US prosecutors charge Atlanta man after GrapheneOS phone wipes itself during airport search

[JMGuy]

Please re-read the Fourth Amendment. Please learn about probable cause, specific details, and warrants. You seem to be ok having zero liberty and letting the government control your life and thoughts. You are the problem with America.

The specific law, written by the founding fathers, has literally been spoon-fed in the cited comments, and yet…

This projection is truly remarkable, especially the part where you declare me "the problem with America." If anything is rotting the fabric of this country, it is the pervasive, aggressive anti-intellectualism that drives people to substitute emotional hysteria for a basic education.

Please, expose us further to your complete lack of literacy on constitutional boundaries. Or, I suppose you could remain content with your copy-pasted, talk-radio script that spotlights your basic lack of education on the subject (not to mention your inability to be remotely civil).

The law is clear: handing federal agents a disguised self-destruct mechanism isn't a "passive assertion of privacy"—it is a proactive, criminal act of sabotage designed to neutralize a lawful search. It is an actual crime. If he was innocent before, he wasn’t after that act. Cut/dry.

But sure, let’s play make believe and pretend that wrapping a blatant, statutory felony in the flag and calling it "freedom" doesn’t require a truly staggering amount of cognitive dissonance. It is genuinely embarrassing that you chose to be both uncivil and confidently incorrect in the very same breath.

Please, do us all a favor: crack open a legal textbook and learn the difference between exercising a constitutional right and committing a federal crime before you attempt to lecture anyone on civics.

 

[Au Contraire]

Providing a self-destruct code disguised as an unlock passcode to federal agents is an overt act of sabotage, not a passive assertion of privacy. This deceptive action transitions a suspect from non-cooperation into criminal obstruction of justice by intentionally destroying property. A flat refusal to cooperate is legally defensible; active deception is not.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2232 explicitly criminalizes the destruction or removal of property to prevent its seizure by federal authorities. The law focuses entirely on the intent to prevent seizure, meaning the act of causing the destruction during a lawful stop is the crime itself, regardless of what data was on the phone.

Treating this as anything less than intentional destruction would allow suspects to neutralize evidence mid-search without consequence, which completely undermines a lawful society. Nobody’s rights were trampled here; this suspect made his own bed.

When, exactly, did the Supreme Court reverse its' ruling which said that biometric access can be forced but passwords are subject to full 4th Amendment protection? Where was the warrant and what justification was provided to the signing judge?

 

[acrossthestars]

the proper way to fight that is in the courts and polling stations -- not engaging in domestic terrorism at the site itself.

Don't misunderstand me, I agree with this. But, and this is a BIG "but"', that only matters if people believe the courts and the polls will give results commensurate with the "will of the people". Results that affirm police as servants, not masters.

If, for example, the court finds that the people overwhelmingly don't want "Cop City" (like, it's not even close) but the police force tells "the will of the people" to kick rocks because "we are the law", and the courts side with the cops (because the courts are "supposed to" dispense "justice" and "follow the law")...then what?

 

[Endymio]

When, exactly, did the Supreme Court reverse its' ruling which said that biometric access can be forced but passwords are subject to full 4th Amendment protection?

SCOTUS has never ruled on whether passwords are subject to 4A protection.

Can the government compel you to unlock your phone with your face, fingerprint, or password? This week on It's the Law, we're focusing on technology law. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky answers a question you need to know about your phone. #UCBerkeleyLaw #I

Can the government compel you to unlock your phone with your face, fingerprint, or password? This week on It's the Law, we're focusing on technology law. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky answers a question...

www.facebook.com

If, for example, the court finds that the people overwhelmingly don't want "Cop City" (like, it's not even close) but the police force tells "the will of the people" to kick rocks because "we are the law", and the courts side with the cops (because the courts are "supposed to" dispense "justice" and "follow the law")...then what?

You're a bit confused. Courts are not expected to side with public opinion, but to ensure the laws as written are properly applied. If you don't like those laws, the proper avenue is through the ballot box. Police in every jurisdiction answer to an elected official of some sort, be it a sheriff, mayor, or other politician. This training facility wasn't built because "cops said so", but because the local city council authorized it and approved funds for its construction.

 

[MasterMace]

Incorrect, sir. You are conflating the right to remain silent (or refuse a passcode) with the right to actively deceive. Providing a false passcode that triggers data destruction is an overt, deceptive act

Although your historical observation regarding 1789 customs inspections is accurate, your constitutional conclusion is, in fact, legally incorrect.

