upvote
It seems like the best course of action would be to argue he did not destroy evidence, just made it unavailable at the location to force the requirement for a search warrant. It would probably be a hard sell, but I can't think of a better argument (not a lawyer).
reply
> He was charged for destroying evidence, not refusing a search

Evidence with regard to which investigation?

reply
Border agents are entitled to investigate anything for any reason more or less
reply
If you are a US citizen, they are not entitled to your unlocked phone. They need a judicial warrant if they want you to unlock your phone with a PIN/password. It is settled case law that that falls under your protections under the 14th Amendment.

They can take it for a "reasonable amount of time" (inconvenience you for a few hours and make you miss your connecting flight) while they copy an encrypted image. They then must return it to you.

reply
Problem is, he didn't destroy shit. "He" (by which I mean, technically the agents) deleted a header that's used to encrypt data but can restored from a backup.
reply
Deleting isn’t destroying?
reply
Sure, but the issue is he didn't delete his data, he deleted a header with a key in it, that's it, just a few MB. He didn't delete hundreds of GB of chats or browsing history, he deleted a key to access it and that key isn't necessarily the only one that can access it. All the stuff they want can still be accessed just fine if another copy of the key exists.

To put it in protective, just opening a web browser or some other app can delete/alter more data than was deleted in this case.

reply
> Moreover he would have been in the clear if he just kept his mouth shut.

Although then you get a possible delay of undefined duration, additional questioning and seizure of your device.

reply
Evidence of what? Destroying evidence assumes he is guilty of a crime which there be evidence of. Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence. The normal threshold to accuse is a "reasonable, articulable suspicion." This does not meet that criteria.
reply
Well that's the thing with destroying evidence. If you destroyed it, it becomes harder (or impossible) to prove you did the crime. That's why it's not uncommon for people to be only charged with stuff like "obstruction of justice" rather than the actual crime they allegedly did.
reply
But you can't assume someone committed a crime.
reply
In this case, the authorities are claiming they were looking for CSAM. So wiping the phone hindered a valid investigation.

They can say anything they want. They hold all the power. This will never change until enough people take matters into their own hands, as the system has been compromised.

reply
They think a well known protester who was savvy enough to wipe their phone was crossing the border with CSAM on their phone? Do people buy this shit?
reply
And what if he was erasing a steamy affair with a border patrol agent? That's not illegal, but releasing knowledge of it could be damaging to all parties for no reason.
reply
if the only evidence of a crime is on your phone, what kind of crime is it?

we should always be asking: is this the only way you can prove the accusation? just because it would make LEO life easier - that's not justification for violating the constitution.

an consider what this case teaches us: clean up your devices before you cross a border. how does that even help the goal of law enforcement?

reply
> Our system is predicated on an assumption of innocence.

In theory. In practice, this is a hopelessly outdated supposition.

reply
"Evidence" of what, exactly? What specific crime did they expect to find evidence of on his phone?
reply
They were pretty obviously hoping to find a specific crime to accuse him of (because he is a protester against the Atlanta "Cop City" thing).

But no respectable judge would ever have issued a search warrant on the basis of "we want to rifle through his messages/contacts so we can hopefully accuse him of something".

Protesters against this exact same thing were mis-prosecuted under "domestic terrorism" and "racketeering" charges before (got dismissed in 2025).

reply
[flagged]
reply
Please try again with an actual argument rather than attacking people based on which "side" I'm on.
reply
Is there any question the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism when they realized it was so obviously untenable, as a pretense to detain him would've been treated differently if he were on a different "side"?
reply
>the person who was baselessly charged with CSAM, then terrorism

Source? Are we still talking about Samuel Tunick? The article doesn't mention it, and so far as I can tell he was only charged at the border crossing for obstruction.

reply
Not "charged" as in indicted but the search was based on an accusation that he had CSAM on the device. But his political proclivities make it pretty transparent that CSAM was an invented excuse to investigate and punish a political dissident.
reply
[flagged]
reply
"obese nazis"?
reply