His attorneys say border agents repeatedly demanded access to his phone and told him they did not need a warrant.
Tunick’s legal team is now trying to have the evidence thrown out. It argues that he was questioned without being read his Miranda rights, that agents repeatedly refused his requests to speak with a lawyer, and that the phone search was an unreasonable seizure. His lawyers also say questions about child sexual abuse material were used as a pretext to investigate his alleged links to the movement opposing Atlanta’s police training center, commonly known as Cop City.
And that’s why you always use a burner when going in or out of Nazi country, even if you live there.
I’ll probably bring my wiped old graphene phone when I go through any border. Maybe just factory reset everything back to old android to not arouse any suspicion
I will avoid any country that need to go through my devices to allow me to pass.
I think there’s a distinction to make between a burner phone and number but yes that’s still relevant
It is not the Graphene OS’s feature that could land a man in prison, but a fascist government.
Yep. This doesn’t happen in any sane country.
“Being prosecuted” is not the same as “being charged” or “being convicted.” It could lead to prison time, but if he’s a US citizen, the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information). The prosecution part is a fear and intimidation tactic being used by the fascist government, but whether it even goes to trial is another matter.
It’s possible they’ll get him on some obstruction charge, and while I suspect this will ultimately amount to nothing, it is nonetheless scary that a hostile government exists with this much global hegemony and is still allowed to use a paramilitary extrajudicial group with virtual impunity.
the fifth amendment applies (which means you do not have to divulge passwords or information)
That’s not really true but it’s also not what is happening here. The duress pin wipes the device so this is destruction of evidence.
That’s not really true
It is absolutely true. The fifth amendment means US citizens have a right to silence. It has already been ruled that neither the government nor the courts can compel someone to divulge a password under those fifth amendment protections, which is why former mayor Eric Adams was able to avoid having his phone searched by the FBI.
Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts (it’s a question at the heart of the matter in the first place), and the facts that he was allegedly repeatedly denied access to a lawyer and not read his Miranda rights are both things that are decidedly in his favor for getting the case tossed before that question is even addressed.
It is absolutely true
It isn’t. Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.
Whether this is destruction of evidence or not will be a decision made by the courts
Regardless, the point remains that the subject at hand is destruction of evidence and not password compulsion.
Check out United States v. Apple MacPro Computer and NJ v. Andrews.
I did. To be perfectly frank, I think they are wrong. They even said that divulging the contents of your mind is protected by the fifth amendment, but they also say that noncommunicative actions (like entering a password) are not. So you can’t be compelled to say what your password is verbally, but you can be compelled to essentially write it? Absolute horseshit.
Anyway, you are correct that this is more about alleged destruction of evidence. Hopefully the court isn’t able to rule on that at all due to the case being tossed.
That phone wasn’t evidence of anything, and all he did was give them a password when they asked for one. Not under oath
all he did was give them a password when they asked for one
Which…promptly destroyed any evidence?
evidence of what?
No one knows, because it was destroyed…
It’s still better to have a duress PIN/password. You can still decide, if you actually want to use it.
In non-shitty countries no one is allowed to search your stuff without a warrant.
Oh… and “warrantless” is an euphemism for “blanket warrant”. So be careful.
I’m more concerned about this case setting horrific precedence for violating the privacy of a citizen.
We basically don’t have rights anymore as it is.
For example, would it be considered destruction of evidence if a defendant had written it on the back of the phone and the officers assumed it was the correct PIN? That’s just a hypothetical
What a good idea! Hypothetically. :)
your phone will get reset by some ass on a biyearly basis if you do that
I literally never give my phone to anyone else physically. And if I had it set up with a self-destruct button like this I would be even more fastidious about making sure it’s backed up than I already am.
Nazi country. These morons will start WW3…
I have a feeling future historians will use the start of this year as the beginning of WW3…
I was talking with my wife how when you learn history they kinda say what lead up to things or why something came to be and im like. How are they going to explain this? Then one day a bunch of dicks became incrdibly stupid.
I really think history will butter it up somehow in a way that will make it look logical that WW3 started when in reality it will all becaused by a bunch of morons with way too much time and way too little common sense in their brains.
Assuming there’s going to be historians in the future.
It is already on, the terminal food fight. It looks like disparate conflicts.
We’re already in ww3
I wonder if it’ll matter who put the pin in the phone. If the officer put it then he just lied about that the correct pin is while not under penalty of perjury.
He didnt Lied. It was the correct pin to format the phone :D
The question is here: was the officer allowed to unlock the phone without any warrant?
Reminder that there is no need for a duress pin if you simply put a 4h autoreboot, 6 number pin and a strong password
I think the purpose of the duress pin is different. It’s for when someone hands you your phone and forces you to unlock it. In those circumstances the things you mentioned wouldn’t suffice
I believe in many countries it is punishable, if you destroy evidence, so that’s a stupid move.
Edit: I know it is an emotional topic and that the police is always bad. There was no need to provide the duress PIN. He could have just stayed quiet, which is anyways recommend until you have a lawyer next to you. By providing the duress PIN, he made himself a target for criminal prosecution. That’s all I am saying. Providing this PIN is a stupid move in a situation like this. Just stay quiet.
Mustn’t evidence be clearly relevant to the suspicion of a crime? If we call anything the police might take an interest in “evidence”, then in principle destroying anything could land you in prison. All the cops would have to do is declare they wanted to see the thing you destroyed.
Well in some cases you have the issue of urgency, which is why police do have some certain rights without getting the clearance from a judge or criminal prosecutor. Not sure how it is in the US though.
We don’t know how the story went behind the scenes, so we can’t really say if it was justified or not.
What makes the contents of his phone evidence? They stopped him for further search because they were investigating him. But crucially, he was not aware he was under investigation and was not told he was. They didn’t follow the protocols that would have let him know he was being detained while they investigated a crime. As far as he knew he’d been chosen randomly for a secondary screening.
Then, instead of asking him questions relevant to what he was actually being investigated for, they started asking him about CSAM and demanding he unlock his phone. You are not required and they cannot compell you (in the USA) to unlock your device using a pin or password (but they can do so if you use biometeric unlock like face ID or fingerprint).
So in reality, what happened is they requested a pin and he didn’t provide the correct pin (which is his right), and the pin he did provide wiped the phone when the agent entered it. He didn’t destroy anything. They did.
It depends so much on the circumstances. And they would also have to prove to some degree that it was intentional.
I can only really speak for Sweden. They can forcibly use your fingerprint or face to unlock it. But you are under no obligation to give up a password to begin with.
It’s also a question of if they have officially confiscated it or not.
Yep, fully agree. We don’t know if a judge or criminal prosecutor was involved or not.
As someone who had more to deal with the police than he actually wishes…
Usually there is never an officer who ask you. Also if they ask you for a pin, then they took the phone from him without any form of (legal - yeah added it extra cuz law is f0cked up different in every country/state) warrant, then its their own fault.
And in this special case I am very interested how it would end, because if I would ever visit the states, I wouldn’t bring even my main phone…
Yeah, this officer shouldn’t have destroyed evidence.
Hopefully they loose their job and compensate the victim
If you lead someone into a trap purposefully, then you do not prosecute the person who activated the trap. By providing the duress PIN, they made themselves a big target for prosecution. There was no need to provide that PIN.
Women: free to go.
