Have they provided any evidence for the reason they detained this individual? Have they provided proof that the evidence existed on his phone and it being wiped leads to destruction of "evidence"?
Why was he denied a lawyer?
US prosecutors charge Atlanta man after GrapheneOS phone wipes itself during airport search
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
Have they provided any evidence for the reason they detained this individual? Have they provided proof that the evidence existed on his phone and it being wiped leads to destruction of "evidence"?
Why was he denied a lawyer?
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 9,064 +18,466
Suspicion of being involved with terrorist activities, as was described in the article. BTW, border agents dont NEED evidence to stop you at the border and search your phone.
They dont need to. That is not how the law works. Read the examples I provided above.
This is where it gets murkier, however he did not state he was arrested. Your Miranda rights are applied if you are questioned after you are arrested, not before. There is a different between detainment and arrest.
If he was detained, but not under arrest, then he can request a lawyer all day, they dont have to actually give him one.
Now, if they DID arrest him, then refuse a lawyer while asking questions, he may have a case to have all the evidence thrown out. But the story doesnt say that happened, and we shouldnt assume it happened if nobody involved has made that claim.
Endymio
Posts: 5,605 +5,231
Unless of course your name is Hillary Clinton, who wiped her server and beat 17 Blackberry phones to pulp when these devices were subpoenaed by the FBI.
This individual was not "detained" in the legal sense of the term. Have you never traveled internationally? All individual crossing a border -- either in the US or any other nation on Earth -- can be stopped and searched, and also questioned about their reasons for travel. The Supreme Court has held that such "routine" stops can last as long as 4-6 hours before a different legal standard need be applied.
Sigh, this has been explained in countless detail already. What was requested was the data on his phone, and that data was destroyed ... whatever it contained.
Nathan Joly
Posts: 6 +6
-Riley v. California, 2014
-Alasaad v. Mayorkas and Sultanov
-Federal judges have drawn clear lines regarding whether suspects can be forced to unlock their phones. Courts have ruled that compelling a suspect to state or input an alphanumeric passcode violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because it forces the person to reveal the contents of their mind. However, courts remain split on whether compelling biometric unlocks (such as fingerprints or Face ID) falls under physical evidence or testimonial communication.
-Exigent Circumstances: Police may search a cell phone without a warrant if there is an immediate emergency, such as an active threat to human life, a missing child, or an ongoing terrorist threat.
They had no problem trying to violate his rights. Considering the presence already set, it's going to be a very narrow change, if any at all.
On what bases was this data requested? The pretext of CSAM was used, which is oddly specific. What is the basis on which CSAM was suspected that lead to this detention and questioning?
Again why was he denied a lawyer?
Well you first need to prove that he gave them the wrong code intentionally, for all you actually know, the code could have been 1 letter different and they typed it in wrong. Also there is a setting on Samsungs and most other android based phone that performs a factory reset if the wrong password is entered 15 times. Also very possible that these power hungry, privacy invading, rights violating cops just tried too many wrong passwords and are lying saying he gave them some self destruct password.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not the otherway around. And good luck proving intent in this case. You're on the wrong side boot licker.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 9,064 +18,466
Border agents do not need a reason. This has been explained to you already. The CSAM explanation came around after he deleted his phone, raising suspicions.
Asked and answered.
Searching property is old school. They can't see encrypted cloud storage.
Since Patel took over it's a joke
Look at his views on Epstein before and after his appointment. Couldn't run a diner to save his life.
d0x360
Posts: 21 +6
I'll keep the expletives to myself
Sounds like authoritarian over reach to me. Why not just get a warrant to acquire his phone?
I love Obfuscation. I've got an idea, use 1 pin to access the dummy side of the phone, use another pin access the real side of the phone.
Good keep loving it because obfuscation is not security and if you think it is, you're not secure. Authoritarian overreach? How do you figure? He intentionally gave them a PIN that intentionally caused a device to be wiped, that's illegal and has been for a long time.
He was at a border crossing making it even worse and agents have the right to search any devices and property when you cross the border and always have. If they've grab this guy because of suspected terrorist ties and they have even more reasons to search his device. He was also in a location that is suspicious when considered with the rest of the situation and context.
I don't usually go along with the the lines about having nothing to hide. So what's the problem showing it but in this case that is exactly where I'm going because he destroyed evidence or tried to destroy evidence as I don't know the status of data recovery on the device.
This guy is an ***** and if he really did do nothing wrong then this would all have gone away immediately. But nope, here we are.
Privacy and digital rights are critical. I pushed for an amendment to the Constitution for digital rights for years so don't think I'm on the side of law enforcement here or in general for this kind of thing but based on everything known.. yeah, they had every reason to want to search his device and legally speaking every right to do so.
GodisanAtheist
Posts: 1,283 +2,663
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.
