3 ms·
What happens if we take this as precedent? Dismantling a safe to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the safe is left damaged. Teari
by btilly 2y ago
What happens if we take this as precedent?
Dismantling a safe to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the safe is left damaged.
Tearing a house apart to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the house is left damaged.
Disassembling a car to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the car never runs the same later.
Meanwhile you'll find me in the corner that reads the 4th Amendment as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think that if the result of a seizure is the potential permanent damage of my property, then my right to be secure in my possessions should be defended by demanding a higher standard from the government than that required for a mere temporary possession after a seizure. That principle applies just as much to electronics as it does to any physical item.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- modernpacifist 2y ago> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. If they have a search warrant then a judge has, from a legal perspective, determined that the request/search is reasonable. So while you have the right to secure against unreasonable cases I think it is a reasonable trade off that those security mechanisms/processes/etc should either be removed by yourself or you should expect them to be removed for you.
- sidewndr46 2y agoI don't know what fantasy world you live in but the police don't ask you to remove your security mechanisms yourself. Your likely to catch a charge for destruction of evidence if you do that along with a bunch of other related charges
- hn_acker 2y agoConsidering that police can, with a warrant, forcibly place your thumb on your phone's fingerprint sensor to unlock it [1], "I don't know what fantasy world you live in" is unwarranted. [1] https://reason.com/2024/04/19/appeals-court-rules-that-cops-can-physically-make-you-unlock-your-phone/ https://reason.com/2024/04/19/appeals-court-rules-that-cops-...
- sidewndr46 2y agoI specifically said they don't ask. If they are forcing you to do something, they aren't asking
- modernpacifist 2y agoRemoving the security mechanism in my comment is akin to opening the safe to enable the search or entering your PIN number on a phone to unlock it. I can't really see how otherwise removing a roadblock to enable law enforcement to perform their court approved mandate would lead to further charges for the act of helping them do so. Of course if you're referring to poison-pill mechanisms that upon removal destroy the data they wanted to search for then sure, more charges are coming.
- sidewndr46 2y agoThat isn't how it works at all in the US. You'd be asked to provide the combination to the safe. Or compelled under a court order to divulge it under penalty of contempt of court. If you're asked to directly interact with anything like that you're very likely being set up to bring additional charges against you. You can be compelled to provide passwords, combinations, etc. in a court. You can't be compelled to actually enter the safe combination
- Dylan16807 2y agoIf you want to get a close analogy, they already used a warrant to seize the safe/house/car, and already searched it a couple times and still have possession, so that makes a pretty big difference.