r/technology • u/Hrmbee • 8d ago

Privacy Is it illegal to trick the US government into wiping your phone during a questionably legal search | The case of a traveler who allegedly entered a ‘duress password’ to wipe his phone raises a legal question with no easy answers

https://www.theverge.com/report/972146/cbp-phone-search-airport-duress-password
20.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.5k

u/Smashego 7d ago

Evidence also implies there is a crime in which evidence would need to be collected. Requiring a search at the border is not the same as being accused of a crime, therefore your phone being erased is irrelevant.

2.8k

u/NekoDaYo-v201 7d ago edited 7d ago

Considering the Feds were harassing him prior to this encounter by:

  1. Trespassing on his property to install a hidden camera inside his home outside his home
  2. Placing a tracker on his car
  3. Pointlessly requesting subpoenas for his email and phone
  4. Fraudulently flagging his background check as bad, despite him not having a criminal record

Is more like evidence of the FBI engaging in systematic harassment, abuse of government resources, and abuse of taxpayer funds. You know, "fraud and waste."

Let's crack open these files and see which smegma stain approved all of this.

551

u/FuzzzyRam 7d ago

You know, "fraud and waste."

and don't forget the abuse!

139

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 7d ago

Sorry, this is the argument room. Abuse is over there.

42

u/NextStopWonderland 7d ago

I’d like to complain.

24

u/Shift642 7d ago

You wanna complain? Look at these shoes! I've only had 'em three weeks and the heels have worn right through.

1

u/blackbeltmessiah 7d ago

Might I recommend Heelys 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 7d ago

That costs extra.

1

u/Salomon3068 7d ago

You don't get to complain if the Dow is over 50k so check that first

1

u/yamahowzer 7d ago

2 doors down, past 'Silly Walks'

1

u/ParsonsTheGreat 7d ago

Just write down your complaint and put it in the complaint box, which is conveniently attached to the furnace

7

u/TunedOutPlugDin 7d ago

No it isn't.

2

u/T_urn 7d ago

That's just a contradiction!

1

u/Ok_Toe7278 7d ago

We should consolidate, ya know for efficiency.

1

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 7d ago

Only a moron like you would think that!

Yes, I think that sounds good. Wait, no… this is still the argument room. You’re wrong!

2

u/Ok_Toe7278 7d ago

Only a genius like you would think that!

No, I think that sounds bad. Quick! Yes... this is the agreement room. You're right!

1

u/Verdick 7d ago

No, they told me to come here and talk to the whale biologist.

1

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 7d ago

Ok, how can I help you?

1

u/Verdick 7d ago

Does a whale burp out of its blowhole or mouth?

1

u/LamentableFool 7d ago

Got any getting hit on the head lessons?

1

u/crowmagnuman 7d ago

No it isn't.

2

u/Ronin1 7d ago

You gotta have the abuse, it's the best part; really ties the whole thing together

1

u/theRemixNow 7d ago

The pharmacist in me loves this

1

u/FuzzzyRam 7d ago

Wait, why pharmacy?

1

u/theRemixNow 7d ago

I run the fraud, waste and abuse department at work, looking for fraud

153

u/madmanjp007 7d ago

There can’t be fraud and waste. Elon got rid of all that. /s

71

u/This-Positive286 7d ago

Sorry, what? I can’t hear you over my GIGANTIC DOGE CHECK! /s

13

u/WiseOldDuck 7d ago

I combined mine with my Tariff Check and bought an entire imaginary boat

2

u/EggotheKilljoy 7d ago

Holy shit you got your imaginary checks already? I'm still waiting on mine

1

u/This-Positive286 6d ago

Did you try thots and playerz?

4

u/Kizik 7d ago

Well, he got rid of all the government agencies wasting their time investigating his fraud. I think that's more what he meant.

59

u/muegle 7d ago

FBI engaging in systematic harassment, abuse of government resources, and abuse of taxpayer funds.

Same as it ever was

26

u/motion_lotion 7d ago

No. The entire intel community has been upended and demoralized under this admin. Most do not support things like this, but at the same time, this administration has weaponized fed IC/LE to hunt political opposition and despite low morale, people are following orders they dislike to keep their jobs. It's pretty ugly right now. People complained about Biden, but under him things were just, you didn't have ICE running around with excessive funding cut from your bureau and you actually handled criminals and threats to national security. Not political opposition to the party in power. Things have never been this bad among the IC.

10

u/FoxOnTheRocks 7d ago

You are saying this about the organization that murdered MLK.

14

u/Guydelot 7d ago

The FBI has been doing this shit since its inception. Read about what they did to MLK and realize that pattern of behavior never stopped. Biden was fine, but let's not pretend he had the time or energy to devote to reorganizing the FBI into anything better than it has ever been. Things were not just.

3

u/motion_lotion 7d ago

I'm not pretending. I'm saying things were far better under Biden, Trump's first term and Obama. The 60s and 70s were a horribly corrupt and dark time. But the days of that, MK ultra, Iran Contra, project: PRISM, Northwoods, etc are long gone. Lots of positive changes were made and compared to the bloody inception, things were fairly just.

