Technology

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 26 points 3 days ago

100 miles, but it does not include airports. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

parent

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

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."

parent

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

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There is no stature in Federal or State law that says this is a crime, and no superceded precedent for this.

parent

[–] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world -4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

No it can be police that charge.

My state 100% has this law and police charge suspects for this.

ORC 2921.12 Tampering with evidence.

(A) No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following:

(1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation;

(2) Make, present, or use any record, document, or thing, knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public official who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation, or with purpose to corrupt the outcome of any such proceeding or investigation.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree.

parent

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

In your Section A right there: "official proceeding"

There was no crime in progress, suspicious activity, or active charges brought against this person.

Maybe reread the article.

Also, Police do not bring charges, Prosecuting Attorneys do. Police are only responsible for investigations and arresting. Everything else is cleared by the legal system first.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] chloroken@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

You're wrong and arguing in bad faith now.

People get charged with tampering for all types of shit, like eating drugs during an arrest. The laws surrounding the bordes are dumb as fuck, but legally-speaking border operations can be construed as official proceedings, although it's only an investigation that is required. Which it obviously was.

Prosecutors ultimately argue charges, but police organize those charges before presenting them to the the state.

Knock it off. Stop being a contrarian weirdo.

parent

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You seem to have zero knowledge on the subject, so let me educate you a lil bit:

Data isn't treated like physical evidence.

Drugs and weapons are physical evidence.

US laws do not cover any protections of ephemeral (non-physical) evidence pertaining to crimes committed ex post facto: meaning law enforcement is not privy to any and all collection of said data if not in scope for a crime committed, unlike...PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

You can see drugs. You can hold drugs. Law enforcement can make a reasonable assumption that someone shooting a gun in public is breaking the law and seize that gun, because they are actually breaking the law (juris laws dependent) by firing the gun.

If suddenly our laws allowed the assumption that whatever exists on a phone for a random person in public contains something related to a crime, police would be able to stop anyone and everyone on the street everywhere and take their phone or data for simply thinking every person is suspicious. This is why the 4th amendment exists, and why police are enot allowed to do such things. His is why warrants are a thing.

Read up.

parent

[–] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago

You didn't even read past that. It then says "or investigation"

I'm kinda done talking as you're not even reading what I post.

Good day!

parent

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Not every search is comparable to one another. Searching a car for immigrants near the border fence is one thing while searching an American citizen's personal phone containing all kinds of private informatoon at an airport in the middle of Georgia is another. This is all based off allegations of CSAM, but I would imagine the federal government would actually have to make a case for why they suspected CSAM in the first place to make the seizure legitimate. In reality, they probably wanted this guys messages and phone calls related to his activism so that they can target those people too, which is going to be hard to make a case for in court depending on the judge.