49 ms·

I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. He could have refused search without a warrant, intention

by gpt5 26d ago

I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. He could have refused search without a warrant, intentionally destroying evidence is a different legal matter.

xhhrudjjxud 26d ago
[flagged]
krispyfi 26d ago
So if you really want to nab someone but you don't care what the charge is, you can threaten them with a 4th Amendment-violating search, which induces them to destroy evidence. Pretty neat trick. IANAL, but I don't think it's controversial to say that people who treat the Bill of Rights like an obstacle to be hacked around probably shouldn't be in positions of power.
- otterley 26d ago
  (IAAL, this is not legal advice, consult your own attorney) If you destroy evidence, that’s your own fault. You can’t blame law enforcement for inducing you to commit crimes they didn’t ask you to commit. That’s just silly and no court will entertain that theory. To protect your rights under the 4th Amendment, you refuse the search. If law enforcement conducts the search anyway and a court finds the search was unlawful, the court will exclude the evidence found in the search from consideration in the trial along with any evidence that flows from that. Neither the jury nor the court will be able to use it.
  - dcow 26d ago
    Have you heard of entrapment?
    - KingMob 25d ago
      IANAL, but I've heard that entrapment defenses are way harder to use, and much rarer, in reality than on TV. First, you frequently require a judge's permission to even argue it. But the real burden is showing that your client would not have committed the crime without the effect of the police. A cop posing as a drug dealer and offering you drugs as you pass them in the park every day doesn't count; a cop hounding you for months to commit wire fraud because they mistakenly believe you're in a criminal org might, though.
    - otterley 25d ago
      Yes. That’s why I added the predicate “crimes they didn’t ask you to commit.”
  - krispyfi 25d ago
    You are describing the world as it exists, while I'm saying that we should have a better one.
xhhrudjjxud 26d ago
[flagged]
jachee 26d ago
It can’t be destroying evidence if there’s no case or charge being pressed for which that material would be evidence. “Entering the country while in possession of a device storing binary data” isn’t a crime.
- otterley 26d ago
  > It can’t be destroying evidence if there’s no case or charge being pressed for which that material would be evidence. (IAAL, not legal advice, consult your own lawyer) Where’d you get that idea? That’s not the law. As soon as there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and the law enforcement encounter occurs, that’s the threshold for when preservation of evidence begins. It doesn’t matter whether it might not have ultimately resulted in a criminal charge. You cannot intentionally interfere with a lawful investigation, in any way, full stop.
  - blurbleblurble 25d ago
    Reasonable suspicion of what though? Is them just being suspicious by default "reasonable"?
    - otterley 25d ago
      Reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Though at the border, not even that is required.
      - lazide 24d ago
        What articulable crime is the suspect alleged to have committed?
        otterley 24d ago
        It’s a subject of debate. CBP stated it was possession of CSAM. Defendant claims it’s a pretext and that CBP was really investigating his ties with the Defend the Atlanta Forest movement. But it doesn’t really matter in this case. You cannot interfere with a lawful investigation, full stop. It’s not clear to me that even if the search was unlawful that the defendant will be held not guilty of the underlying tampering/destruction charge, since we already have a mechanism to suppress evidence obtained unlawfully.
mrkeen 26d ago
Allowed to refuse search? What are you smoking?
- soraminazuki 26d ago
  Look at the username. You're talking to gpt5 smoking tokens. It's hallucinating "evidence," whatever that's supposed to mean. It doesn't recognize that the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect against law enforcement fishing expeditions that lets the government intimidate people for having the "wrong" political views and invent pretexts for further harassment.
  - gpt5 25d ago
    Whatever you think the fourth amendment is supposed to do, doesn’t match reality. Despite your ad-hominem attack.
blurbleblurble 25d ago
Evidence of what?
mianos 25d ago
There is no right to refusal at border control. It's outside the 4th amendment so it's not even relevant.
- gpt5 25d ago
  That’s not true. US citizens maintain their constitutional rights at the border. That has been tested in court. This is not the case for non-US person.
  - fn-mote 25d ago
    Unfortunately, this seems to be less true now, depending on which circuit your case is tried in. Also note that Miranda rights are not constitutional rights. This guy requested not to proceed without his lawyer present several times, with no result.
    - Gormo 25d ago
      > I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. It seems to be more true than it did a couple of decades ago, what with more recent rulings like US v. Cotterman and US. v. Koluz better clarifying what counts as a routine border searches vs. more in-depth "forensic" searches that require individual suspicion.
  - ImPostingOnHN 25d ago
    who investigates and prosecutes SS agents who violate constitutional rights? you'll find it's the same people
  - deleted 25d ago
    [deleted]
Gormo 25d ago
> I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. Certainly not. But, of course, something can only be evidence in relation to a specific crime that is being investigated. If you aren't already a suspect in a crime, then the data on your phone wasn't evidence in the first place.

