A French student named Antonin had his travel ban temporarily lifted by an administrative court in French Guiana after being detained at Cayenne Airport on August 24, 2026, during a routine check using the "100% control" system, which is designed to identify individuals possibly involved in drug trafficking. During the stop, Antonin claimed he was physically restrained and that his face was used without his consent to unlock his smartphone through facial recognition technology. He also alleged that border police deleted audio recordings of the encounter, except for one file that remained. During the search of his phone, authorities found a record of a previous trip to Suriname, which they presented as evidence of possible involvement in drug trafficking. However, the court raised concerns about the validity of a urine test that had been used to justify the travel ban. The student was never shown the results of the test, and the administration could not provide details about how the test was conducted or stored, casting doubt on its reliability. The prefecture of French Guiana tried to reject Antonin’s appeal on procedural grounds, arguing that the request was not handwritten. However, the court dismissed this argument, citing a 2018 decree that allows digital submissions through platforms like Télérecours Citoyens or FranceConnect, which are recognized as legally valid for administrative procedures. The judge also determined that the "100% control" system is an administrative police measure, not a judicial one, which influenced the legal framework applied in the case. The court found Antonin’s account credible, noting that his financial situation, method of paying for the ticket, and detailed travel plans did not indicate any suspicious behavior. The judge referenced a similar incident from the previous year, where Antonin was prevented from boarding a flight without any formal charges being filed. Since the administration could not clarify the urine test results, the court ruled in favor of the student’s right to free movement. However, the court did not require the state to cover his legal costs, leaving unresolved the broader issue of whether police have the authority to unlock phones by force.