4 ms·

Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do

by bdangubic 2mo ago

gruez 2mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence
- bdangubic 2mo ago
  First, that is not an actual statute and second exactly what "evidence" is my phone, evidence of what exactly?
  - LoganDark 2mo ago
    Evidence of anything. You're tampering with evidence if you act to prevent them from seeing something, even if they had no reason for suspicion. Like how you get arrested for fleeing even if you didn't do anything wrong.
    - hamper653 2mo ago
      > even if they had no reason for suspicion Are you sure about that?
      - LoganDark 2mo ago
        [dead]
      - bdangubic 2mo ago
        Sure - if we were banana republic (which we may be or becoming...)
someothherguyy 2mo ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232 is what he was charged with (a) see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  > seems like a stretch though I think the issue will fall on whether the encrypted data on the device (or its decrypted counterpart) counts as property. The rest looks pretty clear-cut to me.
LoganDark 2mo ago
There is a federal criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations) > Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. That covers the first part of my comment. As for the second part, there is 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) (destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure) > Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. IANAL, but the encrypted data on the device could be considered property, and the act of providing the duress PIN in place of the real one could be considered a knowing action for the purpose of preventing the government either from continuing to hold that data under its control, or from seizing the data into its control in the first place (since the data was never decrypted).
- hamper653 2mo ago
  > destruction of records in federal investigations There was a federal investigation going on?
  - LoganDark 2mo ago
    That's not from the statute that applies in this case
yodon 2mo ago
> Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do The google search required to find the answer ("federal statute for destruction of evidence") is shorter than your question here. "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry..."[0] [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
- hamper653 2mo ago
  > knowingly Did he know he was suspected of something? Was he suspected of something?
  - LoganDark 2mo ago
    It's more about knowing the PIN would wipe the device, and providing it with that intent. Edit: 18 U.S.C. § 1519 doesn't seem to cover this (unless it covers the act of setting up the duress PIN in the first place as "altering"). § 2232(a) covers actually knowingly providing the duress PIN.
- croon 2mo ago
  Let's say I want to retire my laptop to my kid, so I reformat it. Are you saying in the eventuality that federal police then wants my laptop that I have committed a crime? If so, on that assumption, should no one ever be able to erase data on their hardware? Is it schrodingers guilt, that you're simply not guilty until someone looks, and then you are? And if not, you haven't answered GP's question.
  - yodon 2mo ago
    >Are you saying in the eventuality that... Legal cases are adjudicated by human judges who have been dealing with scenarios like this for thousands of years, since long before the invention of software and laptops, and who are not the least bit challenged when presented with strawman scenarios like the one you called out.

Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do

gruez 2mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence

bdangubic 2mo ago
First, that is not an actual statute and second exactly what "evidence" is my phone, evidence of what exactly?
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  Evidence of anything. You're tampering with evidence if you act to prevent them from seeing something, even if they had no reason for suspicion. Like how you get arrested for fleeing even if you didn't do anything wrong.
  - hamper653 2mo ago
    > even if they had no reason for suspicion Are you sure about that?
    - LoganDark 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - bdangubic 2mo ago
      Sure - if we were banana republic (which we may be or becoming...)

someothherguyy 2mo ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232 is what he was charged with (a) see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

LoganDark 2mo ago
> seems like a stretch though I think the issue will fall on whether the encrypted data on the device (or its decrypted counterpart) counts as property. The rest looks pretty clear-cut to me.

LoganDark 2mo ago

There is a federal criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations) > Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. That covers the first part of my comment. As for the second part, there is 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) (destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure) > Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government's lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. IANAL, but the encrypted data on the device could be considered property, and the act of providing the duress PIN in place of the real one could be considered a knowing action for the purpose of preventing the government either from continuing to hold that data under its control, or from seizing the data into its control in the first place (since the data was never decrypted).

hamper653 2mo ago
> destruction of records in federal investigations There was a federal investigation going on?
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  That's not from the statute that applies in this case

yodon 2mo ago

> Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do The google search required to find the answer ("federal statute for destruction of evidence") is shorter than your question here. "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry..."[0] [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

hamper653 2mo ago
> knowingly Did he know he was suspected of something? Was he suspected of something?
- LoganDark 2mo ago
  It's more about knowing the PIN would wipe the device, and providing it with that intent. Edit: 18 U.S.C. § 1519 doesn't seem to cover this (unless it covers the act of setting up the duress PIN in the first place as "altering"). § 2232(a) covers actually knowingly providing the duress PIN.
croon 2mo ago
Let's say I want to retire my laptop to my kid, so I reformat it. Are you saying in the eventuality that federal police then wants my laptop that I have committed a crime? If so, on that assumption, should no one ever be able to erase data on their hardware? Is it schrodingers guilt, that you're simply not guilty until someone looks, and then you are? And if not, you haven't answered GP's question.
- yodon 2mo ago
  >Are you saying in the eventuality that... Legal cases are adjudicated by human judges who have been dealing with scenarios like this for thousands of years, since long before the invention of software and laptops, and who are not the least bit challenged when presented with strawman scenarios like the one you called out.