That wouldn’t avoid the destruction of property charge, just (possibly) make it harder to notice. It sounds like it was the screen flashing and the phone restarting, which is probably necessary for a full wipe, that tipped them off.
The man was in duress and being forced to hand over his PIN while being denied access to legal counsel, that is the very reason for a duress PIN. I don’t think the charge is even going to make it to real court, his defense has a great case for it to be thrown out.
The fact that he’s in the news is a VERY good sign. In a real 3rd world shithole he would just disappear because he pissed off an unaccountable field goon.
Whilst, yes, he probably did feel under duress, he had a choice to make; hand over the phone, or wipe it and face the repercussions from doing so. Bear in mind, that from the agent’s point of view, they had the lawful right to search his phone, so arguing duress will be tricky at best. In his position, I’d like to think I was comfortable handing over the phone because I’d wiped it before travelling.
Having said all that, yes, I agree that his defense has some strong arguments. However, if they decide to make an exame of him, those arguments wont do him much good.
While I am not entirely disagreeing, I have to a bit for anyone that can’t bring themselves to say it (all sides should be heard).
I may have misread but I don’t think he typed the PIN, as far as I understood they had already taken the phone and were insisting he give them the PIN without any access to a lawyer. Not only did he not wipe it, he only gave them the ‘I’m in duress’ PIN because he felt he was, if I’m on the jury it’s innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t think the difference between him physically triggering the wipe and him giving them the code that triggered the wipe would have much effect from a legal point of view. In both cases he deliberately took an action he knew would lead to the destruction of the data. I think his defense’s approach of challenging the legality of the stop is probably much safer.
I suspect that the prosecution would like to set precedent that you can’t claim to be under duress when a lawful authority is performing a search, so the defence staying away from that area is probably a good idea.
That wouldn’t avoid the destruction of property charge, just (possibly) make it harder to notice. It sounds like it was the screen flashing and the phone restarting, which is probably necessary for a full wipe, that tipped them off.
The man was in duress and being forced to hand over his PIN while being denied access to legal counsel, that is the very reason for a duress PIN. I don’t think the charge is even going to make it to real court, his defense has a great case for it to be thrown out.
its an intimidation tactic, and also useful soundbites for faux news.
The fact that he’s in the news is a VERY good sign. In a real 3rd world shithole he would just disappear because he pissed off an unaccountable field goon.
(That’s why arrest data is required to be public, despite the damage it does to the arrestee’s reputation, BTW.)
It’s a tough balance, it puts cops in a position to destroy someone’s life with zero proof of any law being broken - like Paul Reubens…
Whilst, yes, he probably did feel under duress, he had a choice to make; hand over the phone, or wipe it and face the repercussions from doing so. Bear in mind, that from the agent’s point of view, they had the lawful right to search his phone, so arguing duress will be tricky at best. In his position, I’d like to think I was comfortable handing over the phone because I’d wiped it before travelling.
Having said all that, yes, I agree that his defense has some strong arguments. However, if they decide to make an exame of him, those arguments wont do him much good.
While I am not entirely disagreeing, I have to a bit for anyone that can’t bring themselves to say it (all sides should be heard).
I may have misread but I don’t think he typed the PIN, as far as I understood they had already taken the phone and were insisting he give them the PIN without any access to a lawyer. Not only did he not wipe it, he only gave them the ‘I’m in duress’ PIN because he felt he was, if I’m on the jury it’s innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t think the difference between him physically triggering the wipe and him giving them the code that triggered the wipe would have much effect from a legal point of view. In both cases he deliberately took an action he knew would lead to the destruction of the data. I think his defense’s approach of challenging the legality of the stop is probably much safer.
I suspect that the prosecution would like to set precedent that you can’t claim to be under duress when a lawful authority is performing a search, so the defence staying away from that area is probably a good idea.
We’ve got a lot of really shitty judges here