The Forensic Border Search Exception Reaffirmed: No Reasonable Suspicion Required for Electronic Device Searches at the Border

Introduction

In United States v. Stephen Gordon Grimes, Jr., 23-12455 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit addressed three core issues arising from the arrest and conviction of Stephen Grimes for producing, transporting, and possessing child pornography. While returning to the U.S. from South Korea, Grimes’s electronic devices were searched at the border, leading to the discovery of hundreds of images and videos depicting sexual abuse of minors. He was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Northern District of Georgia, received a 50-year sentence, and was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution. On appeal, Grimes challenged (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the border search, (2) the substantive reasonableness of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and (3) the district court’s restitution order under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all counts:

Motion to Suppress: The Court held that forensic searches of electronic devices at the border do not require reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, reaffirming the border search exception as applied in United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018).
Sentence Reasonableness: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the 50-year sentence. The district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, particularly the heinous nature of Grimes’s conduct and the need to protect the public.
Restitution Order: The Court held that missing the 60- and 10-day notice deadlines under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d) did not deprive the court of authority to order restitution. Drawing on Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010), and United States v. Plasencia, 886 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2018), the Court ruled the district court’s additional briefing and careful factfinding satisfied due process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018): Established that routine searches of electronic devices at the border, including forensic analysis, do not require reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a): Governs sentencing factors, including the nature of the offense, history of the defendant, deterrence, and protection of the public.
United States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2021): Clarifies the standard for substantive reasonableness of a sentence—no clear error of judgment in weighing § 3553(a) factors.
Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010): Holds that missing restitution-notice deadlines under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d) does not deprive the court of authority to order restitution so long as victims’ losses are ascertainable and the court intends to order full restitution.
United States v. Plasencia, 886 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2018): Defines the due process requirements at sentencing—only so much as necessary to ensure the court is sufficiently informed to exercise discretion in an enlightened manner.

Legal Reasoning

1. Fourth Amendment and Border Search Exception: Under the “border search exception,” customs officers may conduct searches at the border without a warrant or probable cause. In Touset, this Court extended the exception to forensic searches of digital devices. The Grimes panel applied Touset and held that, even if reasonable suspicion were lacking, the Fourth Amendment did not require it for forensic analysis of electronic devices at the border.

2. Sentencing Reasonableness: The Court reviewed the 50-year sentence for abuse of discretion. The district court explicitly addressed each § 3553(a) factor, weighing the gravity of Grimes’s systematic sexual abuse of minors and the necessity of deterrence and public protection. It afforded less weight to Grimes’s personal history—an exercise well within its discretion absent clear error.

3. Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act: Although the government failed to notify of eleven additional victims within the statutory timelines, the district court held a briefing session and determined that ordering restitution for all identified victims served the statute’s primary goal: ensuring full compensation for victims. Relying on Dolan, the panel held that procedural deadlines are non-jurisdictional and that due process was satisfied when Grimes was placed on notice at trial and the court conducted supplementary fact-finding.

Impact

This decision has several important implications:

Border Searches: It cements authority for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct in-depth forensic analysis of travelers’ electronic devices without reasonable suspicion or warrant.
Sentencing Deference: It reaffirms district courts’ broad discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors, indicating appellate courts will seldom disturb high-end sentences when serious aggravating factors are present.
Restitution Procedure: It clarifies that missed notice deadlines under § 3664(d) do not invalidate restitution orders, so long as victims’ losses are identifiable and the defendant has adequate due process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Border Search Exception: A legal rule that allows searches at international borders without a warrant, based on the government’s interest in controlling what enters the country.
Forensic Search: A thorough, technical examination of digital devices to recover and analyze data, including deleted files.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause: Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. Both normally govern law-enforcement searches, but neither is required for border searches of digital devices.
§ 3553(a) Factors: A set of statutory criteria courts must consider when imposing federal sentences, such as offense seriousness and need for deterrence.
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act: Federal law requiring courts to order defendants to compensate victims for losses arising from certain crimes, with prescribed notice and timing procedures.
Procedural Due Process at Sentencing: Guarantees the defendant receives fair notice of the information used at sentencing and an opportunity to contest inaccuracies.

Conclusion

United States v. Grimes reaffirms three significant legal principles:

The border search exception permits forensic searches of electronic devices without reasonable suspicion or warrant.
District courts retain broad discretion in sentencing, and appellate courts will rarely overturn sentences when the § 3553(a) factors support the outcome.
Missed statutory notice deadlines for restitution are non-jurisdictional; courts may order full restitution so long as victims’ losses are ascertainable and due process is satisfied.

Together, these rulings strengthen government authority at the border, confirm sentencing deference, and underscore the judiciary’s commitment to compensating victims.