Mines (in wars, as implied by "solider") aren't illegal. Also even for the first example there are certainly improvised explosives you can set up that isn't criminal to create or set off, fireworks for instance. Same with a barrel of gasoline. It's certainly a crime to use it to kill someone, but that's my point. By OP's logic it's not the person who set it up's fault, it's the person who triggered it.
If you set up a device to explode once someone enters a room, it doesn't matter who set it off by entering the room if they had no idea the room would blow up.
I don't think it'll be very easy to get out of liability in this case. The duress PIN is a feature explicitly designed to delete all data when it is entered, especially in cases of coercion like this. There would be more plausible deniability if officers had simply discovered it somewhere and tried it on their own, but in this case it was knowingly provided directly in place of the real PIN.
Intentional destruction of evidence is also a crime. Now, whether this applies to this scenario I suppose will have to be determined by the courts.
Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is not a crime. Destroying it once under suspicion is a crime. So anyone can destroy their data at their hotel room even just before entry even if the data contains evidence of crimes. Of course the courts could take that into evidence to support the argument that there were crimes but it would not be a crime in and of itself.
Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is a crime if done with intent to impede a future investigation, even if the investigation hasn't yet started. Your example would be a crime if it could be proven that there would likely have been evidence in what you deleted.
Deleting your data is absolutely a crime when you know the authorities could've wanted whatever it was you deleted -- even if they haven't told you yet. It stands to reason that providing a duress PIN that deletes your data when entered would be a crime as well, if said data is of interest.
Not to say that I personally agree with either of those cases. But what is considered crime can get pretty unfair when it comes to the authorities thinking you did something wrong.
Here "wrong" includes phony bullshit like going after political activists. Even if you did nothing actually wrong, and you know it, and you can prove it, successfully messing with the authorities tends to be pretty difficult.
There is a federal criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations)
> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
That covers the first part of my comment. As for the second part, there is 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) (destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure)
> 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.
IANAL, but the encrypted data on the device could be considered property, and the act of providing the duress PIN in place of the real one could be considered a knowing action for the purpose of preventing the government either from continuing to hold that data under its control, or from seizing the data into its control in the first place (since the data was never decrypted).
>There is a difference between exploding a bomb
Mines (in wars, as implied by "solider") aren't illegal. Also even for the first example there are certainly improvised explosives you can set up that isn't criminal to create or set off, fireworks for instance. Same with a barrel of gasoline. It's certainly a crime to use it to kill someone, but that's my point. By OP's logic it's not the person who set it up's fault, it's the person who triggered it.
If you set up a device to explode once someone enters a room, it doesn't matter who set it off by entering the room if they had no idea the room would blow up.
I don't think it'll be very easy to get out of liability in this case. The duress PIN is a feature explicitly designed to delete all data when it is entered, especially in cases of coercion like this. There would be more plausible deniability if officers had simply discovered it somewhere and tried it on their own, but in this case it was knowingly provided directly in place of the real PIN.
Intentional destruction of evidence is also a crime. Now, whether this applies to this scenario I suppose will have to be determined by the courts.
Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is not a crime. Destroying it once under suspicion is a crime. So anyone can destroy their data at their hotel room even just before entry even if the data contains evidence of crimes. Of course the courts could take that into evidence to support the argument that there were crimes but it would not be a crime in and of itself.
Great comment. Wish it was the top one so I didn't have to read through the others to get here.
Do you have thoughts as to how the courts would debate the deletion that you could present on a similar intellectual plane?
Destroying potential evidence before suspicion is a crime if done with intent to impede a future investigation, even if the investigation hasn't yet started. Your example would be a crime if it could be proven that there would likely have been evidence in what you deleted.
Deleting your data is absolutely a crime when you know the authorities could've wanted whatever it was you deleted -- even if they haven't told you yet. It stands to reason that providing a duress PIN that deletes your data when entered would be a crime as well, if said data is of interest.
Not to say that I personally agree with either of those cases. But what is considered crime can get pretty unfair when it comes to the authorities thinking you did something wrong.
> when it comes to the authorities thinking you did something wrong
Did they though? Was there an actual investigation going on?
Here "wrong" includes phony bullshit like going after political activists. Even if you did nothing actually wrong, and you know it, and you can prove it, successfully messing with the authorities tends to be pretty difficult.
Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232
is what he was charged with (a)
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
1 reply →
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence
5 replies →
> Can you provide a statute number for this crime please? Any federal or even state statute will do
The google search required to find the answer ("federal statute for destruction of evidence") is shorter than your question here.
"Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry..."[0]
[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
5 replies →
There is a federal criminal provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations)
> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
That covers the first part of my comment. As for the second part, there is 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) (destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure)
> 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.
IANAL, but the encrypted data on the device could be considered property, and the act of providing the duress PIN in place of the real one could be considered a knowing action for the purpose of preventing the government either from continuing to hold that data under its control, or from seizing the data into its control in the first place (since the data was never decrypted).
2 replies →