The First Congress that drafted the Fourth Amendment also passed the Act of July 31, 1789, which authorized warrantless border searches of vessels. This is proof that our founders, in fact, always intended our border to be exempt from standard warrant requirements. As they should be.

Under the modern "border search exception" affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Flores-Montano (2004), the government’s paramount interest in national security absolutely overrides individual privacy at the border, and allows routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or any individualized suspicion whatsoever.

The traveler’s status as a non-suspect is legally irrelevant to the lawfulness of the stop.

While a traveler does have a right to passive non-cooperation, providing a deceptive passcode to trigger a self-destruct mechanism transitions the encounter from routine inspection to an active, criminal obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 2232.

You are conflating a right to privacy with a non-existent right to actively destroy evidence during a lawful federal inspection.

Yet, this "interpretation" applies not "at" the border, but within 100 miles of the border or port of entry, which includes international airports. This covers the entirety of the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Florida, Michigan, and Hawaii.

The fun part is 7 of those states comprise 6 of the 13 Founding Colonies. Now the Constitution did have exceptions in there, 3/5 and all that.

So tell me this: where in the Constitution is the exception that these Constitutional Rights don't apply in 6 of the founding States?

 

[Endymio]

So tell me this: where in the Constitution is the exception that these Constitutional Rights don't apply in 6 of the founding States?

Oops again!

"...
Section 31 of the 1790 Act, however, granted Customs officials broader authority to board "vessels in any part of the United States, or within four leagues of the coast thereof, if bound to the United States" for [the purpose of] searching the vessels, the cabin, and every other part of the vessel." Act of August 5, 1790...."

As interesting as the 1789 and 1790 Acts are to Supreme Court justices in forming their position, what actually matters is the actual current opinions themselves. You can be stopped and searched at any border point, period.

 

[Gargantuanzini]

Providing a self-destruct code disguised as an unlock passcode to federal agents is an overt act of sabotage, not a passive assertion of privacy. This deceptive action transitions a suspect from non-cooperation into criminal obstruction of justice by intentionally destroying property. A flat refusal to cooperate is legally defensible; active deception is not.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2232 explicitly criminalizes the destruction or removal of property to prevent its seizure by federal authorities. The law focuses entirely on the intent to prevent seizure, meaning the act of causing the destruction during a lawful stop is the crime itself, regardless of what data was on the phone.

Treating this as anything less than intentional destruction would allow suspects to neutralize evidence mid-search without consequence, which completely undermines a lawful society. Nobody’s rights were trampled here; this suspect made his own bed.

This reads like AI slop. This was just an ordinary citizen using software to protect their privacy and secure their mobile device. It's an extreme overreach to charge them with a crime when there is no evidence of criminal activity.

 

[cvfsn]

Did you gather that from an admiralty courtroom?

Not everybody who disagrees with you is a sovcit. I also think searching people's phones, especially citizen's, is grossly wrong.

And *shocker* I pay my taxes and have a valid registration for my car. It's almost like not everyone lives in your tiny bubble.

 

[AlexisDad]

Same old debate about freedom vs security.
Do we want criminals to be able to beat the law or do we want the government to be able to access everything like after 9-11. Personally search away I care less because I dont have anything illegal on my phone person or belongings. So I'm not defending anyone that could simply unlock their phone to prove they are not a criminal. And most of those that wouldnt want the government looking are either pedophiles or drug dealers. Either way too bad you cant hide the evidence.

 

[Endymio]

Took a few seconds to "Google" it and it proved me right and him wrong

Why spread absurd lies?

"...Border searches do not require a warrant, probable cause, or any individual suspicion. Under the legal rule known as the "border search exception," federal agents with U.S. Customs and Border Protection can inspect people, luggage, and vehicles entering or leaving the country freely...."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/ALDE_00000239/

. "Papers please" is what's wrong with America and both of you hate having freedom and rights.

Learn to read. I have said repeatedly I don't agree with the Border Search exception, but it has existed since this country was founded, and it is being properly applied here.

It's an extreme overreach to charge them with a crime when there is no evidence of criminal activity.

You mean, no evidence that he committed the crime of destroying evidence ... besides the evidence he destroyed?

 

[cvfsn]

Here's what I tell people traveling to the US. While you're connected to data or wifi, make a full backup of your phone that can sit on the cloud. Then factory reset your phone. Then if anyone demands your phone, it's already wiped, therefore nothing could have been destroyed. Once you clear customs just do a restore on your device and you won't have lost anything.

