The U.S. Court of Appeals made a controversial ruling on laptop search by customs officers, who apparently need no motivation to search through the content of the passengers’ laptops while at the border.

The decision was unanimous among the three judges, and came to oppose a previous ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to which customs officers need reasonable suspicions to search a laptop.

The story revolved around the case of Michael Arnold, who in July 2005, on his return from a trip, was asked to reveal the content of his laptop to the customs agents. The search lead to child pornography accusations and the arrest of Arnold, who later claimed in court that the search had been unreasonable. The court agreed at the time.

However, this time, the Ninth Circuit rejected his claims, arguing that: “(1) reasonable suspicion was not required under the Fourth Amendment because of the border search doctrine; and (2) if reasonable suspicion were necessary, that it was present in this case.”

The Ickes case from the Fourth Circuit (according to which a warrantless search of a car is permitted under the border search doctrine) was given as an example.

Arnold had claimed that the search went against the Fourth Amendment, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

However, the court said that it is “the authority of the United States to search the baggage of arriving international travelers” in order to protect its territorial integrity, and therefore “it is entitled to require that whoever seeks entry must establish the right to enter and to bring into the country whatever he may carry.”