Should we take the same approach for physical searches? If the cops are executing a search warrant on a house, and there's a safe, should they send in a safe cracker on the off chance the safe is wired with a "duress pin" (eg. thermite that burns the contents)?

▲

Neywiny 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't this already done? Don't they send narcotics back to a lab? And do sobriety tests back at the station if you refuse a field test?

	▲	gruez 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>Don't they send narcotics back to a lab? 1. They do field tests before sending to a lab 2. They're sending it to a lab to ensure the results are accurate, not to guard against an off chance something is boobytrapped.

▲

intrikate 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, if it's possible to configure and there is at all a reason for someone to configure it as such, then it makes the most sense to treat it as a very valid possibility, right?

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

Hindsight is 20/20 right? Sure, the duress pin feature was around for years, but so was the technology to set up a thermite boobytrap in a safe. Maybe now CBP officers should be more careful about entering random pins people gave them, but snarky remarks like "Maybe digital forensics shouldn't be handled by barely highschool graduates at a busy border crossing" are entirely unjustified.

▲

skullone 2 days ago | parent [-]

It is not snarky, it's the truth. Suspending the constitution within 100 miles of every port of entry? Nah son, the government can conduct their petty investigations with a warrant and proper digital forensics if they want to search your property.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Nah son, the government can conduct their petty investigations with a warrant

Your original post:

>Maybe digital forensics shouldn't be handled by barely highschool graduates at a busy border crossing

Sounds like you're moving the goalposts from "haha CBP agents are dumb" to "they should get warrants".

	▲	skullone 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Both can be true!