According to the officials he is not afforded constitutional protections because he was not legally in the US until they admitted him. Based on their own admission they had no legal authorization to look at his phone. Sorry, but they don't have a leg to stand on. Great move by the defendant. You are under no legal obligation to hand the authorities anything that may incriminate you. They can't say there was anything incriminating on his phone if there is nothing on it.
US prosecutors charge Atlanta man after GrapheneOS phone wipes itself during airport search
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
Total bs. They need to prove that there was anything there. Let a jury rule on this.
Corre. They embarked on a fishing expedition and are having a hissy fit because they failed. Mark one for freedom.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 8,857 +18,049
There are certainly some sovereign citizens in these comments. I'm sure if a cop told you to exit your car during a traffic stop, you'd get into an argument with them over your rights and warrants, refuse to recognize Pennsylvania v mimms, and end up on one of those arrest videos on YouTube.
The law says border agents can search your devices without a warrant. Now, you don't have to agree with that law. I don't. But that is how it is currently written. If you claim to have forgotten your code, that's one thing. If you intentionally provide a trap code that wipes a device, that is destruction of evidence.
It's no different then if you had a file folder in your locked luggage, a border agent requested you open it, and you lit it on fire. Even if the only contents were pictures of cats, you have destroyed evidence after it was requested by law enforcement, this is illegal.
Evidence of your innocence is still evidence.
Also, if this guy was this worried, he should have wiped the device BEFORE traveling. Or used a burner. This isn't hard to do.
You guys really don't understand how the law or the legal system work, do you?
If you refuse, you will either be arrested for obstruction, or told to return to wherever you came from.
It's still illegal.
The law says border agents can search your devices without a warrant. Now, you don't have to agree with that law. I don't. But that is how it is currently written. If you claim to have forgotten your code, that's one thing. If you intentionally provide a trap code that wipes a device, that is destruction of evidence.
It's no different then if you had a file folder in your locked luggage, a border agent requested you open it, and you lit it on fire. Even if the only contents were pictures of cats, you have destroyed evidence after it was requested by law enforcement, this is illegal.
Evidence of your innocence is still evidence.
Also, if this guy was this worried, he should have wiped the device BEFORE traveling. Or used a burner. This isn't hard to do.
and they have pretty solid proof. He gave them a passcode that wiped the device. That's an open and shut violation of the law in this case.
How is he guilty until proven innocent? He has been CHARGED with a crime, not CONVICTED. He has not gone through a court trial yet.
You guys really don't understand how the law or the legal system work, do you?
Nope. He has been charged, not found guilty. Please learn how the legal system works. It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".
And when you pass the us border, the agents have the right to search your phone without a warrant.
If you refuse, you will either be arrested for obstruction, or told to return to wherever you came from.
And lighting stolen property on fire is just changing the state of some atoms.
It's still illegal.
You don't need a warrant to search a device at the border. This has been well established legally.
Last edited:
No warrant = no crime. Maybe the US cucks should do a better job at proving a case and come with a warrant to apprehend the bad people ... Then you'd be able to get him on destruction of evidence at least. ... He's killed 40 people but they can't prove it, eh, charge him for tax evasion 
onebignerd
Posts: 170 +112
The Feds have zero proof there was anything criminal on the phone, they were fishing for probably cause. You are protected from self incrimination, so erasing the phone is essentially taking the fifth. Erasing or protecting data is the same as not verbally divulging the data. If the guy fell striking his head resulting in amnesia, is that destroying evidence?
The secure ISP Lavabit shutdown instead of releasing it's private encryption keys by order of a National Security Letter. Silent Circle shut down an encrypted mail service soon after Lavabit and destroyed the data to prevent it's collection with a National Security Letter. No different than erasing a cell phone.
The secure ISP Lavabit shutdown instead of releasing it's private encryption keys by order of a National Security Letter. Silent Circle shut down an encrypted mail service soon after Lavabit and destroyed the data to prevent it's collection with a National Security Letter. No different than erasing a cell phone.
Last edited:
NumberNine
Posts: 2,208 +4,400
If the phone had a sensitive data, it should have been wiped before approaching the checkpoint. The path this person took has obvious consequences, so the alternative must have been worse. You'd have to be pretty dumb to go to prison for a phone with nothing on it. "Raising questions" means nothing when common people are asking the questions but it means the hammer is coming if feds are the ones asking because the next thing being raised is typically a new bill to destroy more privacy.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 8,857 +18,049
Nope. Claiming you have forgotten the password is different. They cannot prove you have forgotten or remember the password.
If you have a safe, and you claim you dont know where the keys are, that is VERY different from melting the keys down in front of the officer.
