3 ms·

>How are they going to prove there was evidence of a crime? They don't have to, only that you destroyed evidence. That's why many people get prosecuted with "o

by gruez 3mo ago

>How are they going to prove there was evidence of a crime? They don't have to, only that you destroyed evidence. That's why many people get prosecuted with "obstruction of justice" rather than the actual crime. >While destruction of potential evidence does introduce a certain amount of leeway that doesn't allow going from absolutely nothing to "evidence was on the wiped device". So if someone was doing insider trading, and the SEC came knocking, then immediately afterwards they start burning every document they have and microwaving their computers, do you think they should get off the hook? Surely you must think, even if the authorities or society can't a priori know you were guilty, the subsequent activity should be illegal? Note this isn't the same as banning burning documents or microwaving computers, only doing so after you're aware there's an ongoing investigation.

fluidcruft 3mo ago
Destroyed evidence of what?
- gruez 3mo ago
  Destroyed materials that might be relevant to an investigation that you know exists.
  - morkalork 3mo ago
    Hmmmm sounds like the government can launch endless bs investigations, wait for their target to throw something (anything, a piece of paper, whatever) in the trash then charge them with destruction of evidence. A infinite guilty-change glitch if you will.
    - gruez 3mo ago
      That's what judges are for, so cute hacks like "putting everyone in the US under "investigation" won't work. That said, if I was under investigation, you bet your ass I'd be extra diligent in ensuring I'm not accidentally shredding any documents.
    - nearbuy 3mo ago
      What you're describing is malicious prosecution or abuse of process. It's illegal and it would destroy the prosecution's case. Not only that, but the victim could sue for damages.
      - tantalor 3mo ago
        Sort of like deliberately targeting somebody for his alleged association with the movement against Cop City?
        nearbuy 3mo ago
        Yes, much like that. If he hadn't destroyed evidence, he could have argued it was malicious prosecution.
- grey413 3mo ago
  To quote the article: suspected terrorism activities because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City Complete horseshit on many levels, but presumably a legally valid investigation.
  - fluidcruft 3mo ago
    Seems like they could have had a warrant in that case.
mexicocitinluez 3mo ago
> So if someone was doing insider trading, and the SEC came knocking, then immediately afterwards they start burning every document they have and microwaving their computers, do you think they should get off the hook? Apples and oranges. They presumably already have some sort of evidence in order to get a warrant and are under criminal investigation. According to the article the agents said it was just a normal part of screening.
- gruez 3mo ago
  >They presumably already have some sort of evidence in order to get a warrant and are under criminal investigation. What if there was no warrant, and the SEC just came to ask questions?
  - mexicocitinluez 3mo ago
    If they came to ask questions, then they presumably already think I've committed a crime. This is not the same as randomly stopping someone and asking to see their phone.
    - gruez 3mo ago
      A trucker passes a weigh station and is signaled to pull in. As he's pulling in, he's seen dumping the contents of a bottle onto the ground. Is this destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice? He's not under any investigation (trucks are regularly weighed at weigh stations as a matter of normal procedure). A company is engaged in some white collar crime. They're tipped off that the DoJ launched an investigation on them. No warrants/subpoenas have been issued, and no investigators have shown up. The company instructs the IT team to scrub their email servers. Is this destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice?
      - Supermancho 3mo ago
        > Is this destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice? The investigators can (and have) threatened both as a tactic, but when the charges are files, the specifics are what the prosecution thinks they can get a conviction on. I think it's understood that the law is interpreted, which has given great leeway to narrative.
Guvante 3mo ago
They need to prove you destroyed evidence, you have the mens rea component with the deceptive pin code but the defense can simply plainly say they didn't want the police to read their private device. Your example is fabricated since the justice department didn't even bring forward a specific crime they believe was committed here. If they charged him with a crime and had evidence his device had evidence of that crime (even if in reality it didn't) that would be a more interesting question. But again where is the crime?
- gruez 3mo ago
  >with the deceptive pin code but the defense can simply plainly say they didn't want the police to read their private device. That's as convincing as saying you burned all the documents because you don't want people who break in to read all your financial records. It just happened to start after the SEC came knocking
  - wpm 3mo ago
    Except this isn't the SEC actually pursuing a voicable crime. This person was under no suspicion at all. They were simply coming home after being abroad: last I checked that is not a crime. Outside of a crime, "evidence" is just called property. If the TSA can't show "we have provable evidence gathered elsewhere to show that there was possible incriminating data on that phone" all they did was wipe this guys phone. All they had was pre-crime "he was involved in the movement against Cop City so we're gonna search his phone". No "he was meeting with terrorists in the DR". No "we have good reason to believe that when he was in the DR he communicated with terrorists". Just "uhhh we were looking for anything prohibited[1] and we targeted this guy because he was involved in some anti-cop protest group 3 years ago". If you can't see how insanely thin their argument is, and how easily this will be abused, I don't know what to tell you. We could just as easily say having any passcode on your phone at all is obstruction of justice, since the feds could want to look on your phone for whatever made up reason, and if they can't because its encrypted, well why did you do that? What are you trying to hide? Evidence of a crime!?!?! 1. I had to call out, "looking for anything prohibited" is a direct fucking quote from CBP. They admitted it was a fishing expedition.
tamimio 3mo ago
You have to prove it is an evidence of a crime to start with, speculation is not a fact. My property, my business, i can smash the phone and no one has anything to do or say unless there’s an undeniable fact that there’s an evidence there and it got destroyed, else, it’s no one’s business.
- gruez 3mo ago
  >Note this isn't the same as banning burning documents or microwaving computers, only doing so after you're aware there's an ongoing investigation.
zug_zug 3mo ago
Well, good luck to them. If I'm on the jury and he argues "I got my passcodes confused" that's reasonable doubt for me.

