you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 176 points 1 day ago (7 children)

This is fucking stupid. If I delete something on my phone while I'm on vacation am I going to prison because the border patrol might have wanted to look at it?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 123 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Should have been born a child fucking billionaire if you don’t want to be sentenced to prison for 30 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It’s bullshit but with the current laws. Back up your phone before you head home wipe it before going through border control, and restore your backup when you get home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    That's what I do but evidently that pisses them off

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    That's not really how the law works. You're not making a comparable analogy. You sitting at home or in a hotel room is legally not remotely the same as when you're being actively searched by a federal agent.

    This is more like if the a police officer is about to do a pat-down search of someone, and they reach into their pocket, grab something, and rapidly swallow it.

    You can destroy your property in normal circumstances whenever you please. If you delete a file in the privacy of your own home, odds are you're not doing so for the purposes of evading law enforcement. However, if you do it literally seconds before law enforcement is about to get a hold of it, it's pretty unambiguous that you're trying to destroy evidence.

    That's the crucial difference here legally. Plausible deniability does not exist when you're destroying something because a police search is imminent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Or maybe you just don't want some cop to see your dick pics. If they had anything on this dude they wouldn't have needed to go through his phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I am explaining how the law works and the assumptions behind it. The law assumes that if you were embarrassed about your dick pics, that you would delete those before the officer is right about to search you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The laws assumptions are bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    This guy has no fucking idea how the law works. Destruction of evidence requires a primary crime, the one you're destroying the evidence for. There is no crime, therefore no destruction of evidence. Only an incompetent or corrupt judge would let this even go to trial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    We don’t need hyperbole here …. If authorities have a legal reason to search and you interfere with that, destruction of evidence is a crime. Delete all you want …. Right up until authorities claim the legal reason to search. Usually that takes a warrant: investigators must convince a judge there is a good reason

    This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

    The slippery slope here is “or within 100 miles”, but that wasn’t a factor here either

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    This also includes “when entering the country”. It always has. There’s nothing new here. There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

    Have to disagree with that one. Simply entering a country is not justification for searching someones phone. I don't care what the law says. People have a right to privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I’m not saying I agree with it, just that it’s always been so

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    There are so many things the current administration does to violate rights and due process, but this isn’t one of them.

    You literally said they are not violating rights by doing this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    He’s saying that right was taken away by George W Bush.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Governments cannot take rights away. They can only infringe upon them. They are rights. Not privileges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn't apply because he hadn't yet crossed into America.

    border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they'll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he's a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.

    they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    If he wasnt in the US how can the US claim he violated a US law?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.

    Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago

    So the law applies, but protection under the law does not.

    Isn't all law essentially derived from powers granted by the constitution?

    If the powers granted by it to enforce a law are applicable when not within the US then then it very reasonably ought to apply to any and all amendments.

    But, reason is on the extinction list with the magafascists. (And all LEO)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    In addition, the law that he's charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.

    There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.

    The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn't the same as destroying property where they've demonstrated probable cause to a judge.

    This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn't supported by precedence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    These fucking conservatives crawl out of the woodwork like cockroaches anytime the government does something heinous and use their piss poor understanding of EVERYTHING to try to justify the heinous actions. It happens every time, and I wish just once to see one of them use real and relevant facts, just so I can pretend that these people live in reality for just one second.

    Hasn't happened yet though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments