Phone SeizedUnited StatesGetting a seized phone back, and how long copies are kept
Getting a seized phone back, and how long copies are kept
What you must do, what you can refuse, and what they can do
Every claim below links to the source it comes from, with the wording quoted so you can check it yourself.
What they can do
A power the law gives them over you or your device.
The directive says CBP may retain copies of information from an electronic device when, based on a review of the information encountered or on other facts and circumstances, they determine there is probable cause to believe the information contains digital contraband or evidence of a violation of law that CBP is authorized to enforce or administer, subject to the requirements and limitations provided in the directive and applicable law.
CBP Directive No. 3340-049B §§5.6.1, 5.6.2, 5.6.4 (eff. 1 Jan 2026)
“CBP may retain copies of information from an electronic device when, based on a review of the information encountered or on other facts and circumstances, they determine there is probable cause to believe the information contains digital contraband or evidence of a violation of law that CBP is authorized to enforce or administer, subject to the requirements and limitations provided herein and applicable law.—Without probable cause, CBP may retain only information from the border search of an electronic device relating to immigration, customs, and other enforcement matters if such retention is consistent with the applicable system of records notice and subject to the requirements and limitations provided herein and applicable law.—Following the completion of the border search, CBP will retain no copies of the information beyond twenty-one (21) calendar days following the conclusion of the border search unless retention is permissible or required consistent with sections 5.6.1, 5.6.2, or 5.6.3.”
Read it at cbp.govquote checked 2026-10-02
Rule 41(e)(2)(B) says that a warrant under Rule 41(e)(2)(A) may authorize the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information, and that, unless otherwise specified, the warrant authorizes a later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(B)
“A warrant under Rule 41(e)(2)(A) may authorize the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information. Unless otherwise specified, the warrant authorizes a later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant.”
Read it at law.cornell.eduquote checked 2026-09-08
Limits on them
A rule that constrains them, or a remedy you can use.
Rule 41(e)(2)(A) says that, except for a tracking-device warrant, the warrant must identify the person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seized, and designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(A)
“Except for a tracking-device warrant, the warrant must identify the person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seized, and designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned.”
Read it at law.cornell.eduquote checked 2026-10-02
The directive says that, following the completion of the border search, CBP will retain no copies of the information beyond twenty-one (21) calendar days following the conclusion of the border search unless retention is permissible or required consistent with sections 5.6.1, 5.6.2, or 5.6.3. Section 5.6.2 of the directive says that, without probable cause, CBP may retain only information from the border search of an electronic device relating to immigration, customs, and other enforcement matters if such retention is consistent with the applicable system of records notice and subject to the requirements and limitations provided in the directive and applicable law.
CBP Directive No. 3340-049B §§5.6.1, 5.6.2, 5.6.4 (eff. 1 Jan 2026)
“CBP may retain copies of information from an electronic device when, based on a review of the information encountered or on other facts and circumstances, they determine there is probable cause to believe the information contains digital contraband or evidence of a violation of law that CBP is authorized to enforce or administer, subject to the requirements and limitations provided herein and applicable law.—Without probable cause, CBP may retain only information from the border search of an electronic device relating to immigration, customs, and other enforcement matters if such retention is consistent with the applicable system of records notice and subject to the requirements and limitations provided herein and applicable law.—Following the completion of the border search, CBP will retain no copies of the information beyond twenty-one (21) calendar days following the conclusion of the border search unless retention is permissible or required consistent with sections 5.6.1, 5.6.2, or 5.6.3.”
Read it at cbp.govquote checked 2026-10-02
Rule 41(g) says that a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return, and that the motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g)
“A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized.”
Read it at law.cornell.eduquote checked 2026-09-08
What the sources say
What a document, a report, an agency publication or a provision says, quoted as it is worded.
Utah H.B. 57, as enrolled in 2019, said that, except as provided in Subsection (2), for a criminal investigation or prosecution, a law enforcement agency may not obtain, without a search warrant issued by a court upon probable cause, the location information, stored data, or transmitted data of an electronic device. This is the text of a bill as enrolled in 2019. This page does not quote the current Utah Code section 77-23c-102 and does not say what it now provides.
Utah H.B. 57, as enrolled, 2019, amending Utah Code §77-23c-102(1)(a)
“Except as provided in Subsection (2)—for a criminal—investigation or prosecution, a law enforcement agency may not obtain, without a search—warrant issued by a court upon probable cause—the location information, stored data, or transmitted data of an electronic device”
Read it at le.utah.govquote checked 2026-10-02
Utah H.B. 57, as enrolled in 2019, said in Subsection (2)(a) that a law enforcement agency may obtain location information without a warrant for an electronic device: (i) in accordance with Section 53-10-104.5; (ii) if the device is reported stolen by the owner; (iii) with the informed, affirmative consent of the owner or user of the electronic device; (iv) in accordance with a judicially recognized exception to warrant requirements; (v) if the owner has voluntarily and publicly disclosed the location information; or (vi) from the remote computing service provider if the remote computing service provider voluntarily discloses the location information, (A) under a belief that an emergency exists involving an imminent risk to an individual of death, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, live-streamed sexual exploitation, kidnapping, or human trafficking, or (B) that is inadvertently discovered by the remote computing service provider and appears to pertain to the commission of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving physical violence, sexual abuse, or dishonesty.
