[sfRattan]

Ultimately, when you choose to enter a duress PIN that will wipe your device, you have to recognize that choice may have legal consequences. I don't like the amount of power our government has at the national border when it comes to detaining and pressuring citizens, but our Constitution explicitly grants it at least some of the power it now exercises in that context.

If your threat model includes US state actors at the national border, then your security practices need to account for the confiscation of your device at that border without requiring you to willfully wipe the phone and (in the eyes of police and prosecutors) destroy evidence.

That means:

1. Don't travel with anything you can't afford to lose on device. This means setting up travel-specific password managers and hardware keys for a subset of your accounts that you absolutely need to access while abroad, and being prepared to reset those passwords and disable those hardware keys very quickly once home.

2. Review past legal cases against travelers and identify what behaviors the government considers worthy of prosecution or harassment. Your secure setup must function without needing you to engage in those behaviors, even if it is less convenient as a result. This isn't perfect, as the government may decide some new behavior is prosecutable.

3. Consult with a lawyer and review your security procedures from a legal standpoint. All of the above is technical and practical advice, not legal counsel and no substitute for it.

We Americans are fortunate to carry powerful passports and enjoy relatively easy international travel but, for better or worse, that velvet glove covers an iron fist we would be foolish to forget or ignore.

[aucisson_masque]

> 1. Don't travel with anything you can't afford to lose on device. This means setting up travel-specific password managers and hardware keys for a subset of your accounts that you absolutely need to access while abroad, and being prepared to reset those passwords and disable those hardware keys very quickly once home.

> 2. Review past legal cases against travelers and identify what behaviors the government considers worthy of prosecution or harassment. Your secure setup must function without needing you to engage in those behaviors, even if it is less convenient as a result. This isn't perfect, as the government may decide some new behavior is prosecutable.

> 3. Consult with a lawyer and review your security procedures from a legal standpoint. All of the above is technical and practical advice, not legal counsel and no substitute for it.

Just don't go to the usa and if it's for professional reason, don't bring your personal phone.

[drop_star]

> Just don't go to the usa

As a Canadian. I won't be going there for a long time

[pageandrew]

Canadian border control has the legal authority to search your phone and you are obligated to provide a password.

[9935c101ab17a66]

Are you a Canadian lawyer? I did some research and your statement doesn’t hold up.

CBSA policy does state you are obligated to provide your password if they are conducting a lawful device examination, however they cannot do it arbitrarily, and they must have a legal basis for searching the device.

> CBSA policy states that examinations of personal devices should not be conducted as a matter of routine; such searches may be conducted only if there are grounds or indications that “evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media.”

Furthermore, Canadian courts have not yet definitively ruled on whether compelling password disclosure is constitutionally permissible.

This is very different than the US, where CBP can conduct a basic search without any individualized suspicion.

So, Canada and the US are definitely not the same, which seems to be the implied meaning behind your comment, and your explicit statement that CBSA has legal authority to search your phone is, at best, misleading.

I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert so I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me if you have Canadian legal experience.

https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/airports-and-border...

[account42]

US CBP is also not doing phone searches as a matter of routine.

[account42]

Talk about overreacting. How likely do you think border control are going to spend any more time on some random schmuck than necessary? If you're afraid about remote risks like that then definitely don't leave your home at all (except that's also risky).

[sfRattan]

You've left out the important qualifier I put at the outset of those three points:

> If your threat model includes US state actors

It was not advice for everyone, nor even most people. I have plenty of friends abroad, and a few of them have even traveled to my country for the World Cup and had a grand time.

I roll my eyes at this kind of overreaction, the same way I imagine Europeans rolling their eyes to hear Americans worried about migrant crime news stories not wanting to travel to Europe. Or maybe they used to roll their eyes at that... I'm less sure now.

[reenorap]

Have the duress PIN on sticker on your phone. Maybe put it backwards and don’t say anything to border patrol. Have them try it out and erase the phone and then you can legitimately say you didn’t do anything and they did it themselves.