100% agree with this. This is wonderful advice.

 

[Syko404Ghost]

Providing a self-destruct code disguised as an unlock passcode to federal agents is an overt act of sabotage, not a passive assertion of privacy. This deceptive action transitions a suspect from non-cooperation into criminal obstruction of justice by intentionally destroying property. A flat refusal to cooperate is legally defensible; active deception is not.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2232 explicitly criminalizes the destruction or removal of property to prevent its seizure by federal authorities. The law focuses entirely on the intent to prevent seizure, meaning the act of causing the destruction during a lawful stop is the crime itself, regardless of what data was on the phone.

Treating this as anything less than intentional destruction would allow suspects to neutralize evidence mid-search without consequence, which completely undermines a lawful society. Nobody’s rights were trampled here; this suspect made his own bed.

They didn't have a search warrant to go through his phone

 

[Endymio]

Here's what I tell people traveling to the US. While you're connected to data or wifi, make a full backup of your phone that can sit on the cloud. Then factory reset your phone. Then if anyone demands your phone, it's already wiped, therefore nothing could have been destroyed. Once you clear customs just do a restore on your device and you won't have lost anything.

100% agree with this. This is wonderful advice.

Who believes that warrantless searches are possible only at US borders, when virtually all nations allow this? The UK, for instance:

"...a search warrant is not required to search a phone at the UK border. Police, immigration officers, and customs officials can examine electronic devices, copy data, and demand passcodes without a warrant under specific port and border control legislation.

...You are not entitled consult a solicitor before questioning ... Officers may search your electronic devices and request passwords ... Examining officers may carry out strip searches (a search removal of more than outer clothing) ...."

Examined under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000: What are my rights? - Liberty

What is Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000? What happens if you are stopped under Schedule 7 at an airport? What are your rights?

www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk

I swear, the Internet is making people more ignorant, not less.

They didn't have a search warrant to go through his phone

They weren't required to have one. Hello, and welcome to Planet Earth.

 

[Bezdomniy]

Incorrect, sir. You are conflating the right to remain silent (or refuse a passcode) with the right to actively deceive. Providing a false passcode that triggers data destruction is an overt, deceptive act

Although your historical observation regarding 1789 customs inspections is accurate, your constitutional conclusion is, in fact, legally incorrect.

The First Congress that drafted the Fourth Amendment also passed the Act of July 31, 1789, which authorized warrantless border searches of vessels. This is proof that our founders, in fact, always intended our border to be exempt from standard warrant requirements. As they should be.

Under the modern "border search exception" affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Flores-Montano (2004), the government’s paramount interest in national security absolutely overrides individual privacy at the border, and allows routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or any individualized suspicion whatsoever.

The traveler’s status as a non-suspect is legally irrelevant to the lawfulness of the stop.

While a traveler does have a right to passive non-cooperation, providing a deceptive passcode to trigger a self-destruct mechanism transitions the encounter from routine inspection to an active, criminal obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 2232.

You are conflating a right to privacy with a non-existent right to actively destroy evidence during a lawful federal inspection.

Good luck, sir...in forensically proving that a false passcode was provided and that the passcode triggered data destruction.

Good luck, indeed.

 

[Bezdomniy]

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.

We can discern from a forensic extraction when a device wipe occurred but cannot tell what caused it. Could have been operator error. Could have been how the planets were aligned. We cannot forensically prove owner maliciousness.

 

[acrossthestars]

If you don't like those laws, the proper avenue is through the ballot box.

Based on the history of your postings, you seem to have internalized some innate sanctity to the prestige of the court system and our "justice system", as if the laws themselves are self-explanatory. Not in the sense of self-authorization, but because they are put on the books on the basis of the rationale of well-reasoned, wise politicians and public officials, and when that happens, they become almost like natural laws of the universe―unquestionably valid and legitimate.

The problem with your assessment is, what happens when "the law, as written", is written by people who do not serve the public interest? They enjoy the honorifics of the title, but they do not act in accordance with it. So, they write laws that people did not agree to, because they lied and cheated their way into their office (by campaigning as one thing and proceeding to legislate another), so they get to enjoy the benefit of "being the promulgators of justice and virtue" while simultaneously defiling their station with reckless abandon. In fact, a lot of politicians seem to be exceptionally two-faced these days; they have a flagrant contempt for their constituency, but they have to put on a "pleasant, endearing face", because just being a slimy used car salesman does not win votes. Once they are in office, you can't exactly depose them without a recall and you have to get at least 51% of the your citizenry to agree to that.