-Thats a lot of words for "he did nothing wrong let him in"
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 9,064 +18,466
Did you gather that from an admiralty courtroom?
Karlos95
Posts: 535 +391
Radical? You mean people who want actual freedoms, not laws designed to hurt everyday citizens and protect the pedo elite.Sounds similar to flushing drugs down the toilet before cops can get to them.
And I could totally see radical tech nerds defending this guy simply because of GrapheneOS being involved.
Not arguing that the current state of border affairs are what they are, and that destroying purported evidence isn't destroyed purported evidence, I'm confused as to what authority border control works under, if they are "extra constitutional"? Under what legal system is he charged with evidence being destroyed, if the legal system that applies within the US somehow doesn't apply at the border?
The Constitution is a contract with the citizens of the US. It is what is used to grant authority to the government to exist on behalf of the citizenry. Border agents work under this authority.
If citizens of the US magically lose their "inalienable" rights at the border (such as 4th) because there is some purgatory where the US Constitution doesn't apply, then what actual authority is border control operating under?
This seems a very peculiar area where the government gets to have its cake and eat it too. "We exist because we are government, see the Constitution says we can do this. But the bit where citizens have rights and the government has authority, doesn't apply here."
The US.a really is a laughable country. No wonder so many people I've spoken with here left cause it just ain't the same anymore. Whether that happened pre-Trump or after I don't really care. Some people have said to me the guys a lunatic.
I don't pretend to understand the exact situation against this person of interest but many people here seem to NOT understand the nature of the situation VS the law and the context in which this article has outlined what may have vs what actually occurred. Few points do stand out.
1. Why would you trust someone giving you the correct pin?
2. From all the YouTube videos I've seen on all kinds of law enforcement in the US.a - there are some real incompetent people within these departments.
3. Why not just arrest the person of interest once inside the US.a under National Security?
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 9,064 +18,466
Because there are legal repercussions for not doing so, as seen in this article.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
Why wouldnt just arrest him at the border?
And there is the radical he was talking about.
You have the freedom to *forget* your PIN. That is protected by the 5th amendment. You do NOT have the freedom to sabotage potential evidence, and I would challenge you to find a civilized country in which that is legal.
There is absolutely an argument over warrants to be had here, but that is a separate issue and is irrelevant. Had they needed to pull a warrant, what he did would STILL BE ILLEGAL.
It's really none of the government's business. Information on your device is a form of speech. You can deny that information to the government.
Denying the govenment your pin is the same exact thing as wiping your phone. You cannot be required to do ANYTHING that incriminates you. That includes providing information under duress. Whether that information is on your phone or in your brain.
That's not how
No warrant. No Miranda. No arrest, just a flimsy detention based on a political view and you think this guy misremembering his passcode, intentional or otherwise rises to this level of infraction?
I think we'll get to see the DOJ fail, again, to secure a conviction in the age of Trump, Bondi, and Blanche.
Northy
Posts: 630 +297
If he'd kept a small piece of paper with the code in his phone case the border cops would have found it and entered it themselves.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
It's also regarded as an argument from ignorance, one of the classic fallacies.
He could have an auto-start script that automatically wipes call and browser history every time he logs in. That would be good security practice. That would not be destroying evidence. He's under no requirement to tell the government that the phone wipes itself every time he logs in, because it would be incriminating himself.
This entire thing is ridiculous because we don't know what data was wiped. Was it just his call and browser history? Did it reset the phone entirely? Maybe the government goons couldn't find incriminating evidence so they came up with a fake charge of destroying evidence.
Governments all retain the right to lie to their citizens.
This entire thing is ridiculous because we don't know what data was wiped. Was it just his call and browser history? Did it reset the phone entirely? Maybe the government goons couldn't find incriminating evidence so they came up with a fake charge of destroying evidence.
Governments all retain the right to lie to their citizens.
There is a lot of assumptions here! All we have is a minimum waged airport official's observation that the phone "seemed" to restart. How will prosecution demonstrate that a reset was administered here. I had grapheneOS installed and it was incredibly unstable and often looked like the whole thing was bricked. I've gone back to stock, it also spontaneously returned to factory sometimes. Prosecution has no hope of proving this was intentional based on a testimony by an untrained individual, when experts have struggled to make this distinction.
JaredTheDragon
Posts: 847 +581
Love seeing all the bootlickers chime in.
Langley employs some six million agents and assets in the US, and they aren't even the largest intel agency. So given a population of roughly 300 million, that's 1 in 50 people here who work for the CIA.
And it's always fun to see a bunch of them here in the comments, too. Bunch of clowns who can't get real jobs.
Langley employs some six million agents and assets in the US, and they aren't even the largest intel agency. So given a population of roughly 300 million, that's 1 in 50 people here who work for the CIA.