[nkrisc]

But if the prosecutors can make a convincing argument that your intent was exactly that all along, then you may end up convicted anyway.

Intent matters. It might be hard to prove, but it matters.

It may not even be that hard; what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?

[stickfigure]

> what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?

Two obvious answers:

1. It's for the general case of lost/stolen phone.

2. It's for the owner. I can't remember numbers I don't type in, might as well keep it visible on the device.

[reenorap]

There’s no way to prove intent if you keep your mouth shut and don’t answer anything.

[victorbjorklund]

Yea, that’s not how it works in practice. If they catch you standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon. Then you can’t just say they can’t prove intent if you keep your mouth shut.

[weli]

Yea but that's where "reasonable suspicion" comes in a court of law. If you are standing next to a dead body, with a bloody knife in your hand.

[account42]

And doing anything non-standard with your phone is going to shift the reasonable suspicion away from favoring you unless you can explain yourself.

[nkrisc]

That’s good advice to not talk, but it won’t necessarily save you.

[weberer]

>what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?

For thieves, obviously.

[unrealhoang]

claim your password to be some derivative of the duress PIN, for example: 1234 is password reminder for 2444 (one 2 three 4), the device is erased anyway.

[achierius]

For if someone steals the phone?

[LadyCailin]

They might be able to convict on that, but that sets a dangerous precedent imo, which is that doing anything preemptively to prevent searches is conviction worthy, including the preparation the OP suggested.

[8note]

if the cops do that, they're breaking the law with that search already

theyll have a hard time showing that you intended for the government to break the law. first the government would have to admit breaking the law

[nkrisc]

Unfortunately I think they have pretty wide latitude to perform searches at border crossings.

[IncreasePosts]

"it would be funny if the border police typed it in to my phone"

[nkrisc]

I think you should read the other reply about not saying anything at all.

[Xirdus]

Not saying anything at all is one of the worst things you can do when questioned by law enforcement in the US (though "it would be funny" is a close second). The right way to remain silent is to loudly proclaim "I am exercising my right to remain silent."

[ww520]

As a speech.

[rootusrootus]

Or just make it your birthday. Though I'm not at all sure the agents will try typing random codes in without at least some idea that they may work, given that many OS's will quickly start to punish with tarpitting.

[koolba]

Be funnier if you even write “do not enter 123456”.

[president_zippy]

That might have actually been legal. I'm not a lawyer, but it's definitely better for the accused than what happened in reality.

"I told you not to. You're the ones who wiped my phone. You owe me money for destroying my personal property."

I'm not saying you would get a check courtesy of Uncle Sam for your troubles, but the argument that you deceived authorities into destroying evidence is a lot weaker.

I might go with "do not enter 696969" instead because the stranger fiddling with your phone probably expects a your phone to do something funny, like load a shock site.

[jandrewrogers]

The police will ask you if the PIN unlocks the phone before using it.

[mcherm]

Refusing to answer questions IS one of the rights that the US government mostly honors.

[cute_boi]

Well, these days especially at border police don't care about "rights"

[one33seven]

That's missing in this entire conversation. This all sounds like it's 2016 or something

[int_19h]

This is not a "these days" thing. Most rights essentially being abrogated at the border is a thing we've had for many decades now. In particular, no non-citizen has the absolute right of entry, and border agents have discretion bordering on insane when it comes to not admitting people or temporarily detaining them. Worse yet, this being the case, the job attracts the kind of people who relish the petty power trip. I've seen this many times back in 2010-2011 when I was traveling regularly as a non-citizen between US and Canada.

[everfree]

Under US law, you have a nearly absolute right to not answer police questions.

[jandrewrogers]

Yes of course. But their use of the PIN will likely only occur if you answer, which many people will. This is a common setup in interrogations.

[8note]

the utah cops definitely would, based on whats been released from the rwckless ben bodycam footage

[prmoustache]

I belive this only applies if you are a US citizen and not a visitor.

