')I/L (KP ,K-/P’) (-'SK )S*PP/ N'/S(I-/ (- &IPb )(-*PR
text messages and phone calls.34A nonroutine border search is more intrusive
than a routine search.35 InUnited States v. Saboonchi, the Fourth Circuit held
that the digital forensic search of a cell phone is a non-routine search.36 A
forensic digital search is typically where officers conduct a detailed review
of the data s(-*PR I/ d/ I/RI&IR'dE’) SPEE'Ed* RP&ISP ')I/L d ),PSIdE process.37
Courts have referred to these digital forensic searches as body cavity searches
of an electronic device.38 In order to perform a nonroutine border search,
government agents are required to first have reasonable or individualized
suspicion.39 This means that agents must have Md ,d*(IS'Ed*I^PR d/R -cGPS(I&P
cd)I) N-* )'),PS(I/L (KP ,d*(IS'Ed* ,P*)-/ )(-,,PR -N S*I0I/dE dS(I&I(_.740 This
reasonable suspicion standard was questioned in Riley v. California.41 In that
Sd)P, (KP S-'*( KPER (Kd(, R'P (- 0-RP*/ SPEE ,K-/P)’ I00P/)P )(-*dLP
Sd,dSI(_, (KP )Pd*SK -N d ,P*)-/’) SPEE ,K-/P N-EE-bI/L (KPI* d**P)( )K-'ER cP
28. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
29. United States v. Kolsuz, 185 F. Supp. 3d 843, 850-51 (E.D. Va. 2016), aff’d, 890 F.3d 133 (4th
Cir. 2018), as amended (May 18, 2018).
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 852.
33. Id. at 854. (citing United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir.2005)).
34. 185 F. Supp. 33d at 854.
35. Id. at 853.
36. Id. at 854. (citing United States v. Saboonchi, 990 F.Supp.2d 536, 569 (D.Md.2014)).
37. 185 F. Supp. 33d at 854.
38. Id. at 854. (citing United States v. Saboonchi, 990 F. Supp.2d 536, 560 (D. Md. 2014)).
39. 185 F. Supp. 33d at 854.
40. Id. at 859. (citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66 L. Ed. 2d
621 (1981)).
41. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014).
4
North Carolina Central Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 1 [2021], Art. 4
https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr/vol41/iss1/4
2018] NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW REVIEW 43
subject to a warrant and probable cause, as provided by the Fourth
Amendment.42
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment is to
dEE-b (KP L-&P*/0P/(’) I/(P*P)( I/ /d(I-/dE )PS'*I(_, (*d/)/d(I-/dE )PS'*I(_,
and export control to govern at its international border.43 It is appropriate that
the government have strict rules and absolute power over international
borders. The government has every right to protect its interest at its borders,
which include protecting its citizens from terrorist attacks like those on
September 11, and the Orlando nightclub shooting. However, when
government agents at the border are faced with arguably minor, petty crimes,
I) I( *Pd)-/dcEP (- ')P P`,P/)I&P *P)-'*SP) (- &I-Ed(P I/RI&IR'dE)’ ,*I&dS_ bI(K
(KP EI0I(EP)) d/R I/(*')I&P N-*P/)IS Rd(d )Pd*SK -N d )'),PS(’) SPEE ,K-/P# I/
Kolsuz, the court failed to address whether searches should be more narrowly
tailored when government agents are confronted with individuals who may
have committed minor crimes at international airports.44 The limitless
N-*P/)IS )Pd*SK -N d ,P*)-/’) SPEE ,K-/P I) -nly justifiable, under the purpose
of the border search exception, when it is used to prevent real threats of major
crimes, such as threats of terrorism, and conspiracies to flood countries with
dangerous drugs, firearms or other illegal contraband, like in Kolsuz. On a
)0dEEP* )SdEP, (KP N-*P/)IS Rd(d )Pd*SK -N d/ I/RI&IR'dE’) SPEE ,K-/P I) /-( d
justifiable approach to securing international borders. Instead, these
unfettered forensic searches of cellular devices at the border subject
I/RI&IR'dE)’ '/*PEd(ed personal information to overexposure; and also subject
commonly marginalized groups that regularly face racial and religious
profiling to a greater likelihood of violations of their privacy rights while at
international airports.
I. THE OVEREXPOSURE OF UNRELATED PERSONAL INFORMATION.
Although, nonroutine border searches are exceptions to the Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures absent
a warrant, the exception should be subject to certain limitations based on the
nature of the alleged crime. In the event that government agents at
42. Kolsuz, 185 F. Supp. 3d at 851. (citing Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430
(2014)).
43. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d at 143-44.
44. Id. d( D@Z ]2IEFI/)-/, J., S-/S'**I/L\ ]M2P Kd&P /- IRPd (KP Rd/LP*)we are courting. Thousands
of travelers go through [border posts] every day. Yet the majority hardly grapples with how law
P/N-*SP0P/( I) P`,PS(PR (- d)SP*(dI/ I/RI&IR'dEI^PR )'),ISI-/ bKP/ RPdEI/L bI(K )'SK /'0cP*).7\.
