Comment by itake
13 hours ago
Just being silly. Owner gave permission (and the pin code) that will give them access to an empty phone. No search refused.
13 hours ago
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.
common sense is that CBP should not be searching citizens phones in order to pick a kill list for ICE to go killing first amendment protected protestors.
it's ridiculous on the face of it that that guys phone should be searched at all
This is an absurd statement. A “kill list”? Please.
I would have thought the fourth amendment not having specific geographical boundaries, but rather applying generally would have been common sense too, but here we are with border patrol being able to force you to reveal your PIN code just because you transited a border.
Imagine a safe containing sealed envelopes written in a code that only the owner understands.
The police ask for the combination.
The owner provides a combination that opens the safe, but the safe’s security mechanism first destroys its contents. The police can now inspect the safe but there are no documents left.
Even if the documents had remained, they would still have been written in an indecipherable code unless the police also had the codebook.
This person was complicit with the search: he gave the police access to search the safe.
You're making two arguments here, and I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think any of them would convince a judge.
> The owner provides a combination that opens the safe, but the safe’s security mechanism first destroys its contents. The police can now inspect the safe but there are no documents left.
> This person was complicit with the search: he gave the police access to search the safe.
The problem is that it's very obvious the police didn't want access to the safe because they like opening safes but to get the documents inside. The person denied that intent.
> ... written in a code that only the owner understands.
> Even if the documents had remained, they would still have been written in an indecipherable code unless the police also had the codebook.
This is an orthogonal argument basically saying "if the documents had also been encrypted, then there would have been no difference between destroying the documents and just leaving them encrypted".
First, that's not what was the case in the original situation - there is nothing saying there was secondary encryption on the phone.
Second, obviously, destroying documents and encrypting them is not equivalent because in the second case there is still an option to try and brute-force the code or try to decrypt them in another way.
1 reply →
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."
I know intent is a thing in law.
But I'm curious what the officer specifically requested. If the officer just asked for "the pin code", without explaining what they were trying to do or which pin code, then it seems he did comply: he gave them a pin code that gives them access to the [cleaned] phone.
Then the officer destroyed the property...
It doesn't matter. Providing a PIN that will cause an officer to inadvertently delete data clearly is covered by the statute:
"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure .. takes any action ... for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property ..."
1 reply →
IMO people are better off knowing their actual rights in a US airport than trying to outsmart the US government.