[Xirdus]

Up in the air. SCOTUS didn't decide on this specific right. They did rule on other constitutional protections though, sometimes granting, sometimes denying them to non-citizens. It also depends if you're just arriving or already are in the US. For example, illegal immigrants who jumped the border fence have more rights than legal immigrants who didn't leave the airport yet.

[inigyou]

It unlocks the phone.

[haritha-j]

I wouldn't write it down, I would just make it 1234. They're bound to try that. Then they have absolutely no case against you.

[NoGravitas]

That's the combination on my luggage!

[apparent]

Why would agents think that a number written on your phone is the PIN? That would only make sense if it was a communally-used device, not a personal one. Also, no one would put sensitive info on a devices that has the PIN affixed to it.

I suppose it's possible someone might enter it without thinking, but the odds seem low. Also seems risky to put a self-destruct PIN on your device, lest a friend (or enemy) enter it by accident or as a prank.

[esikich]

I've worked with fleets of company phones and mobile devices, people absolutely do this.

[apparent]

They do this with devices that have sensitive information that would be of interest to federal agents?

[sda2]

with this sort of configuration, you either trust your backups or you don’t ;)

[dathinab]

the funny part is he didn't enter the pin he gave it to them and they entered it..., not sure if it makes any difference but there is a certain irony to it that it was the non warrant based search actions (which might be legal at the border) which lead to the erasure of data

[sfRattan]

Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought.

Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN.

A duress PIN to wipe the device don't exist to absolve the owner of liability... It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios. People need to be sober in weighing its use.

[datsci_est_2015]

> It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

Devil’s advocate, it sounds like the accused could be part of some mutual aid networks who could be helping people who are vulnerable against the actions of the current government. People who may die if they’re deported, or returned to their family (gay or trans youth). This person may literally have saved lives by not handing over their phonebook and messages.

[Rohansi]

> It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

Or it's preferable to get caught lying to a federal officer than it is for them to have the evidence on your phone.

[dathinab]

possible

but not necessary evidence, as evidence would imply a crime. But when it comes to police harassing activists, or outright mislabeling them as terrorists, there are many fully legal things you still might prefer the police not to have. Lets not forget that boarder police has in the past tried absurd things like trying to seize Attorney-client privilege protected information from a US attorney.

Through most likely many people setting up and using a duress pins never truly think this thought from a legal POV.

[malcolmgreaves]

I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?

[sfRattan]

18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1]

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[hinata08]

does this apply to defendant ?

the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"

[sfRattan]

In America, the defendant generally has the right not to testify against himself by remaining silent, both in court and when questioned by agents of the state out of court. Not a right to lie. This is why criminal defense attorneys advise everyone to shut up, shut up, SHUT UP without a lawyer present. Police can and will attempt to catch you in a provable lie.

> the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"

What on Earth is this second part of your comment supposed to mean?

Do you expect to be able to lie to the government in an authoritarian country? And not be arrested if they catch you in the lie there? And not be charged or worse if they consider the lie serious?

[jibal]

From the cited statute:

> Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

[object-a]

Famously, 18 USC 1001

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[dathinab]

Technically they deceived an officer to delete (potential) evidence for them a duress PIN in a context where they implied it was a normal PIN.

But also I don't think a duress pin _usage_ should be legal, _during a lawful search_ (not unlocking your phone is a different topic, similar a duress pin which restarts your phone in lock-down mode to prevent extraction of encryption secrets from memory is another topic).

The reason is quite simple, allowing it would mean allowing actual criminals to delete evidence, which isn't desirable.

Through the "during a lawful search" part is the very important part.|And independent of weather or not the search in this case was lawful, _it shouldn't have been_. Boarder police expanded search powers should be limited to finding _physical_ smuggling/illegal goods, not phone searches (for _many_ reasons). And definitively not for a citizen without warrant, as this effectively means fundamental rights don't apply to US citizens when re-entering the US, which is ridiculous and IMHO should be found unconstitutional (sadly probably won't). (Also labeling activists as terrorist is a huge no-go for a state of law, so is making up supposedly committed crimes).

