← Back to context

Comment by Guvante

19 hours ago

They need to prove you destroyed evidence, you have the mens rea component with the deceptive pin code but the defense can simply plainly say they didn't want the police to read their private device.

Your example is fabricated since the justice department didn't even bring forward a specific crime they believe was committed here.

If they charged him with a crime and had evidence his device had evidence of that crime (even if in reality it didn't) that would be a more interesting question.

But again where is the crime?

12 comments

Guvante

Reply
ytoawwhra92  15 hours ago

> But again where is the crime?

Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure.

CBP are empowered to search US citizens devices and, if the citizen refuses to comply, to seize that device. They'll be alleging that by knowingly providing CBP with a duress PIN he destroyed his own property to prevent its seizure.

Notably, they don't need to prove he destroyed evidence of anything.

gruez  19 hours ago

>with the deceptive pin code but the defense can simply plainly say they didn't want the police to read their private device.

That's as convincing as saying you burned all the documents because you don't want people who break in to read all your financial records. It just happened to start after the SEC came knocking

  • wpm  17 hours ago

    Except this isn't the SEC actually pursuing a voicable crime. This person was under no suspicion at all. They were simply coming home after being abroad: last I checked that is not a crime. Outside of a crime, "evidence" is just called property. If the TSA can't show "we have provable evidence gathered elsewhere to show that there was possible incriminating data on that phone" all they did was wipe this guys phone. All they had was pre-crime "he was involved in the movement against Cop City so we're gonna search his phone". No "he was meeting with terrorists in the DR". No "we have good reason to believe that when he was in the DR he communicated with terrorists". Just "uhhh we were looking for anything prohibited[1] and we targeted this guy because he was involved in some anti-cop protest group 3 years ago".

    If you can't see how insanely thin their argument is, and how easily this will be abused, I don't know what to tell you. We could just as easily say having any passcode on your phone at all is obstruction of justice, since the feds could want to look on your phone for whatever made up reason, and if they can't because its encrypted, well why did you do that? What are you trying to hide? Evidence of a crime!?!?!

    1. I had to call out, "looking for anything prohibited" is a direct fucking quote from CBP. They admitted it was a fishing expedition.

    • gruez  17 hours ago

      >We could just as easily say having any passcode on your phone at all is obstruction of justice, since the feds could want to look on your phone for whatever made up reason, and if they can't because its encrypted, well why did you do that? What are you trying to hide? Evidence of a crime!?!?!

      I specifically said this wouldn't be covered, because you set up the pin before you knew any investigation occurred. However, I think it's reasonable if you were pulled aside by CBP while deplaning, and while you're waiting to interview you decided to hastily turn on encryption on your laptop, or eat a bunch of papers you had on you, I'd say that's similar to evidence tampering, not unlike flushing drugs down the toilet when you see a cop pulling up on your driveway.

      3 replies →