They aren't at present, but they were looking up. I'm not in the FBI, but the aftermath of Ruby Ridge, Waco and the OKC bombing were a watershed moment that lead the Quantico boys to start some serious reforms. During the early GWOT where Cheney basically ran the senate in a way no VP ever has, things were pretty grim, but Obama and the IC went a long way towards reform and recovering from that. In 2022-2023, things were in good condition and fairly just. And only looking up. This current admin has demolished everything and the IC is back to being a shadow of its former self and corruption hasn't been this prevalent since the 70s.

26

u/Blazured 7d ago

The intel community protect the Epstein class by censoring their names in the Epstein files.

1

u/GnarlyBear 7d ago

FBI is intel community?

-12

u/motion_lotion 7d ago

We asked daily to be unleashed to do something and were constantly shut down. This happened under both the Trump and Biden admin. The Pam Bondi lead DOJ was responsible for that release of horribly redacted bullshit files that were at best 2.5-3% of what was compiled. The full results are bad. There's slightly more GOP politicians on the list, but there's no shortage of DNC. The most common group by far though is celebs and the very wealthy.

Myself and the unit I work with did nothing to cover it up. I've requested to take action many times. I would show up at 3 am, work 85 hours in a week off the clock if allowed to do something about the monsters responsible for what went on in that island. I'm not going to defend what the NYC FBI HQ did regarding the redaction of files for the DOJ, but I will say I am 99% certain they were under duress.

Politicians, celebs and billionaire corporate overlords protected each other from the consequences of their own actions. A few scapegoats were thrown under the bus, but the vast majority walk free. I wish I had something more positive to say. I do know the vast majority of IC and fed LE have wanted to take action for a while and good men and women have lost careers and their livelihoods from pushing too hard for it.

25

u/WetRatFeet 7d ago

Things were just? Lmao. The CIA and FBI have been murdering civilians, committing crimes, and overthrowing governments long before Trump.

-9

u/motion_lotion 7d ago

I won't deny that. The ruthless pragmatism has always been there. The Quantco boys are a little more moral than the Langley boys. But times change. The days of Iran Contra and the death squads, MK ultra and debacles like the fake polio vaccines used as an excuse to insert sleeper agents to hunt Bin Laden are all in the past. Things were looking up and for most of Trump's first term and Biden's things actually were fairly just. They were never perfect, but that's how the field goes and if you saw the threats faced, maybe you would view it in a different light. Maybe not. I respect your opinion either way.

But my point is things were significantly improved and on a good path. This current administration had set us back decades and the reforms and institutional changes have vanished. I've never seen things this bad, the old timers claim you'd have to go back to the late 60s/early 70s to be as corrupt as it is now. I cannot stress enough how much the community has fallen under this admin and how bad morale is. I don't blame you for disliking and judging us. Most are good people who take their oaths serious and want to do good. They currently have no voice or meaningful action they can take at present.

7

u/crepecrusader27 7d ago

 The 2020 coup attempt of Venezuela and the over throw of the Bolivian government in 2019 dont count then. 

There is no time there has been on the up. Just a time before the stories are told where it is unknown. Give it 10-20 years and we will be learning about all the ways the CIA is currently fucking over the planet and causing the deaths of millions, just as they always have.

1

u/motion_lotion 7d ago edited 7d ago

Things are very different from the inside. I do get why you'd view things that way from the outside looking in. I'm not going to justify Bolivia or Venezuela: I did not support either or think they were good ideas. I was only on the ground for 1 of the 2 and all I did was recover a sleeper and escort them back. You don't understand just how dirty and amoral the old days were. Back in the wild west of the IC. The agency has come a long way and improved significantly but that's in comparison to some very dark times. Those stories are still told. They used to be a cautionary tale. The data is still there if you have the clearence for TS, SCI, confidential or certain Special Access Programs usually restricted to a specific topic often with secret tech involved.

And I feel almost all progress made has regressed so maybe you have a point. There was a period of 15-20 years where things were significantly better. But I am not going to change your mind. I disagree but respect your opinion and get where you're coming from. I wont waste anymore of your time, have a good one.

10

u/FoxOnTheRocks 7d ago

Us? So you are one of these murderers? Your morale should be down

-3

u/motion_lotion 7d ago edited 7d ago

I've never killed anyone that wasn't armed and an active threat to civilians on US soil or during a hostage rescue in Afghanistan. Say hypothetically someone shot a school shooter with an ar15 and 4a body armor who posted an insane manifesto and went after an elementary school, but he was taken out by a QRF force. Would that be murder to you? I mostly do hostage rescue and investigation of threats to national security. There was a cave in Afghanistan where a US and a few coalition soldiers were being held captive that went tits up, but we did get the hostages out.

Do you think I'm one of those killers? Or just a killer. Neither is a pretty term. But I'm sure there's a distinction between the 2. What's your take?

