3 ms·

That is a most interesting and underrated point.

joshka 2mo ago
It's a fairly shallow point that ignores how laws work. The premise that the law doesn't apply because you're not in the country is false. The constitution applies generally everywhere to all Americans, it's just that what's regarded as reasonable differs during a border search. IANAL, so just my lay opinion on this. Just to validate this, it's only because the constitution exists that the border authorities have any legal basis in doing inspections.
- OutOfHere 2mo ago
  Huh, that is inconsistent. The problem with your comment is noted right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49390318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49390318
  - joshka 2mo ago
    Not really - the government have stated that he's in the US. It's the first sentence of the indictment. [1] > On or about January 24, 2025, in the Northern District of Georgia... [1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.351975/gov.uscourts.gand.351975.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.35... But in general, the thing to note here is that the 4th amendment is always applicable and in force. It's how it's interpreted that changes depending on the circumstance.
HDThoreaun 2mo ago
It doesn’t matter where he was when he deleted the data. He could be in China, it’s still a crime in the us to destroy evidence wanted by American authorities.
- OutOfHere 2mo ago
  You're speaking nonsense since there was no charge or warrant against him. People are free to use their phone for f sake.
  - HDThoreaun 2mo ago
    Law enforcement doesn’t need a warrant to search phones at the border. I agree this is a terrible rule but it is the rule right now.
    - gib444 2mo ago
      Is that the 100 mile wide border?
    - OutOfHere 2mo ago
      You have lost track of the chain of discussion.
    - OutOfHere 2mo ago
      Have you read https://yalelawjournal.org/forum/customs-immigration-and-rig https://yalelawjournal.org/forum/customs-immigration-and-rig... ? Quoting from its abstract: > While the Supreme Court has long recognized a border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, it applies to only two interests: promoting the duty regime and preventing contraband from entering the country; and ensuring that individuals are legally admitted. The government’s recent use of the exception goes substantially beyond these matters. None of these two interests apply to his targeted search. No duty applies here. By definition, no contraband can exist on an erased phone
  - rootusrootus 2mo ago
    Evidence exists independent of a charge or warrant. The instant they asked for access to the phone, it became evidence. If he had entered the duress code himself before walking up to the agent, he'd be fine. Nerds thinking that technicalities is how the law works is why he's in hot water.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]

It's a fairly shallow point that ignores how laws work. The premise that the law doesn't apply because you're not in the country is false. The constitution applies generally everywhere to all Americans, it's just that what's regarded as reasonable differs during a border search. IANAL, so just my lay opinion on this. Just to validate this, it's only because the constitution exists that the border authorities have any legal basis in doing inspections.

OutOfHere 2mo ago
Huh, that is inconsistent. The problem with your comment is noted right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49390318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49390318
- joshka 2mo ago
  Not really - the government have stated that he's in the US. It's the first sentence of the indictment. [1] > On or about January 24, 2025, in the Northern District of Georgia... [1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.351975/gov.uscourts.gand.351975.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.35... But in general, the thing to note here is that the 4th amendment is always applicable and in force. It's how it's interpreted that changes depending on the circumstance.

HDThoreaun 2mo ago

It doesn’t matter where he was when he deleted the data. He could be in China, it’s still a crime in the us to destroy evidence wanted by American authorities.

OutOfHere 2mo ago
You're speaking nonsense since there was no charge or warrant against him. People are free to use their phone for f sake.
- HDThoreaun 2mo ago
  Law enforcement doesn’t need a warrant to search phones at the border. I agree this is a terrible rule but it is the rule right now.
  - gib444 2mo ago
    Is that the 100 mile wide border?
  - OutOfHere 2mo ago
    You have lost track of the chain of discussion.
  - OutOfHere 2mo ago
    Have you read https://yalelawjournal.org/forum/customs-immigration-and-rig https://yalelawjournal.org/forum/customs-immigration-and-rig... ? Quoting from its abstract: > While the Supreme Court has long recognized a border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, it applies to only two interests: promoting the duty regime and preventing contraband from entering the country; and ensuring that individuals are legally admitted. The government’s recent use of the exception goes substantially beyond these matters. None of these two interests apply to his targeted search. No duty applies here. By definition, no contraband can exist on an erased phone
- rootusrootus 2mo ago
  Evidence exists independent of a charge or warrant. The instant they asked for access to the phone, it became evidence. If he had entered the duress code himself before walking up to the agent, he'd be fine. Nerds thinking that technicalities is how the law works is why he's in hot water.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]