5
Bates: The forensic Digital Search of Cell phones at the Border in the U
Published by History and Scholarship Digital Archives, 2021
44 NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:38
international airports find it reasonable to suspect a person of committing a
minor crime, such as stowing a small amount of weed in their luggage prior
to their flight abroad, there should be specific limitations on how extensive a
forensic data search of their phone, if one is conducted, is permitted to be. In
Kolsuz, the court did not consider the possibility of a forensic data search of
d ,P*)-/’) SPEE ,K-/P dN(P* (KP_ KdR cPP/ )'),PS(PR -N committing a minor
crime.45 Instead, it only considered forensic data searches as they applied to
major crimes that involved export control and possible security interests
abroad.46 6KP S-'*(’) NdIE'*P (- RI)(I/L'I)K cP(bPP/ (KP (*Pd(0P/( -N 0dG-*
and minor crimes permits the potential for a deeply intrusive level of search
that may not be warranted depending upon the crime suspected.
Moreover, this has the potential to subject an individual to a search that
may easily stray from the original purpose or go beyond the border search
exception. In short, the search may become analogous to a fishing expedition.
As a result, the data stored in the cell phone of a suspect, who may be a
doctor, lawyer, or a fiduciary, may be that of another party. In turn, the search
d/R )PI^'*P -N (K-)P R-S'0P/() 0d_ &I-Ed(P (KP (KI*R ,d*(_’) Y-'*(K
Amendment rights, which were not originally subject to the border search
P`SP,(I-/, -* &I-Ed(P (KP (KI*R ,d*(_’) ,*I&dS_ -&P* (K-)P *PS-*R) (Kd( d*P
legally protected in their own right for the best interest of a third party patient
or client.
II. THE OVEREXPOSURE OF REGULARLY PROFILED GROUPS TO INTRUSIVE
SEARCHES.
This gap in the law also allows room for vulnerable groups of people who
are regularly profiled as violent or criminals in the United States to be more
EIFPE_ (- Kd&P (KPI* SPEE ,K-/P’) )'cGPS( (- d N-*P/)IS )Pd*SK d( (KP c-*RP*.
Due to past and recent instances of terrorism, both domestically and abroad,
the security at airports has become increasingly stricter. Much of the time,
these terrorist attacks have been orchestrated by religious extremist or their
sympathizers, who have commonly and unfairly been associated with people
of the Islamic faith as well as people of Middle Eastern descent. As a
consequence, innocent Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent have
been stigmatized as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers and routinely face
racial or religious profiling, particularly at airports. In addition to the latter
mentioned groups, in the United States, people of color and immigrants also
face racial profiling as well as frequent suspicion of involvement in criminal
activity. These groups, which are already vulnerable to racial and religious
45. Id.
46. Id. at 143 (majority opinion) (court focused on the transnational offense).
6
North Carolina Central Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 1 [2021], Art. 4
https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr/vol41/iss1/4
2018] NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW REVIEW 45
profiling as well as unfair association with minor crimes, will likely be the
demographics most frequently having their cell phones subjected to intrusive
forensic data searches at airports over suspicion of petty crime. Although,
officers are required to first satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard before
proceeding with a forensic search, there is evidence of many instances where
these marginalized groups have been singled out and assumed to be violent
or taking part in illegal activity based on their phenotype or obvious religious
associations, regardless of this standard. A couple of instances include, but
are not limited to, the senseless killings of people of color such as Philando
!d)(IEP, d/R :*P)IRP/( D-/dER 6*'0,’) )--SdEEPR MT')EI0 "d/7. 6KP)P
L*-',)’ SPEE ,K-/P) bIEE EIFPE_ cP )'cGPS( (- EI0I(EP)) )Pd*SKP) d) d *P)'E( -N
L-&P*/0P/( dLP/(’) )'),ISI-/ -N (KPI* I/&-E&P0P/( I/ 0I/-* S*I0P) d(
international airports. Ultimately, the Kolsuz S-'*(’) NdIE'*P (- 0P/(I-/ d/_
distinction between the extent of a forensic search in the case of the suspicion
of a minor crime versus a major crime leaves room for needlessly extensive
violations of privacy as well as prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Although the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment is
beneficial in that it secures the United States border for reasons of national
security and export control, it lacks specificity regarding the suspicion of
minor crimes. This allows for the overexposure of unrelated personal
I/N-*0d(I-/ &Id I/(*')I&P N-*P/)IS )Pd*SKP) -N I/RI&IR'dE)’ SPEE ,K-/P), d/R
the disproportionate subjection of vulnerable and marginalized groups in the
United States to these searches as well as additional discriminatory treatment
and more frequent exclusion from the privacy protection as promised under
the Fourth Amendment while at international airports. Exceptions without
reasonable limitations are dangerous, especially when the exception includes
governmental overreach into the immensely private lives of already
vulnerable demographics.
7
Bates: The forensic Digital Search of Cell phones at the Border in the U
Published by History and Scholarship Digital Archives, 2021


The forensic Digital Search of Cell phones at the Border in the United States v. Kolsuz: Tough on Terrorism or Tough on Petty Crime?