3 ms·
> It can’t be destroying evidence if there’s no case or charge being pressed for which that material would be evidence. (IAAL, not legal advice, consult your o
by otterley 2mo ago
> It can’t be destroying evidence if there’s no case or charge being pressed for which that material would be evidence.
(IAAL, not legal advice, consult your own lawyer)
Where’d you get that idea? That’s not the law. As soon as there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and the law enforcement encounter occurs, that’s the threshold for when preservation of evidence begins. It doesn’t matter whether it might not have ultimately resulted in a criminal charge. You cannot intentionally interfere with a lawful investigation, in any way, full stop.
- blurbleblurble 2mo agoReasonable suspicion of what though? Is them just being suspicious by default "reasonable"?
- otterley 2mo agoReasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Though at the border, not even that is required.
- lazide 2mo agoWhat articulable crime is the suspect alleged to have committed?
- otterley 2mo agoIt’s a subject of debate. CBP stated it was possession of CSAM. Defendant claims it’s a pretext and that CBP was really investigating his ties with the Defend the Atlanta Forest movement. But it doesn’t really matter in this case. You cannot interfere with a lawful investigation, full stop. It’s not clear to me that even if the search was unlawful that the defendant will be held not guilty of the underlying tampering/destruction charge, since we already have a mechanism to suppress evidence obtained unlawfully.
- inigyou 2mo agoThere was no reasonable suspicion in this case and definitely not of the pretext they used (child porn).
- otterley 2mo agoIn the case of a border search it’s when the encounter begins; no reasonable suspicion is needed.
- otterley 2mo agoUpdating my initial statement: to search someone’s phone at the border, the government needs reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is planning to commit a crime.