This is the text of a bill as enrolled in 2019. This page does not quote the current Utah Code section 77-23c-102 and does not say what it now provides. Subsection (2)(a) concerned location information. Subsection (2)(b) of the enrolled bill was a separate list, for stored or transmitted data: it said that a law enforcement agency may obtain stored or transmitted data from an electronic device, or electronic information or data transmitted by the owner of the electronic information or data to a remote computing service provider, without a warrant (i) with the informed consent of the owner of the electronic device or electronic information or data; (ii) in accordance with a judicially recognized exception to warrant requirements; (iii) in connection with a report forwarded by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2258A; or (iv) subject to Subsection 77-23c-102(2)(a)(vi)(B), from a remote computing service provider if the remote computing service provider voluntarily discloses the stored or transmitted data as otherwise permitted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2702. Subsection (2) of the enrolled bill had further text not set out here.
Utah H.B. 57, as enrolled, 2019, Subsection (2)(a)–(b)
“(2) (a) A—law enforcement agency may obtain location information—without a warrant for an electronic device:—(i) in accordance with Section 53-10-104.5;—(ii) if the device is reported stolen by the owner;—(iii) with the informed, affirmative consent of the owner or user of the electronic—device;—(iv) in accordance with a judicially recognized—exception to warrant—requirements;—(v) if the owner has voluntarily and publicly disclosed the location information—; or—(vi) from the remote computing service provider if the remote computing service—provider voluntarily discloses the location information:—(A) under a belief that an emergency exists involving an imminent risk to an individual—of death, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, live-streamed sexual exploitation, kidnapping,—or human trafficking; or—(B) that is inadvertently discovered by the remote computing service provider and—appears to pertain to the commission of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving physical—violence, sexual abuse, or dishonesty.—(b) A law enforcement agency may obtain stored or transmitted data from an electronic—device, or electronic information or data transmitted by the owner of the electronic information—or data to a remote computing service provider, without a warrant:—(i) with the informed consent of the owner of the electronic device or electronic—information or data;—(ii) in accordance with a judicially recognized exception to warrant requirements;—(iii) in connection with a report forwarded by the National Center for Missing and—Exploited Children under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2258A; or—(iv) subject to Subsection 77-23c-102(2)(a)(vi)(B), from a remote computing service—provider if the remote computing service provider voluntarily discloses the stored or—transmitted data as otherwise permitted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2702.”
Read it at le.utah.govquote checked 2026-10-06
Asking a court for it back
What a warrant already allows with a copy
Except for a tracking-device warrant, Rule 41(e)(2)(A) requires the warrant to “designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned.” Rule 41(e)(2)(B) says that a warrant under Rule 41(e)(2)(A) “may authorize the seizure of electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information. Unless otherwise specified, the warrant authorizes a later review of the media or information consistent with the warrant.”
At the border, there’s an actual number
CBP’s own directive says that, following the completion of the border search, CBP “will retain no copies of the information beyond twenty-one (21) calendar days following the conclusion of the border search unless retention is permissible or required consistent with sections 5.6.1, 5.6.2, or 5.6.3.” Section 5.6.1 of the directive says CBP may retain copies where it determines there is probable cause to believe the information contains digital contraband or evidence of a violation of law that CBP is authorized to enforce or administer, subject to the requirements and limitations provided in the directive and applicable law. Section 5.6.2 says: “Without probable cause, CBP may retain only information from the border search of an electronic device relating to immigration, customs, and other enforcement matters if such retention is consistent with the applicable system of records notice and subject to the requirements and limitations provided herein and applicable law.” See CBP and your phone at the U.S. border for the rest of that directive.
Away from the border, we have not found a general rule
Outside CBP’s border-specific 21-day figure and the Rule 41(g) motion described above, this site has not found a general federal rule that fixes how long a copy of your phone’s data may be kept once ordinary domestic law enforcement has extracted it. That is a statement about what we could not find, not a claim that no such rule exists anywhere — if you know of one, please tell us so it can be checked and added.
One state: what a bill enrolled in 2019 said
The state text quoted on this page is Utah’s, and only as a bill as enrolled in 2019: the enrolled copy of H.B. 57 (2019) said that, except as provided in Subsection (2), for a criminal investigation or prosecution, a law enforcement agency may not obtain, without a search warrant issued by a court upon probable cause, the location information, stored data, or transmitted data of an electronic device. This is the text of a bill as enrolled in 2019. This page does not quote the current Utah Code section 77-23c-102 and does not say what it now provides.
Subsection (2)(a) of the same section, as that enrolled copy printed it, was about location information, not stored data: it said that a law enforcement agency may obtain location information without a warrant for an electronic device in the circumstances it listed, which are set out under “What the sources say” on this page. Subsection (2)(b) was a separate list, for stored or transmitted data; it is set out there too. Subsection (2) of the enrolled bill had further text not set out here.
Other states’ statutes are not on this page. Rulings of state supreme courts on compelled passcodes, which is a different question, are on Compelled passcodes: state supreme court rulings, by state.
Last reviewed . Next review due . No lawyer has reviewed this page — see [email protected] if you think something here is wrong.