When they asked him for the code to search his phone, and he provided a self destruct code, that is destruction of evidence. Had he simply wiped the device before boarding the flight, then handed them an empty phone, he would have gotten away with it, since they cannot prove when he wiped the device. Wiping it after being asked for the code is destruction of evidence.
Pleading the fifth means not answering questions. Refusing to provide the code, one could argue, would be pleading the fifth. Giving a booby trap code is not pleading the fifth, it is intentional sabotage.
This exactly. He even could have done it when the plane landed, set it up with a burner email with nothing on it, and there would be absolutely nothing the border guards could do about it.
By wiping it the way he did, he either is very dumb, and something on there he did not want them finding, and forgot to wipe it earlier, or he is an activist who wanted to make a point and intentionally did this just to screw with the guards, in which case he is earning a trip to the Graybar hotel while achieving absolutely nothing.
I don't really want to play the "not now; there's someone wrong on the internet!" role, but here we are.
I really really hate this and believe it's a bad decision and a worse over-reach by law enforcement — there are special rules within a certain distance from the border. That's just the way it is. This has been the case for a long time.
The least worrisome thing is going after the deliberate wipe. A whole lot of people will agree that's an affirmative action to destroy evidence, which at the border while you're being questioned, can be anything.
That's the least of it. The most problematic part is that the heightened scrutiny came from a citizen exercising his right to speech (protesting cop city) and the federal government didn't like what he said.
This, like so many other things right now, is the federal government pushing everything, everywhere, to and beyond the previous limits. Because it can.
To put it another way, the federal government has lost the presumption of regularity (or however it's worded) of its prosecutors by many of the district and appellate judges. Prosecutors aren't assumed to be operating in good faith and not bending and breaking rules and refusing to follow a judge's rulings. Think about that for a second. Our federal courts no longer trust our federal prosecutors to be honest. This is an example why.
When law enforcement acts like they aren't subject to any limits because reasons, things have taken a turn.
FYI: LE anywhere in the US cannot force you to "TELL" them your PIN, but if they have any legal custody of your body, they are already implicit in control of your fingertips. The CAN compel you to touch the fingerprint reader. They'll just grap your hand and do it.
You can set many phones to require a PIN as the first unlock after a powerdown, not accepting biometrics. You are being stopped; you actually and only are turning off your phone, which you're certainly allowed to do especially *before* they've even begun questioning you.
And you can turn it off with a just one long button press.
But, folks, its a general principle that you cannot erase stuff because you're under investigation...that *is* destruction of evidence.
I really really hate this and believe it's a bad decision and a worse over-reach by law enforcement — there are special rules within a certain distance from the border. That's just the way it is. This has been the case for a long time.
The least worrisome thing is going after the deliberate wipe. A whole lot of people will agree that's an affirmative action to destroy evidence, which at the border while you're being questioned, can be anything.
That's the least of it. The most problematic part is that the heightened scrutiny came from a citizen exercising his right to speech (protesting cop city) and the federal government didn't like what he said.
This, like so many other things right now, is the federal government pushing everything, everywhere, to and beyond the previous limits. Because it can.
To put it another way, the federal government has lost the presumption of regularity (or however it's worded) of its prosecutors by many of the district and appellate judges. Prosecutors aren't assumed to be operating in good faith and not bending and breaking rules and refusing to follow a judge's rulings. Think about that for a second. Our federal courts no longer trust our federal prosecutors to be honest. This is an example why.
When law enforcement acts like they aren't subject to any limits because reasons, things have taken a turn.
FYI: LE anywhere in the US cannot force you to "TELL" them your PIN, but if they have any legal custody of your body, they are already implicit in control of your fingertips. The CAN compel you to touch the fingerprint reader. They'll just grap your hand and do it.
You can set many phones to require a PIN as the first unlock after a powerdown, not accepting biometrics. You are being stopped; you actually and only are turning off your phone, which you're certainly allowed to do especially *before* they've even begun questioning you.
And you can turn it off with a just one long button press.
But, folks, its a general principle that you cannot erase stuff because you're under investigation...that *is* destruction of evidence.
This is well-established. In any situation in which the 5th amendment applies, you cannot be compelled to provide your PIN. Because it's "speech". Your biometrics are not.
And then of course there's all this wrongheaded "things are different for [citizens] at the border" precedent which gives customs and border control much more leeway than they otherwise would have. That precedent, and that the heightened scrutiny was [arguably] the result of the [citizen or anyone, take your pick] exercising their right to speech, which he was. But also, we live in the age of "if you were at the protest, you were part of a criminal conspiracy" rationalization, which is Really Not Good.
This is well-established. In any situation in which the 5th amendment applies, you cannot be compelled to provide your PIN. Because it's "speech". Your biometrics are not.