So, the ballot box becomes a war zone, between the con men of the world, smooth talking their way into positions of power, and actual arbiters of justice (well-reasoned, well-planned strategies that operate on a longer time horizon than the length of their short term in office) who are in short supply. When most politicians are lying snakes (an "honest politician" is basically an oxymoron at this point) and yet they are the primary conduit by which legislation is written, what exactly does voting at the "ballot box" do? Aside from demonstrating the gullibility of the average resident of your town, to be taken for a fool?

 

[hahahanoobs]

So if a cop shows up at my door I dont let him in, then go upstairs and flush the toliet-have committted a crime? The cops have no idea what I flushed, and likewise they have no idea what was wiped. Also seems to me it was the the cops who wiped the phone, not him

Your treating me like a lawyer now?
Is your Google broken?

 

[Endymio]

{wall of words deleted}

Logical thought is apparently a lost art among today's youth. Let's try this again

Other posters: "this is illegal! It's unconstitutional!"
Me: "It is neither (legal references provided."
You: "You're wrong! All laws suck!"

I'm sure with a little thought you can find the disconnect between steps 2 and 3. I am not endorsing the law here; merely noting its existence.

As for your hatred of democracy, I give you the words of the great Winston Churchill, who said "it's the worst possible system ... except for everything else we've ever tried."

 

[Ramzz]

Try telling the next judge you're standing before that.


Once again: he wasn't "detained" in a sense that activated his Miranda rights; he was merely stopped for a routine border search. Furthermore -- not that facts seem to interest you in the least -- even if he had a right to attorney that was denied -- the denial would only excuse his statements made without an attorney present. NOT the crime he committed while at the border.


Why do you people overwhelmingly reject facts and reality? You seem to conflate the legal term of evidence as "something that proved I did it". Evidence is, just as often as not, corroborates or confirms innocence, not guilt. Under the law as written, evidence is defined as "anything requested by law enforcement".

If he wasn't detained was he free to go?

 

[Ramzz]

Oh, Professor Briefcase has entered the chat,
With six grand examples that are literally that—
Same case, same premise, same conclusion rehearsed,
Change “cats” into “nothing” and pretend you did research.

Example one: briefcase. Example two: briefcase.
Example three: astonishingly, another briefcase.
Example four: briefcase, but this time say “forgot.”
Example five: briefcase. Aristotle, this is not.

Then “just for fun”—guess what? Briefcase again.
You constructed one example and repeated it ten.
You didn’t test the conclusion, you stapled it up front:
“It’s evidence because I called it evidence”—remarkable stunt.

You burn the whole container in every analogy too,
While the actual Pixel still exists when you’re through.
That distinction might matter—that’s part of the debate—
But why discuss digital property when cats can meet their fate?

Pictures of cats in a suitcase. Everybody take notes.
Apparently jurisprudence now requires hypothetical totes.
Empty case? Burn it—evidence. Cats? Evidence too.
No cats? Still evidence. Everything’s evidence to you.

Evidence of guilt, evidence innocent, evidence blank,
Evidence apparently means whatever authorities might yank.
Stretch the noun wide enough to encompass the air,
Then proudly announce that you proved there was property there.

Then comes the confident “open-and-shut” parade
Before a judge has even finished weighing the case.
That is not legal analysis. That is certainty by costume:
Put an allegation in boldface and call it courtroom truth.

“He gave a booby-trap code!”—that is the government claim.
Repeating it louder does not make allegation and finding the same.
Allegation, evidence, conclusion—three different floors;
You took the elevator past two and started opening courtroom doors.

And then there is “lawful authority”—an interesting phrase,
Considering lawfulness is part of what the defense has raised.
Government says border powers. Defense says violation.
Court has not ruled yet—but the briefcase reached salvation.

That is my favourite kind of internet legal display:
“Here are six hypotheticals where I assume I am right anyway.”
Locked locker, burning folder, safe, suitcase, drawer—
Add seventeen containers; the premise is still yours.

You can analogize forever. Analogy is not proof.
Put the Pixel in a pantry. Put the pantry on a roof.
Give the roof a combination. Fill the combination with cats.
You still have not resolved the legal question with that.

