Especially troubled are those that legitimately store sensitive business, legal, or customer data; who worry that federal agents might leak information found from laptop searches.

On July 17, 2005, Michael Arnold arrived at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) after spending a three-week vacation in the Philippines.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer Laura Peng saw Arnold waiting in line and selected him for secondary questioning.

[5] The Government promptly appealed the case, and stated that the border doctrine took precedence over the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search.

He continued to argue that because a laptop is able to record ideas, e-mail, internet chats, and web-surfing habits, it is very similar to the "human mind."

Under these arguments he sought the protection of 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 ...

Moreover, the amici were concerned that a search would reveal information that is already protected under other statutes, including privileged legal communications, reporters' notes from confidential sources, and trade secrets.

[8] Reference was also made to a history of searches of closed containers such as a briefcases, purses, wallets, pockets, pictures, film, and other graphic material.

Such limitations are made when searching a person, not their objects in possession, in the interest of human dignity and privacy, which the Fourth Amendment protects.

Its decision is based on previous Supreme Court judgments that have denied Fourth Amendment protections to property which is also "capable of functioning as a home.

[12] This ruling has caused much controversy and discussion among First and Fourth Amendment rights activists, including the American Civil Liberties Union[13] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

They continue to state that a laptop search is so revealing and invasive that the Fourth Amendment requires agents to have some reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion.

On August 1, 2008, the Washington Post reported that Department of Homeland Security policies allow federal agents to "take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

"[16] Further, "officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons.

"[16] Senator Russell Feingold called these policies "truly alarming" and said that he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion, or national origin.

[18] Senator Feingold, fellow Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, and Democratic Representative Adam Smith announced on September 26, 2008, that they had proposed a law to limit the searches of laptops or other electronic devices to cases where United States Customs and Border Protection officials have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

The so-called Travelers' Privacy Protection Act would allow border agents to search electronic devices only if they had reasonable suspicions of wrongdoing.

In addition, the legislation would limit the length of time that a device could be out of its owner's possession to 24 hours, after which the search becomes a seizure, requiring probable cause.