TDFP Exclusive: U.S. Citizen Sues to Get Back Phones, Laptops CBP Seized at Dulles

A U.S. citizen who works as a psychiatric nurse practitioner has gone to federal court to force U.S. Customs and Border Protection to return two phones and two laptops that officers seized from him and his wife at Washington Dulles International Airport last week, after he refused to unlock his phone because it held his patients' mental health and addiction treatment records.

The filing alleges that CBP officers told him the Fourth Amendment did not apply to his situation, and that when he asked to speak with his lawyer, they answered with words to the effect of, "Your lawyer cannot do anything. We are the authorities at the border."

Muhammad Numaan Imam, 35, and his wife, Khadijah Mansoor, a lawful permanent resident and software engineer, filed the case Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria. It names Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, CBP's Dulles area port director Christine Waugh and up to 10 unknown CBP officers, all in their official capacities.

The filing is a time-sensitive motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which allows a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, or by the loss of their property, to ask a federal court to order the government to give the property back. CBP has not yet responded in court, and none of the allegations has been tested.

What Happened at Dulles

According to the filing, the couple flew from Dulles to Istanbul on Oct. 15. Turkish authorities refused Mansoor entry because she had left her green card at home, and the couple flew back, landing at Dulles at about 9:45 p.m. on Oct. 16.

At customs, the filing says, an officer told Imam he had been flagged in the system but gave no reason. The couple was taken to a secondary screening room with about 10 CBP officers present. Imam says an officer questioned him for about 20 minutes about where he worked, whether he had social media accounts and about friend groups on his phone.

When officers asked for his iPhone passcode, Imam declined, saying the phone held confidential patient information he was professionally and ethically required to protect. According to the filing, officers said they had technology that could filter out patient information protected by HIPAA, the federal health privacy law, and that CBP attorneys would review it. A supervisor later told him HIPAA did not apply and that, because he refused, CBP would take both of the couple's laptops, the filing says.

Another supervisor allegedly told the couple they could do things the "easy way or the hard way," that CBP could access everything on their devices, and that the process could take months.

Imam still declined. Officers then took Mansoor's iPhone without asking for her passcode, and in the end seized both phones and both laptops, the filing says. The couple says they received receipts and contact information but no timeline for getting the devices back. They were allowed to leave at about 1 a.m. on Oct. 17, after about three hours.

About 12 hours later, the filing says, CBP emailed Imam that his Global Entry membership, held since February 2024, had been revoked because he did not meet the "trusted traveler standard."

Patient Records and a Five-Day Rule

Imam says he is on call around the clock at a residential addiction treatment facility and needs his phone for telehealth visits, emergency calls and the second login step required to e-prescribe controlled medications such as buprenorphine. Mansoor says her laptop holds months of code that exists nowhere else.

The filing argues the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and even CBP's own rules. It cites CBP Directive 3340-049B, which it says requires individualized suspicion or a national security concern for an "advanced" device search and bars CBP from keeping devices more than five days without extenuating circumstances and a supervisor's approval. Neither plaintiff, to their knowledge, is under investigation, and no warrant authorizes the seizure, according to the filing.

What the Couple Is Asking For

The couple asks the court to order the immediate return of all four devices, the return and destruction of any data copied from them, a full account of who handled the devices and what tools were used, court-run review of any privileged material, and a standstill order barring CBP from searching the devices in the meantime.

The motion also asks for an expedited hearing. As of Thursday afternoon, the court's public docket showed no hearing scheduled; the only entry was the motion and its exhibits.

The filing lists as a related case Blumenthal v. Mullin, involving phones CBP seized from journalist Max Blumenthal. It says the government returned his phones the day after he went to court, and that the judge later ordered discovery into what was done with them. It also cites a Sept. 26 case in New Jersey over an attorney's phone seized at Newark Airport, which it says CBP returned a couple of weeks later.

Imam and Mansoor are represented by Hassan Ahmad of The HMA Law Firm in Sterling, Va., and Jenin Younes, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

What CBP and the Couple's Lawyer Say

Asked about the case, a CBP spokesperson sent The Digital Free Press the following statement through the Department of Homeland Security's media office:

"U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for protecting our nation’s borders and enforcing numerous laws at U.S. ports of entry. CBP’s ability to lawfully inspect electronic devices crossing the border is integral to keeping America safe in an increasingly digital world.

"All travelers crossing the United States border are subject to CBP inspection. On rare occasions, CBP officers may search a traveler’s mobile phone, computer, camera, or other electronic devices during the inspection process. These searches have been used to identify and combat terrorist activity, drug smuggling, human smuggling, bulk cash smuggling, human trafficking, intellectual property rights violations, and visa fraud, among other violations. They enable the discovery of digital contraband, such as child pornography, illicit transfer of restricted or classified information, or other export-controlled information. Furthermore, border searches of electronic devices are often integral to determining an individual’s intentions upon entry to the United States and thus provide additional information relevant to admissibility of foreign nationals under U.S. immigration laws.

"CBP has established strict guidelines, above and beyond prevailing legal requirements, to ensure that these searches are exercised judiciously and responsibly and are consistent with the public trust.

"The number of travelers crossing the border that experience a border search of their electronic devices is small. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, less than 0.01 percent of arriving international travelers encountered by CBP at a port of entry had their electronic devices searched."

The statement did not address the Dulles seizure, the couple's devices or the allegations in the filing.

Younes, who is lead counsel in the case, told The Digital Free Press on Tuesday evening that CBP had not returned any of the devices or contacted the couple's lawyers since the filing, and that the court had not yet set a hearing date.

"This is demonstrative of a broader pattern where CBP is abusing its authority to punish people for their views and for refusing to comply with unreasonable demands to view the content of their phones," Younes said. "We're representing two other plaintiffs in similar cases — journalist Max Blumenthal and attorney Jalal Shehadeh — and have received numerous other intakes. Courts should step in and stop this abuse of authority."

Image: A CBP officer processes arriving passengers at Washington Dulles International Airport, April 29, 2024, file photo; CBP photo by George Felton / Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Hold Everyone Accountable.

Sources: Motion for return of property, Imam et al. v. Mullin et al., No. 1:26-cv-03499 (E.D. Va., filed Oct. 20, 2026), via CourtListener: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.608533/gov.uscourts.vaed.608533.1.0.pdf ; Declaration of Muhammad Numaan Imam (Exhibit 1 to the motion, ECF 1-2), via CourtListener: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.608533/gov.uscourts.vaed.608533.1.2.pdf ; Court docket, via CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74990201/imam-v-mullin-in-his-official-capacity-as-secretary-of-homeland-security/ ; Statement from a CBP spokesperson to The Digital Free Press (Oct. 21, 2026) ; Email from Jenin Younes to The Digital Free Press (Oct. 20, 2026).