So while using a duress pin during a lawful search should IMHO always have some legal consequences, using it during a unlawful search should be fully allowed. But this still kinda sucks as finding a search unlawful requires a judge. Still if phone search in general aren't legal without warrant (IMHO they shouldn't) this would be a pretty simple case and the police should be required to drop charges without going to court if it's fully clear it is their fault...

[c22]

Here's one: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-37-08/

[mannanj]

you had answers here. I'm trying to understand why our leaders can get away with lying so much and it being obviously in the public record, with videos on YouTube etc, and there being no recourse or accountability?

Is it true that the law is only selectively applied to some people?

[8note]

if you follow the links theres a lot of carve outs for the government to be allowed to lie

[Exoristos]

"Our leaders" also are sometimes persecuted for lying to a federal officer; the past few years there have been more than one high-profile case.

[mannanj]

Yes and did you see how Biden issued dozens of pardons before he left office absolving several leaders of their lies and whatever was actually persecuted to the "crime" level?

Seems if crimes are only crimes for normal people, theres rarely actual application of law for everyone. It instead shows itself to the governed as a system of control for them for the benefit of the leadership (since their friends absolve them of crimes, and also participate in the systematic neutering of any other forms of justice opposing their friends privileged behaviors).

Not saying this as a political thing to target one side like Biden/right and say Trump/left is clean. I'm saying I notice this in all levels both left and right.

[deejaaymac]

>Lying to a fed

They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

>Destroying evidence

How did they know there was any evidence on there?

>it exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.

No, the duress pin is there for when I'm under duress and being forced to unlock my device against my will

>It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios

Wiping a device I own is extreme?

[lelanthran]

> >Lying to a fed

> They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

The law doesn't work like that. Unless you're provably at the developmental level of a 5 year old, the court knows you know what was required, and also knows what you intended when you gave the duress pin.

The justice system famously never plays "simon says"...

[sfRattan]

> They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"

This is a Mickey Mouse distinction no court will take seriously.

> Wiping a device I own is extreme?

When the consequences are potential years in prison for lying to the US government or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government, then yes... Extreme.

All I'm saying is to decide to use a duress PIN at any national border or in any foreign country soberly, with knowledge of the potential or likely consequences.

[b40d-48b2-979e]

Just submit citizen. Nothing to hide, right?

[AnimalMuppet]

That's a different discussion. Are you interested in staying out of trouble at the border? Or are you interested in taking down the system (or at least fixing it)?

If you think the system needs fixed or destroyed, you do you, but don't be surprised when that approach gets you in trouble at the border.

[za3faran]

> or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government

Also happens in the US

[jibal]

It's sad that your perfectly valid previous comment is dead (and that HN even works that way) ... adding is ≠ ought probably doesn't even help for the people who don't grasp that in the first place.

People who think that tricking the cops into wiping your device legally absolves you need to grow up. Also those who argue that LE can't prove any evidence was destroyed since it's been destroyed.

[sfRattan]

Yeah, but the way HN works is leagues ahead of other, similar platforms. And the top voted comment of a subthread (at that moment) being flagged is its own interesting signal about both the issue at hand and the HN userbase. I'll be grateful if reasonable folks vouch, but I'm not mad about it either way.

[dathinab]

just want to point out that I'm happy you comment has been reinstated.

my original comment was really just about the irony and the vage formulation wrt. legality was mainly there because I wasn't sure if there might be subtle differences between "destroying evidence yourself" and "deceiving officers to destroy evidence for you", both of which are obviously not legal

The level to which people insist on nitpicking formulations with the intend to intentionally misinterpret what meaning the author tried to convey is honestly frustrating. Weather it's people which think they can doge laws, make it ethical okay to scam people or start hate complain on twitter because someones post can be misinterpreted when nit picking it's formulation reading each sentence out of context it's all unproductive, destructive and IMHO pretty mean behavior. It's also IMHO quite quixotic(1) to believe the world does or should work that way, at least IRL/outside of X. I mean in which word is it desirable that criminals can doge legal responsibility through "clever speech" or similar.

