3 ms·

> If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same. Whe

> If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same. Whether someone’s activity meets the elements of a destruction of evidence charge depends on context. Any competent attorney will tell you that. Wiping your phone once the encounter has begun, and especially in response to being asked to hand over the phone for inspection? Bad. Doing it before you board the plane? Less of a problem. A border agent might still question you more intensely if you show up at the encounter with a new or previously cleaned phone, but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun. > I've gone through this process at the border and have in fact consulted an attorney on precisely this. What did they tell you, exactly? And can you give me their contact info? > How about you do the same before you continue. I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.)

knownandunknown 12d ago
>but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun. I'm glad you have so much faith in our system. > What did they tell you, exactly? That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border. > And can you give me their contact info? No thanks, I'm alright. >I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.) I'm sure you are!
- otterley 12d ago
  > That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border. That’s true, but also not what we’re debating. We are debating whether, on inspection, having a new-appearing phone when you first encounter CBP will give rise to reasonable suspicion that you violated the law or are inadmissible and thus should be further investigated. I asked you for specific examples where this happened to someone, and you provided an example that didn’t fit the pattern. You gave some other story about someone who destroyed evidence in the middle of an encounter. If you don’t have an example that matches, that’s fine. But don’t then move the goalposts.
  - knownandunknown 11d ago
    Fun fact, no we aren't! Go ahead and re-read the original comment: "It's been somewhat established that having a wiped or basic phone is in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further." The implication is that, as in the case I provided, if they have already detained you, and you provide them with a wiped or basic phone (Tunick), this will be a "in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further." Goalposts are where I left them, not sure where you're going... edit: And let me save you time in your response, "investigate you further" implies they were already investigating you.

knownandunknown 12d ago

>but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun. I'm glad you have so much faith in our system. > What did they tell you, exactly? That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border. > And can you give me their contact info? No thanks, I'm alright. >I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.) I'm sure you are!

otterley 12d ago
> That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border. That’s true, but also not what we’re debating. We are debating whether, on inspection, having a new-appearing phone when you first encounter CBP will give rise to reasonable suspicion that you violated the law or are inadmissible and thus should be further investigated. I asked you for specific examples where this happened to someone, and you provided an example that didn’t fit the pattern. You gave some other story about someone who destroyed evidence in the middle of an encounter. If you don’t have an example that matches, that’s fine. But don’t then move the goalposts.
- knownandunknown 11d ago
  Fun fact, no we aren't! Go ahead and re-read the original comment: "It's been somewhat established that having a wiped or basic phone is in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further." The implication is that, as in the case I provided, if they have already detained you, and you provide them with a wiped or basic phone (Tunick), this will be a "in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further." Goalposts are where I left them, not sure where you're going... edit: And let me save you time in your response, "investigate you further" implies they were already investigating you.