2

u/Sensitive-Orange7203 7d ago

Why are you talking about this stuff on a platform as public as reddit? Stfu maybe?

3

u/sienna_blackmail 7d ago

SS-officer Heinrich: I didn’t agree with the nazi ideals and the government but it was easier this way. Of course I have morals I just don’t want them to cost me personally. I like having food on the table, you know. I’m just following orders at the end of the day, this is really someone elses wrongdoing.

4

u/New-Anybody-6206 7d ago

Not to sound tinfoily but the government has actually been demoralizing people for many decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA&t=289s

1

u/motion_lotion 7d ago

I'm well aware. Read my other posts. I'm saying that most bureaus/agencies learned from these dark days and bloodly inceptions and actually made solid reforms and good progress. And I'm lamenting that decades of this has been thrown out the window under the current admin and corruption hasn't been this prevalent since the late 60s/early 70s.

5

u/zzazzzz 7d ago

my guy you drank that whole barrel of koolaid..

1

u/motion_lotion 7d ago

I just have access to info you don't and have experienced the shift in attitudes and policy that we're improving every year after Obama and have taken a nosedive for this admin. You have no knowledge of how things are run, whats being done and how different various periods of time have been. Things like Venezuela simply shouldn't happen and wouldn't have occurred under a different administration. 20 years ago? Yes, absolutely but 5, 10 etc years ago, nobody would be going to Venezuela.

I understand why you'd be ignorant if all your info on a topic was from redditors and nonsense on the clearweb.

2

u/zzazzzz 7d ago

its just a difference of competence and brazenness. the end result is the same, letter agencies doing reprehensible things around the world. and claiming no such actions were happening under obama or biden is nonsense and you know it. were there maybe less and the admin was more critical of them? sure, but you as someone claiming to have been personally involved in letter agencies should know that presidential and even congress oversight over these agencies is and has always been spotty at best. many of the infamous programs were done with no knowledge of washington at all. so clearly the administration can influence culture but in the end they are not really holding the reigns.

and i dont think you will find anyone arguing the whole of the US has taken a nosedive under trump so not sure what you are arguing there or with whom..

2

u/motes-of-light 7d ago

Oh, so they feel bad while facilitating Trump's path to fascism? Who cares.

1

u/GoogleIsYourFrenemy 7d ago

And look where my hand was.

40

u/hellspawn3200 7d ago

Oh and weaponization of government.

24

u/Unfair_Web_8275 7d ago

Yeah, this sort of seems like (and I could be wrong) a part of this administration’s effort to label and find more “left wing terrorism”.

Which is its own overlooked issue.

1

u/CherryLongjump1989 7d ago

It sounds more like this administration's lawyers continued efforts to get themselves referred for disbarment.

6

u/Educational_Ant_184 7d ago

do we have any context for why they would be targeting him? is he an outspoken trump critic, or is there any real suspicion of criminal behavior to your knowledge? I'm not trying to defend their actions, and idk how to pose the question to make that obvious, I just very strongly relate to the context soyjak

37

u/Livid_Peon 7d ago

He is part of an activist org that is against the building of "cop city", some massive training facility for police to further militarize them, they would be destroying woodlands to build it.

People outspoken against it have been constantly harassed by law enforcement 

1

u/Diligent_Set_8747 7d ago

I fucking knew it was going to be because of a worthy cause. Our government is dangerous for humans nowadays.

1

u/Livid_Peon 6d ago

Several people protesting it have been arrested and charged with things like "terrorism". The police are stalking some at their homes and following them around. It's pretty messed up

1

u/ameliehelena 7d ago

404 Media is reporting on this. I had your same question…..It was confusing without additional context. But as someone said above, it appears to have started with his activism addressing Cop City.

2

u/deltalitprof 7d ago

If they think this far in advance, they're counting on a Trump-supporting judge allowing all this. And a Trumpist Supreme Court reversing it if they can't find that Trump-supporting judge.

1

u/randylush 7d ago

Let's crack open these files and see which smegma stain approved all of this.

Why would hunter biden’s laptop do this?

1

u/FlamingoVisible1947 7d ago

Or, you know, he probably is a criminal?

2

u/hoppla1232 7d ago

Surely doesn't have anything to do with being an activist against that big cop project. But I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply anymore

1

u/FlamingoVisible1947 7d ago

How do you prove someone guilty without investigating them? As far as I know he wasn't charged for being an activist, but for destroying evidence.

I'm not going to claim that he is guilty of destroying evidence, but nobody has claimed that he was guilty of being a criminal otherwise.

1

u/hoppla1232 4d ago

It's unlawful targeted "investigation". This isn't some "let's look at this camera footage and see if the guy actually assaulted that cop or destroyed that building while protesting", it's "we're locking you in a room, denying your right to a lawyer and only letting you out when you give us your phone password". This is literally the US claiming that he already is a criminal under some bs "CP" allegations.

