US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a 'duress' password during border search | TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
A U.S. citizen has asked a court to throw out the government's claim that he gave over a passcode to border authorities that wiped his phone's data, opening up fresh questions about a person's constitutional rights at the U.S. border.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/49853131

Feels to me like GrapheneOS did exactly what it should, passing the US border test with flying colours!

Funny part about this lawsuit: “With a little planning ahead of time, you can always download the data you need once you get to where you’re going,”

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    17·
    7 hours ago

    There’s a bunch of legislation and case law saying that searches are OK within x (50?) miles of a border crossing which covers something like 90% of the population because they count international airports.

    So it might get sticky for the person.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      6 hours ago

      Search is not the same thing. Search means they CAN legally search. It absolutely does mean that wiping your phone prevented, obstructed, or obscured a SEARCH. Search all you fucking want, that data is gone. It’s not retroactively comparable.

      That being said, had there been a judge that said “You can’t wipe your phone, because you are being charged with a crime, and we believe there is evidence of this crime on your phone, and here is why…”

      Way different, and these laws only exist to prevent law enforcement from being caught in a cyclical legal roundabout in court related to the 4th amendment, and even then, many defense lawyers get “gray area” material data evidence thrown out because of Miranda Rights, or illegal searches by law enforcement of data harvested when the defendent was not properly advised or advocated for their ability to refuse.

      Murderers get off for this shit because Cops get overzealous and don’t follow the letter of the law or chain of custody in evidentiary collection.

      • Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        5 hours ago

        From the article

        “The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized.”

        “When Tunick provided his passcode and the authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” The authorities seized his phone anyway, before telling him that he was free to go and could enter the United States.”

        • just_another_person@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          4 hours ago

          Yes, and only JUDGES are able to make that determination.

          There is no stature in Federal or State law that says this is a crime, and no superceded precedent for this.