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

[mbrowne5061]

I truly wonder what goes through the contorted thought process of backwards logic like this. If an officer accidentally left a pocket knife in reach of an shoplifting suspect and that suspect picked it up and stabbed three people to death, does the error mean the suspect shouldn't be charged with murder?

Ignoring that you jumped from "destruction of evidence" to "shoplifting" to "mass stabbing", and jumped from "their training sucked" to "they should be charged with a crime"

Yeah, I would expect the cop to be held civilly liable by any victims families if they left a weapon within reach of suspect in some situations; e.g. the cop is mid-arrest, leaves a weapon in reach, stops for whatever reason, and then the suspect goes on a stabbing spree. Granted, I have no idea if a court would uphold that civil suit - that would be highly dependent on the exact details of this hypothetical case - just that I would expect one to be filled and at least make it to an initial hearing.

But we're not talking about either shoplifting or assault, now are we? Nor are we talking about charges of any kind for any cop. We're talking about the collection of evidence, and a cop having very poor training in executing that collection. The simple fact is either the cop needs to be back to training, or CBP training needs to be updated to "don't put in codes yourself".

This is a masterclass in being confidently wrong about both technology and the law.

First, you cannot "just clone" a locked, highly encrypted modern phone without the passcode; the hardware security is literally designed to prevent that.

There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from doing a bit-level clone of an encrypted device. Encryption can stop you from reading the contents of that duplication, but cloning is completely possible.

As for the hardware of modern phones "preventing" that through something like USB or other "normal", non-destructive means, there are literally firms setup to get around these hardware limits:

Cellebrite Inseyets

Explore Cellebrite's mobile forensics suite for advanced digital investigations. Uncover critical data swiftly and securely.

cellebrite.com

Mobile-Phone Cloning Tools Need to Be Subject to Oversight — and the Constitution | ACLU

www.aclu.org

Once they have physical possession of your device, you should assume it has been cloned and it is only a matter of time before they can read the contents of that clone.

Second, legally, the blame for destroyed evidence falls squarely on the suspect who provided the deceptive self-destruct code, not the officers who used it when supplied.

Inventing a conspiracy theory about agents sabotaging their own case to chase a legal precedent doesn't make you look clever, it just proves you did zero research before typing.

If a cop mishandles evidence in a case, it becomes inadmissible, even if the suspect "tricked" the cop into mishandling it. The cop should have had the training to not mess around with any collected evidence. That's why they aren't charging him for whatever may have been on his phone (if anything), but with evidence tampering. But I highly doubt the govt. case has any legs since it was ultimately the cop who put in the code, and not the suspect after being arrested.

 

[mbrowne5061]

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

Innocent people don't wipe their phones during an interrogation

I have my phone set to wipe if it receives a pass-phrase via SMS. I don't trust anyone with all the financial information on my device.

Granted, if I sent such a text message after the device was seized as evidence of a crime, I would fully expect to be charged with evidence tampering. And I would also think the cops would be dumb for not putting the cellphone in a faraday bag or disabling all its antennas to prevent just such a thing.

 

[Endymio]

Ignoring that you jumped from "destruction of evidence" to "shoplifting" to "mass stabbing", and jumped from "their training sucked" to "they should be charged with a crime"

It's called argument by analogy. Would you like an explanation of the concept?

Yeah, I would expect the cop to be held civilly liable by any victims families if they left a weapon within reach of suspect in some situations

A moot point, as you were suggesting the criminal liability for the act shifted from the perpetrator to the police. Did you forget the contents of your own post?

We're talking about the collection of evidence, and a cop having very poor training in executing that collection. The simple fact is either the cop needs to be back to training ... There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from doing a bit-level clone ...

Oops! You're forgetting this was a routine stop, and the individual in question was not a suspect of a crime. Border agents inspect tens of thousands of electronic devices a day; you wish them to clone every one? Next time think before you post.

