For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
A different way to phrase it might be: The officers and the suspects disagree about what a reasonable suspicion might entail. Given the incentives, I don't think this is surprising.
I'll admit, my point in no way addresses yours -- how often are officers adhering the the specific legal standard?
I'm really not sure how often officers violate the standard; it wouldn't shock me if it were frequent
But when they do, courts will suppress the evidence, and anything that's obtained from knowledge gained in that search ("fruit of the poisoned tree").
I trust that mechanism. And think it's likely better held in the US than literally any other country (v open to evidence to the contrary though)
Reasonable suspicion is not required for every search at a border crossing, and the Federal circuit courts are split on whether it is required for a forensic examination of a mobile phone at a border crossing. The 9th circuit has jurisdiction in this case, and has ruled that it is required.
Did Cotterman 2013 clear this up? How does are circuit courts split yet the 9th assumed jurisdiction?
So in some parts of the US, reasonable suspicion is required. In some parts, it isn't. In some parts, there is no binding precedent on the issue. It's likely that the supreme court will hear a case on the issue eventually.