And then of course there's all this wrongheaded "things are different for [citizens] at the border" precedent which gives customs and border control much more leeway than they otherwise would have. That precedent, and that the heightened scrutiny was [arguably] the result of the [citizen or anyone, take your pick] exercising their right to speech, which he was. But also, we live in the age of "if you were at the protest, you were part of a criminal conspiracy" rationalization, which is Really Not Good.
Win7user
Posts: 631 +444
psycros
Posts: 4,951 +7,709
He's probably still going to do do time, so I guess its "slick" if he gets away with terrorism.
Win7user
Posts: 631 +444
Better to let people think you're an A -hole, than to open your smart mouth and remove all doubt!
That doesn't mean he wasn't detained in a fashion that did violate his rights. And if he was, there's a reason they moved to strike that as something they can use as evidence against him.
Except no property was destroyed, the phone is still fully intact and usable.
Is this about seizing "intellectual property"? That raises quite a few questions. Seizure implies transfer of owned property, for example the phone itself. If he had a pirated copy of Fight Club on his phone, he didn't own it, and there's no meaning in transferring such property. Even a legit copy amounts only to a license and not ownership, as we are often reminded. Suppose he had a novel on there that he wrote and is his own intellectual property. Can the cops transfer its ownership?
Secondly, how have the cops determined that any data at all was destroyed during the wipe? Maybe the phone was already empty and reset?
Deceiving law enforcement -- is that a punishable crime by itself, or just liable to negatively affect one's case in court?
Endymio
Posts: 5,463 +5,022
Why spread absurd disinformation? No one "took land" from anyone: the radical Left bases its protest against this police training facility because construction "endangered a forest" and claims that police there were being trained in "military tactics". Both untrue, and even if both were true, the proper way to fight that is in the courts and polling stations -- not engaging in domestic terrorism at the site itself.
.
I don't even live in Atlanta and I am certain that what you are saying is what is actually untrue. a simple perusal of mainstream media backs this up.
The statement you are referring to is not misinformation.
“the land was stolen” because it was removed from public use without a quorum from the community. The appropriation was illegal and is still in court.
There is credible national consensus that contemporary Police tactics, strategy, procurement and policy have become militarized and are following urban warfare methodologies versus community engagement and human centered policing. Neither of the claims “accrossthestars” made are untrue.
you on the other hand seem to be misinformed.
@Theinsanegamer
I know that you are trying to be direct about peoples misunderstanding of the law in your statements, but the reality is that this case is clearly problematic in terms of the governments behavior versus the person they are prosecuting.
Sure the legality of the plaintiffs actions where questionable but the governments behavior is just as problematic, as it betrays prosecution as a form of harassment and bullying, something the US was founded to prevent and stop. (even if african americans/immigrants/native americans and poor people in general will have something to say here)
Anyways my point being instead of pointing out how people are misinformed about how the law currently works how about pointing out the real problems in the governments case, as well as offering suggestions as to how we should change border law in this digital age.
He basically proved that by proceeding to delete it
Sad Part is this can be used both buy good and bad guy's.
Where to even begin? How about: this is one seriously functionally illiterate argument.
First, there is no “legal jujitsu” going one here; just some simple, basic research of plain and easily discovered facts about the U.S. legal framework and its history. Anyone exerting a modicum of effort to educate themselves can find these facts. Frankly, it’s disheartening so many seem incapable of putting in even the slightest intellectual effort for bottom-barrel basics of our civic processes.
You first acknowledge the suspect was flagged and suggest he should have simply been "denied entry based on what he has done." And then you claim that this was an unprompted "fishing expedition." Pick a lane man. As stated, that’s a completely nonsensical logic.
Furthermore, your solution is legally illiterate: the U.S. government cannot flatly "deny entry" to a returning U.S. citizen. Entry is a constitutional right for citizens.
However, customs and border compliance—including routine searches to verify national security—is mandatory. A border agent cannot simply turn a citizen away or wave a flagged individual through blindly without doing their job.
To ignore these distinct legal realities in favor of an anarchist fantasy isn't just willfully ignorant; it is a defense of lawlessness that would make a functional, safe society entirely impossible.
Laws are the codified rules of the society contract—they literally prevent societies from degenerating into an anarchist states of nature where ‘might makes right.’ Much of human history existed in that state and we’ve spent literally thousands of years digging out of that hole (and still have work to do). But, I suppose you’re free just accept the idea of being beaten to death over your stereo with zero consequences for the perpetrator if you think that makes sense. You do you.
This is a misunderstanding the law and how digital evidence works.
First, 18 U.S.C. § 2232 doesn’t care about intellectual property or physical hardware damage; it criminalizes any action taken to prevent the government from taking property into custody. Digital data is legally recognized as property, and triggering a wipe to permanently erase that data is the literal destruction of evidence, regardless of whether the physical phone still works.