by gruez 3mo ago

fluidcruft 3mo ago

Destroyed evidence of what?

gruez 3mo ago
Destroyed materials that might be relevant to an investigation that you know exists.
- morkalork 3mo ago
  Hmmmm sounds like the government can launch endless bs investigations, wait for their target to throw something (anything, a piece of paper, whatever) in the trash then charge them with destruction of evidence. A infinite guilty-change glitch if you will.
  - gruez 3mo ago
    That's what judges are for, so cute hacks like "putting everyone in the US under "investigation" won't work. That said, if I was under investigation, you bet your ass I'd be extra diligent in ensuring I'm not accidentally shredding any documents.
  - nearbuy 3mo ago
    What you're describing is malicious prosecution or abuse of process. It's illegal and it would destroy the prosecution's case. Not only that, but the victim could sue for damages.
    - tantalor 3mo ago
      Sort of like deliberately targeting somebody for his alleged association with the movement against Cop City?
      - nearbuy 3mo ago
        Yes, much like that. If he hadn't destroyed evidence, he could have argued it was malicious prosecution.
grey413 3mo ago
To quote the article: suspected terrorism activities because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City Complete horseshit on many levels, but presumably a legally valid investigation.
- fluidcruft 3mo ago
  Seems like they could have had a warrant in that case.

mexicocitinluez 3mo ago

> So if someone was doing insider trading, and the SEC came knocking, then immediately afterwards they start burning every document they have and microwaving their computers, do you think they should get off the hook? Apples and oranges. They presumably already have some sort of evidence in order to get a warrant and are under criminal investigation. According to the article the agents said it was just a normal part of screening.

gruez 3mo ago
>They presumably already have some sort of evidence in order to get a warrant and are under criminal investigation. What if there was no warrant, and the SEC just came to ask questions?
- mexicocitinluez 3mo ago
  If they came to ask questions, then they presumably already think I've committed a crime. This is not the same as randomly stopping someone and asking to see their phone.
  - gruez 3mo ago
    A trucker passes a weigh station and is signaled to pull in. As he's pulling in, he's seen dumping the contents of a bottle onto the ground. Is this destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice? He's not under any investigation (trucks are regularly weighed at weigh stations as a matter of normal procedure). A company is engaged in some white collar crime. They're tipped off that the DoJ launched an investigation on them. No warrants/subpoenas have been issued, and no investigators have shown up. The company instructs the IT team to scrub their email servers. Is this destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice?
    - Supermancho 3mo ago
      > Is this destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice? The investigators can (and have) threatened both as a tactic, but when the charges are files, the specifics are what the prosecution thinks they can get a conviction on. I think it's understood that the law is interpreted, which has given great leeway to narrative.

Guvante 3mo ago

They need to prove you destroyed evidence, you have the mens rea component with the deceptive pin code but the defense can simply plainly say they didn't want the police to read their private device. Your example is fabricated since the justice department didn't even bring forward a specific crime they believe was committed here. If they charged him with a crime and had evidence his device had evidence of that crime (even if in reality it didn't) that would be a more interesting question. But again where is the crime?

gruez 3mo ago
>with the deceptive pin code but the defense can simply plainly say they didn't want the police to read their private device. That's as convincing as saying you burned all the documents because you don't want people who break in to read all your financial records. It just happened to start after the SEC came knocking
- wpm 3mo ago
  Except this isn't the SEC actually pursuing a voicable crime. This person was under no suspicion at all. They were simply coming home after being abroad: last I checked that is not a crime. Outside of a crime, "evidence" is just called property. If the TSA can't show "we have provable evidence gathered elsewhere to show that there was possible incriminating data on that phone" all they did was wipe this guys phone. All they had was pre-crime "he was involved in the movement against Cop City so we're gonna search his phone". No "he was meeting with terrorists in the DR". No "we have good reason to believe that when he was in the DR he communicated with terrorists". Just "uhhh we were looking for anything prohibited[1] and we targeted this guy because he was involved in some anti-cop protest group 3 years ago". If you can't see how insanely thin their argument is, and how easily this will be abused, I don't know what to tell you. We could just as easily say having any passcode on your phone at all is obstruction of justice, since the feds could want to look on your phone for whatever made up reason, and if they can't because its encrypted, well why did you do that? What are you trying to hide? Evidence of a crime!?!?! 1. I had to call out, "looking for anything prohibited" is a direct fucking quote from CBP. They admitted it was a fishing expedition.

tamimio 3mo ago

You have to prove it is an evidence of a crime to start with, speculation is not a fact. My property, my business, i can smash the phone and no one has anything to do or say unless there’s an undeniable fact that there’s an evidence there and it got destroyed, else, it’s no one’s business.

gruez 3mo ago
>Note this isn't the same as banning burning documents or microwaving computers, only doing so after you're aware there's an ongoing investigation.

zug_zug 3mo ago

Well, good luck to them. If I'm on the jury and he argues "I got my passcodes confused" that's reasonable doubt for me.