 

[Endymio]

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the fifth amendment was instituted in the Constitution to protect innocent men

Oops! Thomas Jefferson also supported and helped draft the 1798 and 1799 Acts that define the Border Exception. Nor does the Fifth Amendment allow one to destroy evidence. Had he simply withheld the passcode, he would now not be facing charges (unless, of course, the authorities found proof of his alleged domestic terrorism)

Furthermore there is no shortage of accounts of people being robbed by airport security of their possessions and this would also include crypto

So your theory is he wiped his phone to avoid having his crypto stolen by border security?

/smh

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.

Sigh. As we've already explained multiple times, the statute for destruction of evidence isn't limited to incriminating evidence. His phone might have contained proof of his total innocence ... it's still evidence that cannot legally be destroyed.

The fact of the matter is that the officers that arrested this man 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.

Why pretend to be an attorney by placing esquire after your name if you're going to promulgate absurd nonsense like this?

 

[rawiron1]

SCOTUS needs to re-review their stance on border searches for citizens. If it wasn't a "search incident to arrest", a warranted search, or a consent search, they should not have been going through the phone. I don't carry my personal phone when I travel out of the country. I carry a loaner phone from T-Mobile.

 

[Hotlynx16]

Everyone is the missing bigger picture here: GrapheneOS is merely the scapegoat here. The real culprit is the association of protesting this "Cop City" with criminal activity. It sounds to me like we're moving closer and closer to totalitarianism. Police basically took land from people in Atlanta and now trying to make it seem being against the matter makes you a criminal―independent of the "why". This is going to incentivize more people to use GrapheneOS, not less. I mean, what are the police going to? Start associating everyone who is not part of the police force with criminal activity and act like they're besieged on all signs by "scum and villainy"? You do that indiscriminately and you're gonna find out real quickly why we have decorum and rules of engagement. Is this a city or an open-air prison?

As for the article at hand, all I get from this case study is that "snitches get stitches" and GrapheneOS (unlike Android and iOS) ain't no snitch.

I have been around cops and 90% of them believe if you are not law enforcement, you are a criminal that hasn't been caught yet!!!

 

[ZedRM]

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.

Are you a lawyer? Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means? A password that is set to wipe a phone is not an admittance of guilt. The DOJ still has to prove incriminating data was on the device. They have no case otherwise.

 

[Endymio]

Do you know what innocent until proven guilty means?

Yes, it means this perp will first have a trial before he's found guilty and sentenced ... as he most definitely will be.

A password that is set to wipe a phone is not an admittance of guilt

No, but giving that code to authorities in order to destroy evidence is proof of destruction of evidence.

The DOJ still has to prove incriminating data was on the device. They have no case otherwise.

Who told you something so ridiculous?

"...Statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1519 prohibit destroying "any record, document, or tangible object" with the intent to impede or influence an investigation, regardless of whether the specific contents would have proven a person guilty or innocent......"

 

[acrossthestars]

Yes, it means this perp will first have a trial before he's found guilty and sentenced ... as he most definitely will be.

The word "perp" here is load-bearing; it presumes guilt, but I think you already know that, seeing as how, in your mind, his guilt is a foregone conclusion.

No, but giving that code to authorities in order to destroy evidence is proof of destruction of evidence.

"A motion filed by his defense argues the interrogation focused on child sexual abuse material as a pretext for investigating his connections to the protest movement. The motion also states that Tunick asked four times to speak with a lawyer and was denied each time. According to the same filing, agents did not present a warrant or read him his rights."

So, I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like a political hit job.

"...Statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1519 prohibit destroying "any record, document, or tangible object" with the intent to impede or influence an investigation, regardless of whether the specific contents would have proven a person guilty or innocent......"

This is a prime example of "missing the forest for the trees": arguing the case, on the basis of the minutiae of which federal statute was supposedly violated, betrays the more pressing matter of whether or not there is even guilt to ascertain or if this guy is a victim of the Atlanta police department political machinery. Because this is the bottom line: where normally the police are intended to be a neutral third party, that is not the case this time. They are not an unbiased arbiter, making assessments of a situation between two concerned groups, from the sidelines. They are the situation. Cop City begins and ends with them.

