| |
| ▲ | mc32 a day ago | parent [-] | | "What, like with a cloth or something?" Destruction of potential evidence of a crime is a crime. Obviously here there is nuance and the courts can determine if this is the right interpretation or not. If he had compromising information and he reasonable suspicion he’d be asked to unlock his phone he should have “wiped” it way before he got to the border. | | |
| ▲ | warrantisall 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The person was not charged with destruction of evidence, rather destruction of property to prevent a seizure. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.35... To be charged with destruction of evidence, the data contained in the device has to be justified as such. It appears this was not the case, note this person was not indicted or accused of anything else too. | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Destruction of evidence is a crime. They'd have to prove there was evidence. | | |
| ▲ | mc32 a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they would have to prove that there was incriminating data on the phone. However, destroying potential evidence before there is suspicion of a crime is also a crime if done with intent to undermine a future investigation. It's quite unadvisable to destroy data in front of any sort of law enforcement. Last ditch effort? Sure, you better your odds but it's not ideal. If you have evidence of a crime, you know, wipe it way before you need to hand things over for examination and be in the position of having to destroy data as they knock on your door. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake a day ago | parent [-] | | You keep saying "potential evidence." What does that even mean? If I factory reset my phone right now, am I guilty of destroying "potential evidence?" Do you have "potential evidence" on any of your devices? Let's not make up phrases to help justify what they were doing. There was either an actual crime committed, and wiping the phone destroyed real evidence. Or there was not. You can't just consider all data everywhere to be "potential evidence" while you look around for some kind of crime that it's evidence of. If it was evidence, what was the crime? | | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent [-] | | The implication they are making is that the person _intended_ to destroy potential evidence on the phone. That the person felt there was evidence on it that needed to be destroyed to hide a crime. IMO, even if that's actually illegal, there's zero way to prove it that the fifth amendment doesn't address. | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The 5th has been distorted by the courts so much, that I wouldn't assume any novel interpretation would stand (and wiping data to avoid self-implicating is novel). For instance, apparently answering questions up until a point at which you don't severely threatens your legal ability to invoke the 5th. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