And it's always fun to see a bunch of them here in the comments, too. Bunch of clowns who can't get real jobs.
Now everyone has been arguing about the legality of searches at the Boarder, but people have NOT discussed the bigger issue: as the US House Record States:
"In 2014 the Court (meaning the Supreme Court) in Riley v. California considered the constitutionality of warrantless electronic device searches in the interior of the United States. The Court held that the police generally could not conduct a warrantless search of a cell phone seized during an arrest, even though the warrant requirement usually does not apply to searches incident to a lawful arrest.The Court thus held that the police must secure a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone seized pursuant to an arrest. Lower courts have considered whether the routine border search exception authorizes warrantless searches of cell phones and other electronic devices at the border. For instance, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that manually inspecting the contents of a computer or cell phone at the border is permissible given the government's broad authority at the border, and that such searches are no less routine than scanning the contents of a traveler's luggage. But lower courts have disagreed over whether more intrusive searches of electronic devices require particularized suspicion of criminal activity. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have both held that the forensic examination of a device (e.g., using software to copy a computer's hard drive and analyze its contents entirely, or recording information from a cell phone for further processing) exceeds the scope of a routine border search because of its comprehensive nature and the enhanced risk of exposing private information. In doing so, both courts relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Riley that cell phone searches implicate greater privacy concerns than searches of most other physical items. Thus, the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that forensic searches of electronic devices require reasonable suspicion of a crime. Conversely, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the Fourth Amendment requires no suspicion of criminal activity for intrusive border searches of electronic devices or any other type of personal property (as opposed to intrusive searches of a person's body), and that Riley does not apply to searches at the border, where there are diminished privacy expectations.
In sum, while lower courts have applied the routine border search exception to cover manual searches of electronic devices at the border, courts have disagreed on whether more intrusive, forensic searches of such devices should be restricted." As I predicted before, we need to understand the scope of Riley v. California, because the Government is not following a decision from SCOTUS, one which is resolved already.
"In 2014 the Court (meaning the Supreme Court) in Riley v. California considered the constitutionality of warrantless electronic device searches in the interior of the United States. The Court held that the police generally could not conduct a warrantless search of a cell phone seized during an arrest, even though the warrant requirement usually does not apply to searches incident to a lawful arrest.The Court thus held that the police must secure a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone seized pursuant to an arrest. Lower courts have considered whether the routine border search exception authorizes warrantless searches of cell phones and other electronic devices at the border. For instance, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that manually inspecting the contents of a computer or cell phone at the border is permissible given the government's broad authority at the border, and that such searches are no less routine than scanning the contents of a traveler's luggage. But lower courts have disagreed over whether more intrusive searches of electronic devices require particularized suspicion of criminal activity. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have both held that the forensic examination of a device (e.g., using software to copy a computer's hard drive and analyze its contents entirely, or recording information from a cell phone for further processing) exceeds the scope of a routine border search because of its comprehensive nature and the enhanced risk of exposing private information. In doing so, both courts relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Riley that cell phone searches implicate greater privacy concerns than searches of most other physical items. Thus, the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that forensic searches of electronic devices require reasonable suspicion of a crime. Conversely, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the Fourth Amendment requires no suspicion of criminal activity for intrusive border searches of electronic devices or any other type of personal property (as opposed to intrusive searches of a person's body), and that Riley does not apply to searches at the border, where there are diminished privacy expectations.
In sum, while lower courts have applied the routine border search exception to cover manual searches of electronic devices at the border, courts have disagreed on whether more intrusive, forensic searches of such devices should be restricted." As I predicted before, we need to understand the scope of Riley v. California, because the Government is not following a decision from SCOTUS, one which is resolved already.
You're wrong actually. The law states "Whoever, before, during, or after any search...". So any deleted evidence that occurs *before* the search is fair game for this law too.
Defense Lawyer: "What the prosecution misunderstands and is therefore wasting my client's and this court's time is that this man did not commit any crime because nothing was destroyed. The property is intact. His phone always restarts after he puts in the password, which is the only password to the phone. There has never been anything on that phone and he has never used it for storing any data, making any phone calls, texts, searches, or downloads. He put the sim card in the phone before boarding the plane because he donated the phone he used there to a homeless man. He carries this phone on him in case he needs it, but has never used it. There are no files on this phone because there never have been any.
If the DOJ would like to present any evidence that this phone previously had files on it that my client destroyed, they can present such evidence.
If we are assuming that an absence of evidence is evidence in and of itself of having that supposed evidence having been destroyed, then I accuse the prosecution of being part of a child sex ring and that they deleted the evidence prior to entering this courtroom. If you don't find that evidence, they should be jailed as well for destroying it."
The DOJ is going to get smacked on this one.
Similar threads