Have you bothered asking yourself, "why do they have suspicion that the guy had something compromising on his phone? Do they have rational basis for that or is that simply conjecture, in order to get him on "political activism", using the probability of a more heinous crime as a smokescreen?" or is that too complicated to assess? Saying something was destroyed presumes something was present to be destroyed, but why would you know that, unless you already had evidence of something? By that logic, erasing any phone is a crime, even if there is no suspicion and no indictment, because "something incriminating could have potentially been deleted".

"According to court testimony, federal agents had already circulated his name and photo internally, saying he was under investigation for 'suspected terrorism activities' because of his alleged association with the movement against Cop City."

I guess if you're against a hostile takeover by the police, that makes you a terrorist. Does the community want "Cop City"? If yes, then proceed. If not, then cease.

 

[Endymio]

The word "perp" here is load-bearing; it presumes guilt,

The facts given in this article presume guilt.

So, I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds like a political hit job.

You're reading a defense motion. According to every defense attorney in the world, every murderer, rapist, drug dealer, and terrorist are actually guilty.

... the more pressing matter of whether or not there is even guilt to ascertain or if this guy is a victim of the Atlanta police department political machinery.

You are very, very confused. First of all, he was arrested and charged by federal border authorities, not the Atlanta Police "machinery' (a loaded word if there ever was one). Secondly, the question as to whether or not he's a "Cop City" terrorist is still open, and quite distinct from the separate crime of destruction of evidence.

Have you bothered asking yourself, "why do they have suspicion that the guy had something compromising on his phone?

How many times do you need to be told that border agents do not need reasonable suspicion to search people at the border? Let's try once more, shall we?

Border agents do not need any cause to search people at the border.

I guess if you're against a hostile takeover by the police, that makes you a terrorist.

When you commit domestic terrorism acts as these protestors have done repeatedly, then that makes you a terrorist. When you travel overseas to train in terror tactics, that makes you guilty of conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Does the community want "Cop City"? If yes, then proceed. If not, then cease.

Of course they do, which is why the community has repeatedly elected city officials who keep voting for it. And the vast majority of Cop City rioters aren't even from the city of Atlanta, but from far away.

 

[Deathdealers747]

Man... I didn't realize the USA was this far behind... The UK has been dealing with this problem for over 20 years now and the USA just had its first case!? That's crazy. But to be honest, no search warrant = violation of the 4th Amendment. So, good luck in court.

"The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants to be backed by probable cause and specific details. It covers core protections like privacy rights, search warrants, and the exclusionary rule."

This has been an ongoing investigation into Airport Security since 2017 in the USA when illegal searches and seizures started occurring for people bringing cash in their carryon's on the plane. The investigating officer receives 20% of all cash seizes regardless of legality of the seizure.

 

[Endymio]

...That's crazy. But to be honest, no search warrant = violation of the 4th Amendment. So, good luck in court.

Oops!

"The border search exception is a Fourth Amendment doctrine allowing federal officers to conduct routine searches of people, baggage, and vehicles at U.S. international borders and their functional equivalents (like international airports) without a warrant or probable cause"

Oh, and you UK citizens face the same exclusion: no warrant is necessary when searching travelers at borders -- including their phones.

...since 2017 in the USA when illegal searches and seizures started occurring for people bringing cash in their carryon's on the plane. The investigating officer receives 20% of all cash seizes regardless of legality of the seizure.

Who told you something so absurd? And more importantly: why did you fall for it?

 

[ZedRM]

But to be honest, no search warrant = violation of the 4th Amendment. So, good luck in court.

That nearly sums it up, especially for a US citizen.

 

[Tytus]

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.

Your argument relies on two conflations, information with imported goods, and a customs search with a criminal one. Border searches are not evidential fishing expeditions.

 

[Endymio]

Your argument relies on two conflations, information with imported goods, and a customs search with a criminal one. Border searches are not evidential fishing expeditions.

On the contrary, information is a good that can be imported or exported like any other. And border searches are very much indeed "fishing expeditions" -- every time a customs inspector opens a suitcase or a shipping crate of goods, they have exactly zero evidence to support any crime, yet they're looking for one anyway.

You actually have the argument 100% backwards: if those searches were criminal in nature, they would indeed require a warrant.

 

[ZedRM]

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.

Your statement proves your understand is as weak as you claim the rest of us are.