• ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    58 minutes ago

    The issue I’m seeing with the whole case is they siezed his phone, they kept his phone, the seizure of his property happened successfully. A person later entered something they believed would open it but instead it wiped it. The end user didn’t wipe it, and didn’t lie to the agents of the state because a duress PIN is still a PIN, I’m willing to wager they didn’t specify that they wanted his ‘unlock PIN’ and instead just asked him for a PIN (personal identification number), which he gave.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      45 minutes ago

      That’s court fodder, and unfortunately, I don’t believe it’ll pass.