11 ms·
I don't get the legal contradiction. The search is supposed to be lawful without a warrant because you're not really in the US yet per-se, hence if you're not
by juancn 26d ago
I don't get the legal contradiction.
The search is supposed to be lawful without a warrant because you're not really in the US yet per-se, hence if you're not there, how deleting the data can be a felony?
- OutOfHere 26d agoThat is a most interesting and underrated point.
- joshka 26d agoIt's a fairly shallow point that ignores how laws work. The premise that the law doesn't apply because you're not in the country is false. The constitution applies generally everywhere to all Americans, it's just that what's regarded as reasonable differs during a border search. IANAL, so just my lay opinion on this. Just to validate this, it's only because the constitution exists that the border authorities have any legal basis in doing inspections.
- OutOfHere 26d agoHuh, that is inconsistent. The problem with your comment is noted right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49390318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49390318
- joshka 26d agoNot really - the government have stated that he's in the US. It's the first sentence of the indictment. [1] > On or about January 24, 2025, in the Northern District of Georgia... [1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.351975/gov.uscourts.gand.351975.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.35... But in general, the thing to note here is that the 4th amendment is always applicable and in force. It's how it's interpreted that changes depending on the circumstance.
- HDThoreaun 26d agoIt doesn’t matter where he was when he deleted the data. He could be in China, it’s still a crime in the us to destroy evidence wanted by American authorities.
- OutOfHere 26d agoYou're speaking nonsense since there was no charge or warrant against him. People are free to use their phone for f sake.
- HDThoreaun 26d agoLaw enforcement doesn’t need a warrant to search phones at the border. I agree this is a terrible rule but it is the rule right now.
- gib444 26d agoIs that the 100 mile wide border?
- OutOfHere 26d agoYou have lost track of the chain of discussion.
- OutOfHere 26d agoHave you read https://yalelawjournal.org/forum/customs-immigration-and-rig https://yalelawjournal.org/forum/customs-immigration-and-rig... ? Quoting from its abstract: > While the Supreme Court has long recognized a border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, it applies to only two interests: promoting the duty regime and preventing contraband from entering the country; and ensuring that individuals are legally admitted. The government’s recent use of the exception goes substantially beyond these matters. None of these two interests apply to his targeted search. No duty applies here. By definition, no contraband can exist on an erased phone
- rootusrootus 26d agoEvidence exists independent of a charge or warrant. The instant they asked for access to the phone, it became evidence. If he had entered the duress code himself before walking up to the agent, he'd be fine. Nerds thinking that technicalities is how the law works is why he's in hot water.
- insane_dreamer 26d agoright, there's a contradiction here: - if you're deemed to be on US soil, constitutional protections (4A) apply; can't be destroying "evidence" unless you're accused of a crime or found to have committed a crime - if you're deemed _not_ yet on US soil, then how can you be charged with a crime under _US_ law?
- freeone3000 26d agoThe US views that US law applies worldwide. There is no requirement that you be anywhere near the US to be under US jurisdiction for an alleged offense against the US, according to the US. Also, that constitutional protections are suspended within 100 miles of a land, sea, or air border.
- decimalenough 26d agoNot sure why you're getting downvoted, since your statement is true: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22497 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22497 Although obviously not all US laws apply and enforcement is a whole other kettle of fish.
- insane_dreamer 26d agowhere's that in the Constitution?
- groby_b 26d ago4A still doesn't permit you to destroy the evidence. Resist on 4A grounds, destroy the evidence, 4A reasons get overturned - you've got yourself a conviction. US v. Akram Musleh.
- insane_dreamer 26d agoin practice you're right, but it's hard to see how that squares with the 4A. an officer can't stop me on the street and demand to see the contents of my phone -- unless they can show "probable cause" that I was about to commit a crime (based on other evidence), or I'm already named as a suspect or POI in an investigation. So if they ask to see the contents of my phone and I delete it instead (it's a very small bag in this example, Lol) am I obstructing an investigation?
- tavavex 26d agoI think you legally are in the US while at an American border crossing - at least if the crossing is on US land, which it was in this case. It might be more complicated for preclearance spots. It's just that normal rights are suspended there despite being in the US, even for citizens. Make of that what you will.
- someguydave 26d agoYour rights are not suspended, but border agents don’t need a reason to investigate you
- superxpro12 26d ago...and then they start violating all your rights after starting the investigation lol. its just wordplay.
- criddell 26d agoAnd if you are a citizen, they can’t deny you entry. They can make it take a while, but you will be admitted.
- OutOfHere 26d agoThe Constitution makes no exemption for a suspension of rights at the border.
- empressplay 26d agoThe Supreme court disagrees with you.
- jdlshore 26d agoThe alleged crime is knowingly interfering with a lawful search (by providing a duress password that deleted the phone). Location has nothing to do with it.
- bengt 26d agoThe location is the crux of the "lawful" part of the search.
- jdlshore 26d agoAre you a lawyer? I’m not, but the Legal Eagle video linked elsewhere in this thread says that the reasons for the search are the crux of the “lawful” part, not the location. (The location was at the port of entry—the border—which is pretty much the definition of the CBP’s jurisdiction.)