Like getting back to this case

- sure the boarder police has to much power to harass people, sure some degree of search for physical smuggling goods is needed, but as there is little point in physically smuggling digital goods (assuming you aren't North Korea) any digital searching right requiring phone unlock is more then just one step too far. Especially given how this can be abused by unlawful officers, weather it's in context of impersonation, snooping into very private matter (e.g. sexting of wife) or outright trying to breach attorney-client privilege or size companies trade secrets

- similar him being internally labeled as a "terrorist" while most likely by any sane definition only being a "activist" is nothing new, but very much not what any state of law should do

- so anything leading up to the phone unlock requirement most likely shouldn't happen

- BUT iff there where a search warrant on him for an actual reasonable matter, then yes deceiving the officers to delete his data for him by giving them a duress pin _should_ have legal consequences. Everything else would be absurd. But also a ethical & legal warrant requires that there is a well founded suspicion of there being evidence in the searched places, e.g. based on evidence of the person being entangled into criminal activity or similar.

Or in other words the problem here isn't that using a duress pin has legal consequences, but that, from the facts we have, from a democratic/state of law POV, it should never have come to a point where he is under duress to give out the PIN. Which also seems to be roughly the direction his defense goes, but that isn't fully clear from the article.

Lastly there is a (slim) possibility of him actually being a criminal by any reasonable standard playing victim, sure it doesn't look like it. But it's worth mentioning as people love an underdog story and love to hate on police/boarder control, but not every underdog is a good person sometimes police does the right thing.

[digitalPhonix]

> Lying to a federal officer is a crime

That doesn’t pass the sniff test

[sfRattan]

Double check your nose.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1]

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[NullPrefix]

but it is perfectly legal when federal officers lie themselves?

[jkaplowitz]

Generally yes, unfortunately, with very narrow exceptions. Not all countries follow this rule, but the US does, and it’s certainly not alone in this respect.

[collabs]

If you ask me, this law ought to be removed completely.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/25/939064270/trump-pardons-forme...

> President Trump has issued a pardon to his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and then recanted.

Rules for thee but not for me.

[switchbak]

"Rules for thee but not for me" - isn't that beyond obvious now? The folks running things simply do not play by the rules you or I do (assuming you do).

[8note]

a pardon is still within the rules

make sure to give trump a payout and you too can loe to the fbi

[Frost1x]

I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour and there’s a whole lot of linking intent to action where you can be liable if a court can prove it. Not that an LLM is legal gold but it’s the best thing I have to pass ideas around with.

The entire situation is sort of nonsensical and boils down to lots of minutia in law that no normal person would know about.

For example having normal widely known security features like wiping the device after N failed PIN attempts is fine. Even having long standing security practices that can’t be related are fine, like having a timed touch point where if you don’t enter the PIN every… 15 days or whatever the device wipes, perfectly fine if it can’t be connected towards the crime and you’re not compelled to tell officers you have such a security mechanism.

Even if you were to set a trap where you use the same PIN for your bank, your laptop, and some other security devices in repetition then decide to set your duress PIN to that by assuming it would be discovered as a probable option they’d use, you’d be ok but it could be questionable if that was by design…

It’s so obscure really as to how and how you’re not allowed to protect your data, even if you’re not the one performing the action to clear destroy the potential evidence yourself. The entire thing seems pretty absurd a frankly arbitrary to me, and I don’t know how people could know which cases are and aren’t legal. I know not to destroy evidence myself but I wouldn’t know to tell someone to not use the duress pin or that even giving them my duress pin could somehow be my liability. It’s madness if you ask me.

