4 ms·

Paywalled, but what is the actual charge? Is it some extremely generic "obstructing an investigation" one? The US is quite good about making court documents ava

by pjc50 2mo ago

Paywalled, but what is the actual charge? Is it some extremely generic "obstructing an investigation" one? The US is quite good about making court documents available on line, if someone can find it.

owlninja 2mo ago
Here's a gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7FA.m0KX.vNcAadqleJHB&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick...
hoppyhoppy2 2mo ago
The article says he was charged with obstruction. You can try this "gift link" to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7FA.Q8yx.DgiLtsus-z95&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick...
- hamper653 2mo ago
  Obstruction to what though?
  - c0l0 2mo ago
    Injustice ;)
  - stymaar 2mo ago
    Illegitimate abuse of border control power to restrict freedom of speech.
- floathub 2mo ago
  He is charged with obstruction, but under domestic terrorism (as defined by a national security presidential memorandum).
  - superxpro12 2mo ago
    But republicans assured me that they wouldn't ever start throwing around domestic terrorism at democrats!
    - frollogaston 2mo ago
      "In May 2022 the corporate offices of Brasfield & Gorrie in Birmingham, Alabama were vandalized, and the message "Drop Cop City Or Else" was spray-painted on the building." "On March 5, 2023, dozens of people attacked the Cop City construction site with rocks and firebombs, destroying construction equipment." I can kinda see why this is considered terrorism
- OutOfHere 2mo ago
  The gift link shows only a fraction of the article text. Just stick to https://archive.is/SflVC https://archive.is/SflVC.
jeroenhd 2mo ago
Knowingly providing a PIN that would erase evidence is going to get tough in court. But the man was also hated by the cops because of his activism. They were going to catch him for something, some day. This incident just provided the necessary excuse to lock him up.
- hamper653 2mo ago
  Evidence of what?
  - jeroenhd 2mo ago
    Whatever they claimed they needed access for his phone to. Probably nothing serious that would be worth more than a fine, if anything. But now they've got him for deleting evidence, which is pretty bad.
    - hamper653 2mo ago
      > if anything That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? If there was no suspicion whatsoever, hence no investigation, then he couldn’t possibly obstruct it.
    - 59nadir 2mo ago
      There is no "evidence"; by any reasonable interpretation of that word there would have to be an actual accusation of crime for there to be evidence of one. This was a search predicated on literally no actual basis apart from "we have the right to search your device because we have ultimate power at border passings", essentially just a fishing expedition. This also doesn't even get to the more important point: If you don't have the contents of the phone you have literally no evidence of a crime being committed, other than the one they invented post-facto: "Deleting data that could hypothetically be incriminating, not in any specific way but just generally, maybe".
  - JungleGymSam 2mo ago
    [dead]
- 2mo ago
dredmorbius 2mo ago
Paywall/archive: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49387289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49387289>

by pjc50 2mo ago

Paywalled, but what is the actual charge? Is it some extremely generic "obstructing an investigation" one? The US is quite good about making court documents available on line, if someone can find it.

owlninja 2mo ago

Here's a gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7FA.m0KX.vNcAadqleJHB&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick...

hoppyhoppy2 2mo ago

The article says he was charged with obstruction. You can try this "gift link" to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick-deleted-phone-felony.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7FA.Q8yx.DgiLtsus-z95&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/samuel-tunick...

hamper653 2mo ago
Obstruction to what though?
- c0l0 2mo ago
  Injustice ;)
- stymaar 2mo ago
  Illegitimate abuse of border control power to restrict freedom of speech.
floathub 2mo ago
He is charged with obstruction, but under domestic terrorism (as defined by a national security presidential memorandum).
- superxpro12 2mo ago
  But republicans assured me that they wouldn't ever start throwing around domestic terrorism at democrats!
  - frollogaston 2mo ago
    "In May 2022 the corporate offices of Brasfield & Gorrie in Birmingham, Alabama were vandalized, and the message "Drop Cop City Or Else" was spray-painted on the building." "On March 5, 2023, dozens of people attacked the Cop City construction site with rocks and firebombs, destroying construction equipment." I can kinda see why this is considered terrorism
OutOfHere 2mo ago
The gift link shows only a fraction of the article text. Just stick to https://archive.is/SflVC https://archive.is/SflVC.

jeroenhd 2mo ago

Knowingly providing a PIN that would erase evidence is going to get tough in court. But the man was also hated by the cops because of his activism. They were going to catch him for something, some day. This incident just provided the necessary excuse to lock him up.

hamper653 2mo ago
Evidence of what?
- jeroenhd 2mo ago
  Whatever they claimed they needed access for his phone to. Probably nothing serious that would be worth more than a fine, if anything. But now they've got him for deleting evidence, which is pretty bad.
  - hamper653 2mo ago
    > if anything That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? If there was no suspicion whatsoever, hence no investigation, then he couldn’t possibly obstruct it.
  - 59nadir 2mo ago
    There is no "evidence"; by any reasonable interpretation of that word there would have to be an actual accusation of crime for there to be evidence of one. This was a search predicated on literally no actual basis apart from "we have the right to search your device because we have ultimate power at border passings", essentially just a fishing expedition. This also doesn't even get to the more important point: If you don't have the contents of the phone you have literally no evidence of a crime being committed, other than the one they invented post-facto: "Deleting data that could hypothetically be incriminating, not in any specific way but just generally, maybe".
- JungleGymSam 2mo ago
  [dead]
2mo ago

dredmorbius 2mo ago

Paywall/archive: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49387289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49387289>