Dearborn, Michigan - For Michigan attorney Amir, traveling is a normal part of life. Just in December, he went abroad and returned to the United States without any problems.

"I've been to the country at least 20 times. I've been to Europe. I go to Lebanon every year," he said.

But returning to Detroit Metro Airport this month is a completely different experience.

When they arrived at the customs checkpoint, he and his family had just returned home from the spring break holiday in the Dominican Republic.

"The agent looked at me and then looked at another agent and asked him if he was here the agent was here. I don't know what that means."

He searched for abbreviation. It represents the tactical terrorist reaction team.

He explained: “As Arab and Muslim American, whenever I travel, even if I drive from Canada, I feel some anxiety about it and I will be randomly selected to stop or introduce.”

"When he said these things, I thought, 'Okay, I'll introduce it here.'"

Sure enough, McCree and his family were asked to go to another room.

Since Makled is a U.S. citizen born in Detroit, Michigan, he knows he can't be denied entering the country. He urged his wife and children to pass the checkpoint without him.

"In this regard, I know my right at the border. And I'm also familiar with the extent of border searches," he said. "This is the first time I've been stopped."

But what happens next will put the attorney in an unstable position.

The border control agent has considerable legal rights to search for the property of a person. The idea is to prevent security hazards, contraband or environmental threats from entering the country.

However, these searches extend to content on electronic devices. This raises questions about which materials need to be adjusted, and what is to be protected is the government's leverage vision.

Threat Attorney - Client Privileges

Makled knew the border agent could pick up his phone. But as a lawyer, he faces a difficult moral dilemma. His cell phone contains privileged lawyer-client information.

In the United States, the basic principle of the legal system is that clients can have candid discussions with their attorneys and make sure they know that anything they say will be kept secret.

There are a lot of works on his phone. When asked to hand it over, he told the border officer that he could not give them equipment.

"All my emails, my text messages, files, cloud-based software, are all through my phone," he said.

As a civil rights and criminal defense attorney, Makled represents the people he says are particularly vulnerable.

One of his clients, a protester, was arrested last year at a pro-Pastin camp at the University of Michigan. She was later charged with resisting and obstructing the police, and the felony was sentenced to two years in prison.

Makled believes his goal is because border officials know the information. He said one of the agents even called him a "famous lawyer" and this was his comment on the protesters' case.

Finally, he allowed the agent to view his contacts in writing, but without other permission. About 90 minutes later at the airport, he was allowed to leave by phone.

Growth trend

For nearly a century, U.S.C. Chapter 19 has allowed border control officials to search for the rights of anyone entering the country, luggage or other items during inspections.

However, today’s digital devices contain far more information than people’s travels.

In the latest fiscal year, 47,047 electronic devices were searched by border control officials, the vast majority of which belong to non-U.S. citizens.

That's nearly 13% higher than the previous fiscal year in 2023, when the U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducted 41,767 electronic searches.

The question of whether these searches can be manipulated or retaliated for political gain has long deceived the process.

For example, in November 2018, an employee of tech company Andreas Gal said he was detained when he returned to San Francisco on an international trip.

Like Makled, Gal is marked as TTRT. Like the lawyer, customs officers pushed for searching for his electronic devices. He refused. Gal later said he believed he was targeting the political views he expressed online.

But in recent weeks, experts have worried that the threat of such searches has risen.

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has tried to see it as a criticism of the United States or its ally Israel. Materials of electronic devices have been one of the evidence allegedly used to expel people in the country.

For example, kidney transplant expert Rasha Alawieh was denied re-enter after flying back to the United States from her native Lebanon. She has a valid H-1B visa, allowing her to work in the United States.

News reports suggest that the Trump administration cites photos recovered from cell phones as a driving force to expel her, including her image of Hezbollah leader Hassan Naslara.

"Glory and support for the killing of Americans are justifications for visa denied," the Department of Homeland Security wrote in a statement after Alawieh's deportation.

Also in March, the French government said that one of its citizens, a scientist, was blocked from entering the United States due to political information on his phone.

However, the Trump administration denied the allegation.

"The French researchers in question have confidential information on electronic devices at Los Alamos National Laboratory - a violation of the non-public agreement," Homeland Security spokesman Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media.

“Any claiming that his removal was based on political belief is blatantly wrong.”

Lack of legal consensus

In border control regulators, devices may undergo two types of screening.

A "light" search occurs when an officer browses electronic devices manually. Advanced searches that legally require “reasonable suspicion” of crime involve devices connected to external devices. The device may not be returned to the owner within weeks or months.

Border agents do not need search rights to search electronic devices, although U.S. citizens are not obliged to unlock their electronic devices to re-enter their country.

However, for travelers who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents, refusal to share these details can lead to denied entry.

But experts say these practices have attracted serious attention to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the government unreasonable protection for searches and seizures.

Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU's speech, privacy and technology program, explained that she has seen examples of governments using these border checks to bypass the Fourth Amendment protection.

"The government increasingly sees it as a constitutional loophole," Bandari said.

“They are investigating someone, rather than waiting for them to establish a possible cause, which requires a judge to provide an arrest warrant and wait until someone crosses the international border and sees it as a convenient opportunity to search for their equipment.”

However, how far the loophole can extend is a question of debate.

Saira Hussain, a senior staff attorney for Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the U.S. courts have not yet reached a consensus on how far a search for digital devices can go and what restrictions are.

"At present, no matter you go into San Francisco with Boston vs Atlanta, there are three different rulings that can search which part of the phone, for what purpose (or) what kind of doubt is needed," Hussein said. "Many lower courts have ruled (but) no unity on this issue."

Makled said he was not blocked from traveling or representing a controversial cause.

"I think it's a threatening tactic. It's an attempt to stop me from accepting such cases," he said, referring to the defense of protesters arrested at the University of Michigan.

"I said I wouldn't be dissuaded. I'll continue to do what I believe."