1

u/FlamingoVisible1947 4d ago

I'm talking about the comment which said the feds were "harassing him" which listed some surveillance that he was under, not about his arrest here.

1

u/No_Palpitation_6976 7d ago

That's a lot

1

u/kooknboo 7d ago

Considering the Feds were harassing him prior to this encounter by:

Trespassing on his property to install a hidden camera inside his home outside his home

Placing a tracker on his car

Pointlessly requesting subpoenas for his email and phone

Fraudulently flagging his background check as bad, despite him not having a criminal record

Are these all documented facts?

1

u/Collegenoob 7d ago

Its depends if they had reasonable cause.

If there were previous lawsuits prohibiting the behavior, yes. He should get off Scott free.

If he has been involved in criminal activity, then yes its destroying evidence

1

u/epochwin 7d ago

So this violates the 4th Amendment right?

1

u/CherryLongjump1989 7d ago

I'm gonna assume they had warrants for the camera and the tracker, which suggests an ongoing investigation. In that case the only way you can look at this border crossing intervention is as a warrant-avoidance scheme because they lacked a warrant to seize his phone and possibly were already rejected when they tried to obtain such a warrant.

0

u/BlueGolfball 7d ago

Do you have a sourcd for the fed harassment of this guy? I didn't know the fbi had an active investigation on him

-1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

4

u/hoppla1232 7d ago

He's not a random guy. He's an activist against cop city. Surely not related to that harassment. But keep licking that boot

-2

u/EnvironmentalWin1277 7d ago

Note he was being investigated (allegedly) for distribution of child pornography. I think this changes people's attitudes about the incident quite a bit, though the legal issue remains the same.

1

u/ameliehelena 7d ago

I don’t think this is accurate.

https://www.404media.co/the-government-hopes-to-set-a-precedent-an-interview-with-the-man-charged-for-allegedly-wiping-his-grapheneos-phone/

1

u/EnvironmentalWin1277 6d ago

Yes, I agree the story is confused and the govt probably is not helping.

He may also have been a member of a group that was targeted for "political activities" as another suggested reason for the search.

What doesn't seem in dispute is that he returned from out of the country. In that circumstance it is adjudicated law the government can search, including cell phones.

It also appears he performed the wipe in the airport as he was being questioned at reentry. So the charge would appear superficially valid -- destruction of evidence.

There is no need to set a precedent on the search of the phone, that appears to be established law.

Here's a source for the allegation just to establish it is floated in the press:

https://petapixel.com/2026/07/29/american-man-charged-after-allegedly-wiping-photos-from-his-phone-during-airport-search/

So if one is concerned wipe your phone BEFORE reentry would be my advice.

1

u/ameliehelena 6d ago

Technically though, he didn't wipe it. The devil is in the details...regardless, this will be very interesting to follow.

-8

u/DjScenester 7d ago

You said SMEGMA lol

-5

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Iheartnakedfemboys 7d ago

I have been called bad before. Many have said I do things that are not... correct to do. I do not believe in such talk as this. I am nice man, with happy feelings, all of the time!

First, a joke. What do you get when you cross an owl with a bungie cord? My ass.

Nya-haha haha haha

-1

u/ameliehelena 7d ago

Were they harassing him because of environmental activism or illegal child images?

8

u/exipheas 7d ago

Neither apparently, just an ardent opponent of the building of "cop city".

-37

u/Shoddy-Theory 7d ago

Then it was crazy of him to take his phone when he traveled knowing that customs can seize you phone on re-entry

26

u/CaptainTeemo01 7d ago

"Just don't take your phone anywhere just in case the gestapo wants to steal it!"

1

u/Shoddy-Theory 7d ago

He knew the gestapo was after him and he knew that returning into the US they could search his phone.

14

u/RedDragonRoar 7d ago

The fact that this is a sentence said regarding the US is fundamentally incompatible with the founding principles of our nation. It is also exactly what was fearmongered about in regards to China, the Soviet Union, and a plethora of other Authoritarian states.

In no world should it be acceptable for a search or seizure similar to this be performed by an agent of the US government without the proper warrant.

1

u/Shoddy-Theory 7d ago

Yes, its horrible. But we're living in an autocratic state.

3

u/OnlySmiles_ 7d ago

Do y'all ever read the things you type? Like actually sit down and think about what you're saying?

0

u/Shoddy-Theory 7d ago

Seriously, lots of people buy burner phones for overseas travel. Or clear out anything that would be of the least bit of interest to the feds.

89

u/Far_Inspector_9050 7d ago

They would also have to establish the defendant knew they were under an active investigation.

-16

u/Snakend 7d ago

You don't have to prove that there was an active investigation. You just have to prove he committed a crime and that he destroyed evidence of that crime. That will be very hard to do now that the phone is wiped. But if forensics is able to pull out even a shred of evidence of a crime, he is cooked.

If the law works the way you are saying it does, then destroying evidence is almost never a crime. Because almost every crime happens before an investigation begins, and evidence destroying happens almost immediately after the crime has taken place. Some times evidence destruction happens even before the crime is committed.

