Michigan Lawyer Detained at Detroit Airport, Phone Seized; He Represents Pro-Palestine Protester

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to another lawyer right now. On Thursday, ICE deleted a post on X with a graphic that said, quote, “If it crosses the … border illegally, it’s our job to stop it,” and showed the words “people,” “money,” “products” and “ideas.”

This week, Homeland Security said it’s now surveilling the social media posts of international students and immigrants for alleged antisemitic activity. Amidst the crackdown on international students who exercise their free speech rights during Palestinian solidarity campus protests last year, new felony vandalism and conspiracy charges, that are some of the harshest yet, were filed Thursday against 11 Stanford University students and one former student involved in a building takeover last June.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, Customs and Border Protection at the Detroit Metro Airport detained a lawyer, a U.S. citizen, representing a pro-Palestinian protester facing a felony charge stemming from an encampment at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Civil rights attorney Amir Makled and his family were returning from a spring break trip when he was detained and asked about his clients and asked to hand over his cellphone. He’s based in Dearborn, Michigan, and is joining us now.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Amir. Explain exactly what happened.

AMIR MAKLED: Well, good morning, Amy. Thank you.

What happened is, I was returning home from spring break with my wife and kids. And as I approached the passport control desk, an agent asked if there was a TTRT agent available. I didn’t know what that acronym meant, so I did a Google search. And it meant “Tactical Terrorism Response Team.” That’s when another agent summoned me and my family members to a secondary screening room. And at that point, I was separated from my family. My wife and children were allowed to continue and leave.

But what happened next was quite interesting to me. It didn’t seem as if this was a random stop or a routine search. This was targeted. The special agent that approached was wearing plain clothes. He knew who I was. He knew that I was an attorney. And he knew that I had been representing individuals in high-profile cases as of late, which was a reference to the case of Samantha Lewis. Samantha is one of my clients who has been charged in the encampment at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

At that moment, the agent asked if my cellphone was with me. I said, “Yes.” And he handed me a pamphlet. The pamphlet had an explanation of the federal statute that allows at the border for federal agents to seize my communication device, my telephone. I told him I wasn’t ready to give up my phone, because my phone contains a lot of confidential information and probably over a decade worth of emails and text messages and files from my work as an attorney. At that point, he brought in a supervisor, and the supervisor indicated to me that if I write down on a legal pad everything that I believe could be privileged, “we won’t go through that; otherwise, we’re taking your device.” Knowing that the government could take my device, I still pushed back and said, “No, I’m not going to engage the government in this exercise of writing down what could be confidential and what could be privileged information. That’s a futile exercise and impossibility to do in this setting.”

Last, they come back to me and say, “Look, if you show us your contact list, we’ll give you your phone back; otherwise, we’re taking it.” And so, at that point, I acquiesced. I said, “OK.” I didn’t want my device to be taken by the government, because in other cases, I’ve known that the government could take your phone for days, weeks, or even years in some extreme cases. So, I didn’t want to be in that position where I didn’t have my device. And once it was outside of my control and custody, who knows what the government could do with all the information that was contained in regards to my clients’ information.

They came back with a list of questions about individuals on my contact list. That’s when I said, “This has gone too far.” I cannot divulge whether individuals on my contact list are going to be clients or otherwise. So I told them, “Whoever’s in my phone is going to be a client, a friend or a family member, and that’s all I’m going to engage in.”

And the reason why I feel that this was a targeted approach is because they knew my history. They knew my travel history. They knew that I had been — traveled overseas several times in the past years. They had a whole profile about me. And that showed to me that this wasn’t something that was random. This wasn’t a routine search. This was targeted.

And the fact that they brought up my cases, including the high-profile case that I’m involved in right now, showed and was, to me, an intimidation attempt. It was an attempt to dissuade. And when I look at what the current administration is doing, they’re attacking attorneys. They’re attacking immigration lawyers in federal court for what they claim to be as frivolous filings for asylum seekers. They’re attacking big law firms in Washington, D.C., through executive orders. And so, this is another example of our current administration pushing back and trying to stop the individuals who are speaking up on the war on Gaza.