[sumeno]

> I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour

One of the most depressing things I've read on here

[Frost1x]

Well I don’t have any legal need to hire a lawyer or anything I would need a lawyer for. It’s a rather fast way to surface legal information and precedent. I don’t see how it’s any more depressing than Google diving on a topic you’re interested in for an hour..

[vips7L]

Welcome to moltnews. Everyone here is addicted.

[SubiculumCode]

Not a lawyer, but destruction of evidence would only be valid if there was first some reasonable suspicion of a crime? Is that right?

[3eb7988a1663]

This is my core question as well. At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself?

If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding? The dash-cam automatically over-writes old footage - perpetually destroying evidence.

Given nebulous cases such as "hacking" a site by looking at the HTML[0], am I destroying evidence of crimes whenever I format my PC? I hope the government requires specific charges and more proof of a crime other than missing evidence. Say I destroy my diary - can the government claim that is the key evidence where I confessed to being the gunman on the grassy knoll?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28992667

[whats_a_quasar]

"At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself?"

For the duration of the border search. This guy is at risk because he caused the data to be deleted during a border search, when CBP asserts they can legally look. He would have been fine if he deleted data on the plane or after leaving the airport.

(This is my understanding of the government's position; personally I don't think this prosecution is constitutional)

[lelanthran]

> If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding?

If the erasure was a non-automated result of them asking you, and you alone, what conclusion do you think is possible? Probable?

[8note]

the government might not, but your insurance company definitely will

[_ink_]

Also, can they proof that there was evidence on the phone?

[account42]

> We Americans are fortunate to carry powerful passports and enjoy relatively easy international travel but, for better or worse

There actually not that special, requiring a visa in 35 countries compared to 25/26 for most European passports: https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php

Unrestricted access to the US is probably the bigger advantage you get.

[mihaaly]

It is so sad and worrying when the already oppressed population argue for paranoid practices constraining their own practices considerably and with great efforts, eroding the other thing that constitution was so famous about, freedom, so some officers supposed to serve the population can do things easily to anyone. If they please and want it easy for themselves.

[8note]

this means: put a good government in charge of the border that respects your rights

[atoav]

Well I prefer simply to stay out of countries that haven't got their ducks in a row when it comes to freedom. Saves a lot of hassle.

[bubblethink]

>destroy evidence

Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.

[bitmasher9]

You’re way off about when it’s illegal to start destroying your property that the police want to seize during an investigation.

[GolfPopper]

"Investigation" is a pretty generous way to label "some thugs working for an authoritarian state want to look for incriminating stuff - including criticism or mockery of them or their leader - on your communications device".

Whatever the American legal system may say, a couple of thugs with no warrant conducting searches and seizures of data is a blatant violation of the Constitution's intent. This is the sort of behavior Americans used to rightfully condemn.

[samtheprogram]

Calling border patrol "thugs" doesn't really bolster your argument to anyone except people who already agree with you.

[RunSet]

I find that choice of words more likely to cause people who already disagree with them to fixate on it rather than the substance of their comment.

[r_lee]

it just makes those people dismiss it. doesn't really do any good.

I'm all for privacy and find this seizure stuff really wrong but to me it just looks like another form of "orange man bad"

[samtheprogram]

Check my last submission on this site -- same news story (different site). I agree with them, and it's distracting and damaging to the cause.

You're also essentially saying the same thing I did, because I'd argue most people already have a non-neutral stance on the subject.

[schoen]

I would also like the fourth amendment to apply at the border.

Have you read United States v. Flores-Montano? The border search exception (which I disagree with) is pretty old. Can you find an era in which Americans in general found it objectionable or were united in rejecting its application to data?

[treetalker]

To me it’s all quite analogous to walking up to, but not crossing, a border with, say, a fruit that’s legal to possess on the side you’re on, but not on the other side, and either eating or throwing away that fruit before crossing.

