4 ms·
>Amendment 4: He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search >Amendment 5: Destroying evidence isn't testimony. Moreover he would have been in
by gruez 2mo ago
>Amendment 4:
He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search
>Amendment 5:
Destroying evidence isn't testimony. Moreover he would have been in the clear if he just kept his mouth shut.
- Varelion 2mo ago[flagged]
- gruez 2mo agoPlease try again with an actual argument rather than attacking people based on which "side" I'm on.
- Varelion 2mo ago[flagged]
- gruez 2mo ago"obese nazis"?
- Humorist2290 2mo agoIs there any question the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism when they realized it was so obviously untenable, as a pretense to detain him would've been treated differently if he were on a different "side"?
- gruez 2mo ago>the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism Source? Are we still talking about Samuel Tunick? The article doesn't mention it, and so far as I can tell he was only charged at the border crossing for obstruction.
- SauciestGNU 2mo agoNot "charged" as in indicted but the search was based on an accusation that he had CSAM on the device. But his political proclivities make it pretty transparent that CSAM was an invented excuse to investigate and punish a political dissident.
- krapp 2mo ago"Evidence" of what, exactly? What specific crime did they expect to find evidence of on his phone?
- myrmidon 2mo agoThey were pretty obviously hoping to find a specific crime to accuse him of (because he is a protester against the Atlanta "Cop City" thing). But no respectable judge would ever have issued a search warrant on the basis of "we want to rifle through his messages/contacts so we can hopefully accuse him of something". Protesters against this exact same thing were mis-prosecuted under "domestic terrorism" and "racketeering" charges before (got dismissed in 2025).
- josefritzishere 2mo agoEvidence of what? Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. The normal threshold to accuse is a "reasonable, articulable suspicion." This does not meet that criteria.
- gruez 2mo agoWell that's the thing with destroying evidence. If you destroyed it, it becomes harder (or impossible) to prove you did the crime. That's why it's not uncommon for people to be only charged with stuff like "obstruction of justice" rather than the actual crime they allegedly did.
- tosti 2mo agoBut you can't assume someone committed a crime.
- mingus88 2mo agoIn this case, the authorities are claiming they were looking for CSAM. So wiping the phone hindered a valid investigation. They can say anything they want. They hold all the power. This will never change until enough people take matters into their own hands, as the system has been compromised.
- Capricorn2481 2mo agoThey think a well known protester who was savvy enough to wipe their phone was crossing the border with CSAM on their phone? Do people buy this shit?
- rootusrootus 2mo agoThe evidence on your phone may be against someone else, not you. Still evidence.
- bot403 2mo ago
- hamper653 2mo ago> He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search Evidence with regard to which investigation?
- someguydave 2mo agoBorder agents are entitled to investigate anything for any reason more or less
- wnmurphy 2mo agoIf you are a US citizen, they are not entitled to your unlocked phone. They need a judicial warrant if they want you to unlock your phone with a PIN/password. It is settled case law that that falls under your protections under the 14th Amendment. They can take it for a "reasonable amount of time" (inconvenience you for a few hours and make you miss your connecting flight) while they copy an encrypted image. They then must return it to you.
- someguydave 2mo agoYes but you are also not allowed to destroy evidence
- hamper653 2mo agoThere can’t be evidence if there is neither a crime nor an investigation.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- hamper653 2mo agoBut did they? Was there an actual investigation going on?
- encomiast 2mo ago
- sgc 2mo agoIt seems like the best course of action would be to argue he did not destroy evidence, just made it unavailable at the location to force the requirement for a search warrant. It would probably be a hard sell, but I can't think of a better argument (not a lawyer).
- cube00 2mo ago> Moreover he would have been in the clear if he just kept his mouth shut. Although then you get a possible delay of undefined duration, additional questioning and seizure of your device.
- rootusrootus 2mo agoWhat's the longest a citizen (with all appopriate documentation on them) has been held by border patrol after refusing to answer any questions? A quick search failed to get me a solid answer to this, other than a general suggestion that 72 hours is probably the practical upper limit (but no statutory limit necessarily exists), and CBP policies say 12 hours. I'm interested to know about specific examples. Aside from extraordinary cases where the gov't is pretty sure they're dealing with a bona fide terrorist, my expectation is that CBP mostly isn't really that interested in detaining people indefinitely just for the lulz. They're probably just going to say "okay, fine, we're taking the phone, here's your receipt for it, get lost" and let you go on your way.
- fedpost 2mo agoProblem is, he didn't destroy shit. "He" (by which I mean, technically the agents) deleted a header that's used to encrypt data but can restored from a backup.
- MBCook 2mo agoDeleting isn’t destroying?
- fedpost 2mo agoSure, but the issue is he didn't delete his data, he deleted a header with a key in it, that's it, just a few MB. He didn't delete hundreds of GB of chats or browsing history, he deleted a key to access it and that key isn't necessarily the only one that can access it. All the stuff they want can still be accessed just fine if another copy of the key exists. To put it in protective, just opening a web browser or some other app can delete/alter more data than was deleted in this case.
- MBCook 2mo agoThat’s semantics. For all intents and purposes he destroyed it, no different than if he stomped on the phone or deleted all the files traditionally. I don’t think a judge would care about splitting that hair.
- fedpost 2mo agoKind of? Let's say he has a detached header on another device and deleted the one on his phone. It's not at all destroyed now. Is what he did still illegal? This is important because this is a feature of some crypto systems like LUKS. You can have your header on another physically septate device. If this is ruled on in an insufficiently nuanced way it could have very significant implications for carrying encrypted data without the key.
- tmp10423288442 2mo ago