Comment by 15155

This is a (terrible) semantic argument that will never work in any Common Law legal system.

CBP is trying to gain access to the files contained in the system.

The files in question were functionally accessible to an authorized party (the owner, GrayKey or Cellebrite acting with judicial authority, etc)

The actions undertaken by Defendant during this investigation (which Defendant was obviously aware of and participating in) permanently impaired the ability for any party to access these files. Any reasonable person, or more importantly, a sworn technical expert, would agree with this.

Specifics here are irrelevant: feasibility of access doesn't change the intent or effect of the act in question. Files existed in every reasonable characterization, now they don't.

This is functionally the same as artfully convicing the officers to light a bunch of seized documents on fire, or to open a booby trapped container that is known (and intended) to effectuate the destruction of its contents.