3 ms·

>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

• 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 12d 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.