And then the condescension: “For those who struggle to read—”
From someone needing six flaming suitcases to explain one deed.
Comprehension is not measured by hypothetical weight;
You do not become a legal scholar by incinerating a crate.

“First example!” Cat pictures.
“Second!” Cat pictures gone.
“Third!” Warrant plus cat pictures.
Please, counselor. Move on.

The entire dissertation fits comfortably in one line:
“I think intentional wiping qualifies under 2232.” Fine.
That is an argument. Debate it. Let the court decide the fit.
You did not need a Briefcase Cinematic Universe for it.

Phase One: Empty Case.
Phase Two: Cats Ablaze.
Phase Three: The Forgotten Combination
in the Multiverse of Phrase.

Coming next summer from the Legal Analogy Studios:
CATCASE VI: THIS TIME THE CONTENTS ARE PHOTOS.
Rated PG-13 for excessive explanation
And one heroic struggle against nuance and condensation.

So spare everyone “open and shut” and “learn how law works”
While the judge is still deciding which arguments have worth.
You did not settle jurisprudence. You typed paragraphs online
Where every hypothetical conveniently agrees with your side.

That is not teaching law.
That is a conclusion wearing props—
Six briefcases, forty cat pictures,
And not one analogy that stops.

Was he detained or free to go if he so chooses?

 

[matmedic]

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.

Hi, I know I should be able to google this, but thought why not just ask.

One. Lets say you have your thumb act as self destruct code, while you ring finger as normal unlock code. And the cops force you to out your thumb which triggers the self destruct. Your act of silence and not telling them, in this case is legal right? You are not actively destroying evidence, they were the one who forced the thumbprint.

Two. Then it got me thinking, what if the brief case was unlocked forcefully and whatever inside was burned, they were the once who did it, it would be the same?

Three. Then yet another example (not related I suppose) is the briefcase itself turns on fire and hurts someone, you had the knowledge that trying to temper with the briefcase would result in injury (maybe scale of injury plays a role?), but you kept quite as telling them the possibility of injury may or may not be used against you.

How are these viewed?

Sorry for asking here. I might as well google after I type this. Lol.

 

[SilverSliver]

Providing a self-destruct code disguised as an unlock passcode to federal agents is an overt act of sabotage, not a passive assertion of privacy. This deceptive action transitions a suspect from non-cooperation into criminal obstruction of justice by intentionally destroying property. A flat refusal to cooperate is legally defensible; active deception is not.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2232 explicitly criminalizes the destruction or removal of property to prevent its seizure by federal authorities. The law focuses entirely on the intent to prevent seizure, meaning the act of causing the destruction during a lawful stop is the crime itself, regardless of what data was on the phone.

Treating this as anything less than intentional destruction would allow suspects to neutralize evidence mid-search without consequence, which completely undermines a lawful society. Nobody’s rights were trampled here; this suspect made his own bed.

Well then the agent shouldn't have put the code in. It was him that destroyed any data.

Not to mention once he asked for a lawyer it was no longer lawful to interrogate the man.

 

[scavengerspc]

How do they know there was evidence on it? That sounds like an assumption without proof.

I think you could find that innocent people don't set their devices to wipe.

 

[zombie253]

How do they know there was evidence on it? That sounds like an assumption without proof.

Innocent people don't wipe their phones during an interrogation

 

[jenesequa esq]

This issue involves both the 4th and 5th amendments of the constitution. Understand that no statute may be written to override the authority of the Constitution and any statute written attempting to do so is nullified on its face and anybody charged with the violation of that statute cannot be punished. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the fifth amendment was instituted in the Constitution to protect innocent men from ambiguous circumstances which is exactly what we have in this case. The fifth Amendment is the amendment that gives the person the right not to incriminate themselves. Furthermore there is no shortage of accounts of people being robbed by airport security of their possessions and this would also include crypto so if the man had a crypto wallet in his phone or information regarding crypto a deletion of that would justify wiping the phone. Some people have sensitive information in their phone especially in their messages. In other words there are all sorts of reasons why a person would need to blank a device. Furthermore nobody can say that there was incriminating evidence and device if the evidence itself is not already in evidence which means that the claim that it might have contained evidence is without legal standing. The fact of the matter is that the officers that arrested this man for exercising his constitutional rights have committed a felony and if there is more than one of these officers involved they have committed multiple felonies under 18 USC subsections 241 and subsection 242 of the US criminal code.