“Hey! I saw you holding that Mexican pepper in Mexico, and then you threw it in that Mexican trash can before crossing into Texas!”

“Yeah, so?”

[nazgul17]

But that's not what happened here. Here, you were trying to bring the pepper over, got inspected and somehow got rid of it because you were able to be found out.

[dyauspitr]

This is more like bringing the pepper across and then quickly swallowing it when they ask you to look at it.

[greycol]

Or emptying your bottle of water when the TSA found it on the XRAY. Unlike the pepper he's actually allowed to have that data on his phone both sides of the border.

[8note]

which also would be fine?

[account42]

Only if you ignore the "when they ask you to look at it" part.

[seb1204]

Hit and miss, depending on the security guy. Some had me pour it out.

[kube-system]

"Evidence" has never been limited to the subject of a warrant. Destruction of evidence statutes typically include material that is subject to a police investigation.

[SubiculumCode]

But are not investigations typically under some reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred?

[kube-system]

Reasonable suspicion is required for a terry stop but that does not apply at a border crossing. Everyone can be stopped and questioned and searched at a border crossing.

An ”investigation” is just a fancy word that broadly describes the type of information collection that law enforcement does. Yes, it is typically about things they think are crimes. Because that’s their job. But there’s not some legal hurdle they have to pass here, the word describes their work.

[8note]

they of course arent police and arent investigating anything

instead they are harassing

[kube-system]

It is illegal to destroy evidence even if you weren’t guilty of the crime that was allegedly being investigated.

If someone accuses you of a crime, committing a different crime is probably not a good move, in any situation.

[xdennis]

> Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.

Why do people go sovereign citizen when reality doesn't work their way? Stop imagining that the way you want things to be is the way things really are.

Cops do not need a judge to authorize the seizing of evidence. Cops do not need judges to decide what evidence is. Tell me, why did you just pretend like these are real requirements? I can understand why you'd want it to be that, but you wanting it to be that doesn't change reality.

It's as if you've just learned about the Fourth Amendment but know nothing about the nuance behind it.

Your system wouldn't even work at all. Let's imagine the cops get a tip that a bald man with a blue tshirt shot a man. They patrol the streets and find a match. By your logic they should not have the ability to search the man and seize his gun as evidence until a judge issues a warrant.

[SubiculumCode]

How about, is there reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred?

[ytoawwhra92]

Not required at an airport, for whatever reason.

[bubblethink]

The constitution doesn't disappear at the airport. The man is a US citizen. He could have remained silent, and they would eventually have let him in.

[ytoawwhra92]

Relevant reading for you: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...

And no, they wouldn’t have denied him entry, but they would have seized his device.

[3form]

I enjoy the funny implication it creates, that then perhaps if you're entering US in 2026 it means there's something wrong with you.

[inigyou]

The reason is anti-immigration

[8note]

uhh, are you a lawyer with knowledge about how evidence works?

its not just a word, its a specific legal term

cops definitely do need judges to say what evidence is admissible, and they really dont have thr ability to just declare anything they want as evidence and just steal it

[theturtletalks]

Yes this is different than when law enforcement serve a warrant and the defendant wipes his computer before the agents can get a hold of it. In that case the warrant covers what you destroyed as evidence.

Though during traffic stops, if a defendant disposes of his drugs while on the run, that can also carry a charge of destroying evidence even though no warrant was issued.

IANAL

[stemlord]

Hm but the drugs are only evidence because they're illegal? So the phone owner only destroyed evidence if the phone contained something illegal, but innocent until proben guilty?

[kube-system]

No, destroying evidence is a crime even if possession of that evidence is legal.

[amrit3128]

Who decided that it's evidence?

[kube-system]

Evidence is simply a word to describe the artifacts that one wishes to use to support their case. There’s not some gate-kept process to “become evidence”.

[__MatrixMan__]

Law enforcement. That's like, their job.

[jibal]

Destroying evidence is a crime, regardless of any warrant.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519