Our client in this situation, Samantha Lewis, has decided to take a position, in the University of Michigan encampment case, to fight back. That case is involving the criminalization of free speech. None of those students were engaged in anything that was violent. They were peaceful demonstrations with an encampment. And the campus safety police came in with a very strong showing of force, wearing riot gear, holding batons and engaging in mace and other type of chemical repellents, and started busting up this encampment as they were walking in unison in riot gear. And whatever was in their way, whether it was a tent, a desk, a chair, these officers were using their batons and showing force and destroying anything in their path. And that included protesters. And those who resisted that were charged with felonies.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, I mean, is the border some kind of no-man’s land? You’re a U.S. citizen. You’re an attorney. Our phones now contain so much information, it’s like police coming to your home and demanding to get in — right? — into your office. Do they require — 

AMIR MAKLED: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: — a warrant? And why didn’t they in your case? You are a U.S. citizen, and you’re a lawyer.

AMIR MAKLED: I was born in Detroit, Michigan. They do not require a warrant. They can have a warrantless search, without probable cause, without any reasonable suspicion. The statute at the border gives a wide range of authority for government to seize devices. Now, it’s supposed to be done in the sense of national security. That’s the claim. But at this point, everything has been — as you could see from the current administration, even political dissenters are now looked at as a threat to national security. Somebody who protests the war on Gaza is a threat to national security. So, it could be anything.

But the question becomes: Of these warrantless searches and of all the devices that the government has seized in the years that they’ve been doing this, what has led to actual convictions? And I don’t believe that the government even knows what that figure is.

It’s an unreasonable search, and it’s a trample on our constitutional rights at the border. Our rights shouldn’t be stripped at the border crossings; we shouldn’t have the ability to have the protections of the Fourth Amendment because we’re entering back into the United States at a border crossing.

My advice to anybody traveling that’s worried about government getting into their data is to take a different device without all of your data on your phone. You’d have to almost travel with a burner phone, for lack of a better word. This is the only way that you can adequately protect yourself from not having your phone confiscated, because they have the right to do it.

AMY GOODMAN: And at this point, do you know exactly what they took from your phone?

AMIR MAKLED: No, I would have no idea. I gave them only authority to look at my contact list. In fact, I wrote it down, and I said, “Only my contact list is not going to be what I claim to be privileged.” And whether or not they took information outside of that, I would have no idea.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what do you recommend to people who are not lawyers and are traveling? Most people don’t even know what a burner phone is and require what’s in their phones to contact people.

AMIR MAKLED: So, my recommendation is don’t unlock your phones. If you’re coming through the border, keep your phone off. And if an agent does request a secondary screening and your phone is subject to a search, you can keep your phone turned off. You don’t have to give them your password. You don’t have to give them facial recognition. You don’t have to comply with opening your phone and showing agents what’s in your phone.

And if they do decide to confiscate your phone, there are redress programs. There is an ability to get it back. The question is: How long? And those are — CBP policy, Customs and Border Protection policy, indicates that the actual confiscation of a phone has to be done in the most extreme cases, where there is a high level of national security concern. Now, we don’t know exactly what that test is. It’s not a bright line rule. And most individuals coming through the United States should not be, especially as citizens, considered as a national security threat. But, you know, at this point, we have no idea.

AMY GOODMAN: Amir Makled, I want to thank you for being with us, Michigan-based civil rights lawyer, U.S. citizen, defending a pro-Palestinian activist at the University of Michigan encampment. He was detained and questioned Sunday at the Detroit Metro Airport when coming in from a family vacation in the Dominican Republic, asked about his clients, told he had to surrender his cellphone.

When we come back, we speak with one of two Microsoft software engineers fired this week for protesting Israel’s use of Microsoft AI and cloud technology in its assault on Gaza. And then we’ll look at a new film that’s premiering tonight. It’s called The Teacher. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Dominican singer and songwriter Rubby Pérez performing “Hazme Olvidarla,” “Make Me Forget.” The legendary merengue musician was one of more than 220 people killed Tuesday when a roof collapsed at a Santo Domingo nightclub where he was performing. He was 69 years old. Also among the dead, Octavio Dotel and Tony Blanco, two Major League Baseball players.