Second, the government doesn't need to know what was on the phone to prove a crime. The offense is the intentional act of trying to impair the seizure. Forensic analysts can easily prove a wipe occurred by examining the device's system logs and cryptographic keys to see that they were wiped right when the agent asked for the passcode.
Finally, active deception is absolutely a punishable felony, not just a courtroom disadvantage. You have a right to stay silent, but you do not have a right to take an overt action to sabotage a lawful investigation. Giving a federal agent a fake passcode that triggers a wipe is no different than handing a cop a key to a locker that is rigged to burn the documents inside. It crosses the line from passive non-cooperation straight into a federal felony.
What everyone misses is that the police claimed that US laws did not apply due to him not having entred the US yet. Thus, in effect, they had no right to seize his phone as US laws did not apply. Also, he is an activist (Cop City) and on their watch list.
What's happening here is no different than Gitmo but on US soil. The logical conclusion is gulags for wrong think.
What's happening here is no different than Gitmo but on US soil. The logical conclusion is gulags for wrong think.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 8,857 +18,049
If the police ask for you to turn something over, and you destroy it, that IS, in fact, a crime. That is destruction/tampering of evidence.
Here's an example: If you have a locked briefcase full of cat pictures, and the border agent suspects you have a briefcase full of cat pictures and ask you to open the case for inspection, and you give them a combination code for the lock that sets off a bobby trap that lights the briefcase on fire, that is destruction of evidence.
Second example: If you have a locked briefcase with nothing in it, and the border agent suspects you have a briefcase full of cat pictures and ask you to open the case for inspection, and you give them a combination code for the lock that sets off a bobby trap that lights the briefcase on fire, that is ALSO destruction of evidence.
Third example: If you have a locked briefcase with nothing in it, and a LEO suspects you have a briefcase full of cat pictures, they get a warrant and demand you unlock the case, and you give them a combination code for the lock that sets off a bobby trap that lights the briefcase on fire, that is ALSO destruction of evidence.
Fourth example: If you have a locked briefcase with nothing in it, and the border agent suspects you have a briefcase full of cat pictures and ask you to open the case for inspection, and you tell them you have forgotten the combination to the lock, that is NOT destruction of evidence.
Fifth example: If you have a locked briefcase with nothing in it, and the border agent suspects you have a briefcase full of cat pictures, they get a warrant and demand you unlock the case, and you tell them you have forgotten the combination to the lock, that is NOT destruction of evidence.
And just for fun: If you have a locked briefcase full of cat pictures, you empty them all in the trash before your flight, and the border agent suspects you have a briefcase full of cat pictures and ask you to open the case for inspection, and you give them a combination code for the lock that sets off a bobby trap that lights the briefcase on fire, that is ALSO destruction of evidence. However, if you unlock the case and show it is empty, that is NOT destruction of evidence, technically.
For everyone crying that the border agents have no evidence he committed a crime, please review the accounts listed above. If you destroy something after it has been requested by an officer with the right to request it, that is a crime. Regardless if the cat pictures are actually in the case, destroying the case is illegal. It is not on the DOJ to prove the destroyed evidence existed in the case. The phone, and the data inside, have the same legal requirements as the case and cat pictures.
The moment this guy decided to hand over the self destruct code, he royally screwed himself. Please note, for those who struggle with reading: he has NOT been charged with terrorism, or attending a protest. He has been charged with DESTROYING EVIDENCE.
What you miss is that border agents have the legal power to seize your phone for inspection without a warrant. By destroying data on the phone, he has tampered with evidence and obstructed an investigation. This is illegal.
Yeah, when you are on the border, you are subject to US border law, in which you have significantly fewer rights and protections then you do inside the US. This has been true since the late 1700s.
Again, he was NOT CHARGED FOR WRONGTHINK. Stop spreading misinformation. He was charged for destruction of evidence in a very open and shut example of FAFO. Had he wiped the phone before or even during his flight, and handed over a fresh device when requested, he'd have been just fine. It was the act of sabotaging the data with a booby trap code that is pushing him into the FO phase of FAFO.
BuckarooBonzaii
Posts: 998 +660
Well, he was being suspected previously, was pulled aside when he came back to the U.S. and was asked to unlock his phone or it will be confiscated. Just the intent to erase his phone in the presence of law enforcement is a crime because now it would show he has something to hide. Erasing or altering data in the presence of law enforcement is a crime if it's part of an investigation. If he just unlocked his phone and they found nothing he would be on his merry way. But now he has deeper problems. Even if he is acquitted at the Federal level, the State can pursue charges.
