On August 24, a man known only by his last name, Antoine, arrived at Félix Eboué Airport in Cayenne, French Guiana, to board a flight to Paris. French Guiana, an overseas department of France, has been implementing a security program called "100% control" since October 2022. This initiative requires passengers traveling to mainland France to undergo questioning and luggage searches. According to local officials, the program has led to about 9,000 travel bans in 2023 and 4,500 in 2024. Most of the few legal challenges filed during this time were dismissed. Antoine was banned from traveling for five days after a urine test result was used against him. Border police also confiscated his smartphone and physically restrained him in an attempt to unlock the device using facial recognition, without his permission. Antoine recorded the interaction, but authorities deleted most of the footage, leaving only one recording. He then filed a complaint with the administrative court in French Guiana using a "référé-liberté" procedure, which requires a court decision within 48 hours. During the court hearing, Antoine challenged the validity of the urine test results, arguing he had not been given access to them. Authorities responded that his request for access was not made in writing, thus invalidating it. However, a 2018 decree permits the use of an online platform called Télérecours Citoyens for submitting such requests digitally. The prefecture of French Guiana could not explain how the urine test was conducted or how the results were stored until the hearing. The court found Antoine's account credible and concluded that the prefecture had violated his freedom of movement in a "serious and manifestly illegal" manner. The judge noted that Antoine had faced a similar situation in 2025, where a travel ban was issued but later overturned. However, the state will not cover Antoine's legal costs. The court did not rule on the forced use of facial recognition to unlock his phone. While a 2019 court ruling stated that individuals cannot be forced to provide passcodes, facial recognition and fingerprints—considered physical traits—are seen as exceptions that do not require consent. In Antoine’s case, police used data from a prior trip to Suriname as a reason to suspect drug trafficking, though this was never proven. Despite the court’s ruling, the legal boundaries for law enforcement accessing a suspect’s smartphone remain unclear.