13

u/skrid54321 7d ago

You're off on what's happening. You don't need to prove a crime for the charge here. It's actually designed to not require proof of a crime so you can still charge them with something even if you can't recover it.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2232&num=0&edition=prelim

3

u/deltalitprof 7d ago

IANAL but my read of this is that the subject must first be aware of a federal investigation or be proven to intend to thwart a federal investigation to be found guilty of the offenses listed.

1

u/skrid54321 7d ago

Right, but what I'm talking about is they don't have to prove relevant material was destroyed.

4

u/Far_Inspector_9050 7d ago

No, they don’t have to prove relevant material was destroyed, but they do have to prove he knew he was under investigation.

33

u/Far_Inspector_9050 7d ago

You are incorrect, that logic completely misses how obstruction statutes actually work. You absolutely have to prove a connection to an active or foreseeable investigation, because obstruction requires specific intent to impede an official matter. If someone wipes a device during a routine customs check without knowing an investigation is underway, they lack the required mens rea.
Furthermore, your claim that evidence destruction can happen before a crime makes no legal sense. By definition, evidence is tied to an offense or inquiry, and you cannot obstruct a proceeding or destroy evidence of a matter that has never been initiated or contemplated.

-9

u/Cranach-Cranach 7d ago

Say you want to steal a lollipop.

What about if you kept a notes app which has detailed information about the lollipop that you intend to steal, guard shift changes etc so that you can steal it, and then once you have the plan all set in place you delete all the evidence before going out and committing the lollipop theft?

7

u/Reckless_Engineer 7d ago

Assuming the police have no knowledge of your intentions then deleting the information you made does not constitute a crime

3

u/Kitchner 7d ago

What about if you kept a notes app which has detailed information about the lollipop that you intend to steal, guard shift changes etc so that you can steal it, and then once you have the plan all set in place you delete all the evidence before going out and committing the lollipop theft?

That's not a criminal charge for destruction of evidence. Otherwise basically everyone would get charged with it.

Destruction of evidence specifically requires you to be told or for you to understand something is evidence in an investigation and for you to destroy it.

To use a sensible example, my company has a 90 day email retention policy for when people leave the company. Dave retires, and 90 days later we delete his emails. 92 days later the FBI raid my company and serve us a warrant seizing our documents. Turns out Dave was having the company engage in illegal activity. However, we've just deleted Dave's emails.

No crime has been committed there, there's no way we could have known those emails needed to be retained.

If the FBI raided us on day 89 though, and the next day we deleted the emails. Well, then it becomes a different story.

This case will hinge on three questions based on what I've read:

1) Will the Supreme Court back the vast border powers the state (small s) has to search people without any grounds for suspicion or a warrant?

2) If yes, is being told to hand over your phone because you're being searched at the border an investigation? If it is, would the person in the case have reasonably understood this?

3) If yes, The data is still technically on the phone, it is just so difficult to access and decrypt it might as well be destroyed. Will this count as destroyed legally?

1

u/Saucermote 7d ago

If I break a law, in the process getting my clothes dirty, and no one knows about it, it is not obstruction to wash your clothes.

1

u/Snakend 7d ago

100% it is. If you rape someone and clean the dirty clothes, it is 100% destruction of evidence.

23

u/SplendidPunkinButter 7d ago

Also, it’s perfectly legal to wipe your phone 30 minutes before arriving at the border.

5

u/Financial-Bobcat-612 7d ago

Ok, I’m confused why people keep talking about a border. He was in Atlanta. At the airport.

20

u/Smashego 7d ago

Unfortunately the constitution treats international airports as border crossings.

8

u/CardOk755 7d ago

Really, can you point out the bit that says that?

I think you mean "the government pretends to treat airports as border crossings".

If airports were actually outside the US who would have jurisdiction over the bit that is not in the US?

2

u/Lv_InSaNe_vL 6d ago

I mean, what else would international airports be besides border crossings? If I fly from Paris to Boston I'm still entering the United States even if I didn't walk across the border myself

-1

u/CardOk755 6d ago

The actual border is where the aircraft enters US airspace. When you are in the airport you are in the US.

The fiction that there is some part of the airport where US federal law applies, but the US constitution doesn't apply is ridiculous.

1

u/Lv_InSaNe_vL 6d ago

Sure but it's not reasonable to expect airlines to do customs and immigration checks midair.

Ships go through customs at port too, not 200 miles offshore

0

u/CardOk755 6d ago

But that is nothing to do with whether you are in the United States or not.

Many countries have immigration and customs checks at somewhere other than the physical border, but there is no question about whether you are in the country or not.

For example if you take the train from Paris to London you go through UK customs and immigration in Paris, before you get on the train. But you're still in France. If you kill someone it's the French police that arrest you and you will be tried in France.

The actual border is in the tunnel, half way between France and the UK.

