Seems like they’re going to have a struggle proving intent. “I was stressed out and afraid and I got the passwords mixed up” would be the magic words I’d hear as a juror and I wouldn’t be able to vote to convict.

▲

kube-system 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you get a jury who doesn't think that "strange self-destructing phone" isn't a criminal's tool to begin with. Which I'd guess is probably not likely.

	▲	mullingitover 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The defense has a chance to educate the jury about it in a trial, and given how widely CBP/DHS is distrusted in 2026 it’s not difficult to see at least one juror having reasonable doubt. Bonus for the defense: whatever is left of the DOJ, it’s mainly cranks, cronies, and people who can’t find work elsewhere.

▲

gib444 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surely they'll just dig into as to why he set up the feature originally?

▲

kombookcha 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

'I don't want some sketchy phone mugger to end up with sexy photos of my girlfriend/myself' would seem like a plausible reason to me, if I was a juror.

▲

microtonal 7 hours ago | parent [-]

IANAL, but I think that argument would be stronger if there was a way of a mugger to use the pincode (like putting it on a note inside the case) and law enforcement just used that code.

	▲	kombookcha 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That sounds sensible to me. But I am likewise NAL. If you've refused to answer questions and giving them the password, and they don't have a warrant, taking your case off and inputting the mysterious number they found in there seems a lot more like them destroying your (data) property by oafishly trying to force access to a phone they have no business messing with, rather than you ostensibly destroying evidence of a theoretical undiscovered crime. I'm sure they would still try to mess with you in a dozen ways for annoying them, but at least you'd be on decently solid ground in court as far as that goes.

▲

13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]