I saw this same comment in the comments on the article and it just doesn’t make any sense. The owner of the phone didn’t burn anything down, the feds did. They were the ones with the device, they were the ones that typed in the code.
This would be like the federal government showing up to search your house, you saying “no”, they say “give us a key” (not the key to unlock, but a key) and you give them one set on fire and they light the house on fire themselves. You didn’t do anything except give them what they asked for, it’s their fault they didn’t realize what it would do. I believe if the defendant argues it properly in court there’s gonna be nothing the Feds can do, because he didn’t interfere with anything.
Maybe if the feds had asked for the passcode that let them into the phone so they could search it then that’s one thing. But I seriously doubt they did.
edit: in addition what he's being charged of is destruction of property to prevent seizure. The government still has the phone, they were not prevented from taking property under their control. This statute doesn't match in any sense of the word.
for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control