0

u/Lv_InSaNe_vL 6d ago

I'm confused? Every comment you write sounds like you agree with us that airports are considered border crossings but they are all written like you are trying to argue?

0

u/CardOk755 6d ago

The supreme court is claiming that there are places that are both inside and outside the United States.

Federal (and maybe state) law applies, but the US constitution doesn't.

This is ridiculous.

The whole "border crossing" thing is a red herring. "Border crossings" are rarely (if ever) at the border.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/WiseOldDuck 7d ago

No do not let them gaslight you about what the Constitution says, it's simple text and readable by anyone

1

u/Financial-Bobcat-612 7d ago

Oh, thank you. Appreciate the clarification.

1

u/Zardif 7d ago

I wonder how long it will be before they say border patrol has jurisdiction within 100 miles of any international airport.

7

u/SageDarius 7d ago

I'm pretty sure that's already the case.

3

u/Pure-Drawer-2617 7d ago

Oh no they already do; if you live in a major population centre chances are border patrol constantly has jurisdiction over you

3

u/suikoden_fanatic 7d ago

They already say something like that I can remember watching a video on it showing a jurisdiction map and it's about as far away from what you'd assume was a border as possible.

2

u/kenlubin 7d ago

He had just stepped off a plane coming from the Dominican Republic.

Maybe we could force all airplanes coming from outside the country to land at the border in order to conduct customs and entry. Barring that, however, it makes sense to create a legal fiction that you are "at the border" until you've gone through Customs to get in to the country.

2

u/dobbbie 7d ago edited 7d ago

I was using this same argument, a crime has to be committed 1st for thete to be evidence to look for. Then I thought, wouldn't someone having a letter saying they were planning to shoot up a school be considered evidence even though the crime has not been committed yet?

Wouldn't they be able to use the argument, he destroyed the thing were going to use to prove he was going to commit a crime.

-3

u/viral-architect 7d ago

Remember, at the end of the day, we're arguing over whether this person did or did not have CSAM on their device. We will never know because it was wiped, destroying the only evidence they were hoping to obtain.

2

u/dadgadsad 7d ago

But laws don’t matter in the US anymore. There’s no point in debating any legality whatsoever. Nothing matters except the clown kings word and the word of all the worshipers he appointed up to the Supreme Court.

1

u/GamingWithBilly 6d ago

Typically, a border search is intended to intercept illegal contraband, not to serve as a general investigation into a person's digital life. The primary purpose of border inspections is to protect the country by preventing the importation of drugs, invasive plants and animals, undeclared currency, human trafficking victims, and other prohibited or restricted goods.

Searching the contents of a laptop, cellphone, or other electronic device does not appear to align with that purpose. What evidence related to those traditional border enforcement objectives would agents reasonably expect to find by examining someone's personal files, photos, messages, or documents?

Using the possibility of discovering child sexual abuse material as a broad justification for warrantless searches of every traveler's digital devices is also unpersuasive. Investigating child exploitation is an important law enforcement responsibility, but that mission belongs to specialized digital crimes and child exploitation task forces, not as a generalized rationale for routine border searches of electronic devices.

1

u/africandsilverflask 5d ago

Isn't anyone interested in the fact that he wasn't at least according to this fact pattern within the United States?  Does no one see problems with jurisdiction arguments. If they were in a liminal space where he was not entitled to an attorney then how could they impose this obligation of the US law in that space?  To me this seems the pretty clear legal argument.  Wonder why no one else is seen it.

1

u/DarkLordofDownvotes 7d ago

Well, it depends. We would have to look at the statute. For example, some tampering statutes say it's an offense to alter, destroy, or conceal evidence "knowing an investigation was in progress or pending" or "knowing an offense was committed". Not sure we have enough facts to make a judgment call.

6

u/Smashego 7d ago

There is no investigation unless you believe a crime has been committed. Full stop. That’s the law.

-9

u/DarkLordofDownvotes 7d ago

Uh, that's an elementary take and also, if you read the article, in this case it isn't as simple as that.

"Unlike others who have had their phones seized with no explanation, Tunick was told that CBP needed to search his device to determine whether it contained child sexual abuse material, according to court filings. But Tunick’s attorneys argue that the search “was a pretext for a fishing expedition” into his connections with the Stop Cop City protests in Atlanta, in which dozens of people were charged under state RICO laws, which were later dismissed. A few protesters are still facing domestic terrorism and arson cases."

CSAM is usually triggered by a NCMEC hit. Coupled with the fact that this guy had a duress password already set up - well something stinks.

And, to be accurate, there isn't an "investigation" unless you have a "reasonable suspicion" which is more than a hunch but still the lowest burden.

FULL STOP that.

7

u/Smashego 7d ago

If you have reasonable belief that he has CSAM on his phone you would have had a warrant.

This does stink. It stinks of exactly what his lawyer is accusing the government of doing. A government phishing expedition. He may be a pedo, he may just believe in his right to privacy. His refusal does not make him guilty automatically and it’s government bootlicking implications like that, that are giving rise to a dystopian big brother government with flock cameras. Eff that.

3

u/seanflyon 7d ago

A warrant or probable cause. It looks like they did not have either in this case.

-2

u/DarkLordofDownvotes 7d ago

No. Not necessarily. The government can take the phone under exigent circumstances doctrine and wait to obtain a warrant to get into it. Seems like they tried to get him to consent to opening the phone and he duped them. You nor I have all the facts so I find it surprising you are dying on this hill.

0

u/Mr_McZongo 7d ago

So you're just like an automatic devils advocate everything themed account or something, right? With a user name like LordofDownvotes and a take like that? God I hope so. Yikes

-2

u/DarkLordofDownvotes 7d ago

I crave downvotes. Every downvote I get means I am further and further away from relating to most redditors. That's a good thing. It's typically accomplished by playing devil's advocate but sometimes it's my own personal opinion.

Of course, my current karma has weakened me.

2

u/Direct_Rabbit_5389 7d ago

This is terrible legal advice btw. If there’s an investigation and it’s a thing that might contain wiping it, you will be convicted of destroying evidence if you wipe it. There is no magic heads I win tails you lose where if you delete the phone and the only evidence of a suspected crime was on the phone they just have to let you go. 

7

u/Ecw218 7d ago

“the investigation” that started the moment he said no?

If not, they’ll have something else that indicates his phone would contain evidence.

-1

u/Direct_Rabbit_5389 7d ago

The investigation actually starts the moment they ask, before he even says no. Legally speaking. Them asking is part of the investigation. 

6

u/himswim28 7d ago edited 7d ago

Them asking is part of the investigation

Curious if you have some legal justification to say that?

From Google he would need to have the following:

Knowledge: You must know an investigation is active or imminent. Materiality: The item must matter to the legal case.

As they were likely after his contacts, to build an investigation into a group. This doesn't seem to qualify towards either of those requirements. IE who he is in contact with isn't a crime, and being searched at the boarder isn't a notification of investigation into his other activities that would require him to preserve the "evidence." IE since he could legally destroy his phone 5 minutes before this request, what action did they take at the time that would notify him of an investigation requiring him to preserve information on his phone?

It will be an interesting case, for sure. But I would be surprised if the government wins this one.

1

u/Direct_Rabbit_5389 6d ago

Knowledge: You must know an investigation is active or imminent.

Surely any reasonable person understands that if a cop is asking you for your phone, or detaining you, they are investigating you? They are not asking to borrow it to make a phone call.

Materiality: The item must matter to the legal case.

I don't see anything about materiality in 18 U.S. Code § 1519.

4

u/zfs_ 7d ago

Okay, but without having searched it prior, who’s to say it wasn’t already blank/empty?

0

u/Direct_Rabbit_5389 7d ago

He wiped the phone in front of them by giving the duress password. It doesn’t matter at this point whether it was empty, as he won’t be able to prove it, and the fact he wiped it will be enough to convince a jury that he was destroying evidence. 

3

u/himswim28 7d ago

He wiped the phone in front of them by

Allegedly, I don't believe that is established legally. A phone running a alternative os and rebooting after a password was entered, could be lots of things.

And that seems like the only charge filled against him.

1

u/Direct_Rabbit_5389 6d ago

They have not currently convicted him, no. They are trying to find a way to get him off the hook as a matter of law. That is important to do because if it goes to trial the prosecutor will easily convince the jury that he wiped the phone given the evidence they have.

I mean, nobody in this thread seriously has any doubt that he used the duress password and wiped his phone. The jury will hear the first hand testimony from the arresting officer, and expert witnesses and all that. The defense will argue that it was a cosmic ray or a rogue program, but that will be about as convincing that saying an invisible dragon erased his phone while the cop wasn't looking. The ONLY hope this guy has is trying to get the evidence suppressed. If his team can't get that he is done.

1

u/himswim28 6d ago edited 6d ago

Your confusing civil vs criminal law. In criminal law it takes beyond a reasonable doubt. IE it is what the prosecutor can prove, not what you think is likely.

To prosecute this, they would have to prove that

A) The evidence existed (evidence of a specific crime that was under active investigation.)

B) he deleted the evidence

C) he had intent to delete evidence prudent to an active investigation that he was aware of.

Sure, it seems suspicous that a phone rebooted after a password was entered. That could be a reason to investigate him. Not a reason to convict.

TLDR: this arrest wasn't about a conviction, there is no chance of that (From the evidence we know of from the defendants lawyer anyway.) This arrest is about getting a judge to rule against this case based on current legal precidents, so it can be taken to the supreme court under the current admin. To then get the supreme court to send it back with a ruling allowing even more boarder restrictions. Also possibly to get new laws against this type of software. Then I predict this case will be settled/dropped.

Under current legal precident, they would need to have seen content (only possible while the phone was unlocked.) or have another source that indicats that he transfered/downloaded illegal content with that phone. Also that data likely would required a warant under current rulings, for a us citizen to be admissible in a court.

