Comment by whats_a_quasar
13 hours ago
Here is the indictment: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28513012-samuel-tuni...
Here is the statute Tunick is indicted under: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
There is an immediate problem: the device was being searched, and this statute criminalizes destruction of property to prevent seizure, not searches. I don't think this statute applies this situation. Regardless of whether the border agents could lawfully search his phone at the border, they didn't have grounds to seize it. I suspect this prosecution will quietly be dismissed within a few months.
OR the US administration could drag out the case hope it gets to the Supreme Court for another roll of the dice on weakening the Bill of Rights.
As usual, government should have obtained a warrant if they wanted to search a US citizen.
CBP are empowered to seize devices if the owner refuses a search.
Hmm. It looks like the government asserts that they can seize a device if the owner does not provide a password. This is a good point and answers my search v. seizure objection above.
You say CBP is "empowered" to seize a device if the owner refuses to provide a password but I can't find a statute that authorizes it or precedent squarely saying the 4th Amendment allows this. The scope of the border search exception isn't settled. So the next argument available is that the executive is wrong and CBP does not have the constitutional authority to seize a device merely because the owner refuses to provide a password. That's obviously a much bigger argument and who knows if it would work, though this case sorta feels like it could become a marquee 4A case.
"The ACLU argues that the Fourth Amendment does apply in these situations, at least to electronic devices, because they contain so much private information. But the law is very unsettled, and the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue."
https://www.aclumaine.org/know-your-rights/electronic-device...
Just being silly. Owner gave permission (and the pin code) that will give them access to an empty phone. No search refused.
I don't know, that sounds like the kind of "I'm not touching you" defense that I don't think will convince anyone with common sense. It's obvious the wipe turned a search that could potentially find something into a useless search, so I don't see why the two should be treated as equivalent.
6 replies →
The language in the statute of what constitutes "destruction" is very broad and clearly covers IMO giving a self-destruct password to someone who you know will try to enter it.
"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
3 replies →
IMO people are better off knowing their actual rights in a US airport than trying to outsmart the US government.