by gpt5 26d ago

xhhrudjjxud 26d ago

[flagged]

krispyfi 26d ago

So if you really want to nab someone but you don't care what the charge is, you can threaten them with a 4th Amendment-violating search, which induces them to destroy evidence. Pretty neat trick. IANAL, but I don't think it's controversial to say that people who treat the Bill of Rights like an obstacle to be hacked around probably shouldn't be in positions of power.

otterley 26d ago
(IAAL, this is not legal advice, consult your own attorney) If you destroy evidence, that’s your own fault. You can’t blame law enforcement for inducing you to commit crimes they didn’t ask you to commit. That’s just silly and no court will entertain that theory. To protect your rights under the 4th Amendment, you refuse the search. If law enforcement conducts the search anyway and a court finds the search was unlawful, the court will exclude the evidence found in the search from consideration in the trial along with any evidence that flows from that. Neither the jury nor the court will be able to use it.
- dcow 26d ago
  Have you heard of entrapment?
  - KingMob 25d ago
    IANAL, but I've heard that entrapment defenses are way harder to use, and much rarer, in reality than on TV. First, you frequently require a judge's permission to even argue it. But the real burden is showing that your client would not have committed the crime without the effect of the police. A cop posing as a drug dealer and offering you drugs as you pass them in the park every day doesn't count; a cop hounding you for months to commit wire fraud because they mistakenly believe you're in a criminal org might, though.
  - otterley 25d ago
    Yes. That’s why I added the predicate “crimes they didn’t ask you to commit.”
- krispyfi 25d ago
  You are describing the world as it exists, while I'm saying that we should have a better one.

xhhrudjjxud 26d ago

[flagged]

jachee 26d ago

It can’t be destroying evidence if there’s no case or charge being pressed for which that material would be evidence. “Entering the country while in possession of a device storing binary data” isn’t a crime.

otterley 26d ago
> It can’t be destroying evidence if there’s no case or charge being pressed for which that material would be evidence. (IAAL, not legal advice, consult your own lawyer) Where’d you get that idea? That’s not the law. As soon as there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and the law enforcement encounter occurs, that’s the threshold for when preservation of evidence begins. It doesn’t matter whether it might not have ultimately resulted in a criminal charge. You cannot intentionally interfere with a lawful investigation, in any way, full stop.
- blurbleblurble 25d ago
  Reasonable suspicion of what though? Is them just being suspicious by default "reasonable"?
  - otterley 25d ago
    Reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Though at the border, not even that is required.
    - lazide 24d ago
      What articulable crime is the suspect alleged to have committed?
      - otterley 24d ago
        It’s a subject of debate. CBP stated it was possession of CSAM. Defendant claims it’s a pretext and that CBP was really investigating his ties with the Defend the Atlanta Forest movement. But it doesn’t really matter in this case. You cannot interfere with a lawful investigation, full stop. It’s not clear to me that even if the search was unlawful that the defendant will be held not guilty of the underlying tampering/destruction charge, since we already have a mechanism to suppress evidence obtained unlawfully.

mrkeen 26d ago

Allowed to refuse search? What are you smoking?

soraminazuki 26d ago
Look at the username. You're talking to gpt5 smoking tokens. It's hallucinating "evidence," whatever that's supposed to mean. It doesn't recognize that the Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect against law enforcement fishing expeditions that lets the government intimidate people for having the "wrong" political views and invent pretexts for further harassment.
- gpt5 25d ago
  Whatever you think the fourth amendment is supposed to do, doesn’t match reality. Despite your ad-hominem attack.

blurbleblurble 25d ago

Evidence of what?

mianos 25d ago

There is no right to refusal at border control. It's outside the 4th amendment so it's not even relevant.

gpt5 25d ago
That’s not true. US citizens maintain their constitutional rights at the border. That has been tested in court. This is not the case for non-US person.
- fn-mote 25d ago
  Unfortunately, this seems to be less true now, depending on which circuit your case is tried in. Also note that Miranda rights are not constitutional rights. This guy requested not to proceed without his lawyer present several times, with no result.
  - Gormo 25d ago
    > I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. It seems to be more true than it did a couple of decades ago, what with more recent rulings like US v. Cotterman and US. v. Koluz better clarifying what counts as a routine border searches vs. more in-depth "forensic" searches that require individual suspicion.
- ImPostingOnHN 25d ago
  who investigates and prosecutes SS agents who violate constitutional rights? you'll find it's the same people
- deleted 25d ago
  [deleted]

Gormo 25d ago

> I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence. Certainly not. But, of course, something can only be evidence in relation to a specific crime that is being investigated. If you aren't already a suspect in a crime, then the data on your phone wasn't evidence in the first place.