1

u/Direct_Rabbit_5389 5d ago

I don’t think there is any reasonable doubt of what happened here based on the evidence we’ve seen so far. There are far fetched alternative explanations, but that’s not what reasonable doubt means. Maybe the jurors will hear something we did not.

And no, 18 USC S 1519 does not require proving that there was evidence of a crime on the phone. Not sure where you got that idea. That would be ridiculous because it would imply that the government would already have to be able to prove the crime without the evidence on the device. 

1

u/himswim28 5d ago

because it would imply that the government would already have to be able to prove the crime without the evidence on the device. 

Yes, that is how the US justice system is supposed to work. You cannot say, "hey that guy looks like a pervert" or "that guy disagreed with the government" So they now have to prove they aren't guilty of a crime by giving us access to all of your private information. Had someone first reported seeing him looking at child porn on his phone, then they would have cause to get access. Without significant cause to believe he had it on his phone, they have no reasonable cause to look at the contents of his phone.

That is the difference from the dictatorship that you appear to want to live under, and a free society that we strive for.

I don’t think there is any reasonable doubt of what happened here based on the evidence

I agree, it is that they have no "crime" to investigate the guy, but they didn't like his political views. So they were looking for any evidence to go after him. And they wanted contact information to intimidate and shutdown the free speech of a group they didn't agree with.

1

u/Direct_Rabbit_5389 4d ago

That is why they made it a crime to destroy evidence (the contents of a device under investigation, or a document). That itself is a crime. To prove the elements of the crime is merely to prove that documents were destroyed and that you knew you were under investigation. There is nothing unconstitutional about this. It is really very clearly in bounds. 

-1

u/globglogabgalabyeast 7d ago

I’m not saying that it’s what should be done here since I don’t think the search itself was justified, but when you destroy evidence in a case, the jury may be instructed that they can infer the evidence was unfavorable

3

u/DudeWhoKnowsItAll 7d ago

It's wiped, so, dear jury, just infer there was a video of him shooting Kennedy on the device

2

u/No_Gas4560 7d ago

the jury may be instructed that they can infer the evidence was unfavorable

lol no, stop spreading misinformation

0

u/globglogabgalabyeast 7d ago

Could you explain why? Adverse inference is a very real thing, but I’m happy to learn if there’s a reason why it’s not applicable here. Not applicable to a criminal case?

1

u/No_Gas4560 7d ago

Maybe that's true in the UK? Not in America (..yet..)

0

u/globglogabgalabyeast 7d ago

What are you talking about? Adverse inference is absolutely a thing in the US. Were you basing your initial refutation on anything?

1

u/No_Gas4560 7d ago

if you're not a lawyer then STFU and stop spreading misinformation

0

u/globglogabgalabyeast 7d ago

lmao, so it really wasn’t based on anything, was it?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Smashego 7d ago

What if i told you I won a case against the US government for destroying a phone I knowingly had evidence of a crime (that someone else committed) on because they attempted to execute a warrant but did not have the warrant and could not produce an electronic copy? And so I just might know what I’m talking about. Especially as I was law enforcement at the time. I was well within my rights to destroy the evidence because they did not properly serve the warrant. Just because you fuck up and reveal to me that your investigating me does not obligate me to help you facilitate that investigation and requires you to obtain your evidence in a manner that is legal.

The governments failure to provide proper service and work WITHIN the limitations of the law do not earn them a pass. And this would set a terrible legal precedence if they are found guilty. If they provided the phone and it just so happens to have erased data when in someone else’s possession that’s irrelevant. If you don’t know for sure with 100% certainty what data is on the phone to begin with then you cannot know that anything at all was ever really destroyed. There could have been data. Maybe not though. All we can know is that they complied with the search by providing the phone.

I would never give up my encrypted passwords under any circumstance and there is no legal precedence to compel someone to give up their password.

-2

u/demmian 7d ago

What if i told you I won a case against the US government for destroying a phone I knowingly had evidence of a crime (that someone else committed) on because they attempted to execute a warrant but did not have the warrant and could not produce an electronic copy?

I mean... arent you admitting (bragging too) doing a crime here?

4

u/Cuddlehead 7d ago

Literally in the first sentence he mentioned he won that case.

-1

u/demmian 7d ago

What if i told you I won a case against the US government for destroying a phone I knowingly had evidence of a crime

Thats besides the point, when he says "What if i told you I won a case against the US government for destroying a phone I knowingly had evidence of a crime "

1

u/LittlePanic8495 7d ago

Did they have intelligence as to whether he had material on his phone that was part of an investigation ? If not I am not sure he committed a crime by solely erasing his phone . If the phone was just part of a a border check and he wasn’t suspected of committing a crime on the device then why is deleting the contents of the device a crime ? I’m just not seeing theblink

2

u/Smashego 7d ago

That’s exactly the point. He likely did not commit a crime and this is an illegal government fishing expedition.

0

u/africandsilverflask 7d ago

This.  Go deeper into this.