Flames5123 comments on U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk

[–] Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (1 child)

My understanding is that if you knew a search was going to happen, it’s illegal. But good luck proving that you knew it would happen.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

I think you might be thinking of spoilation--https://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/discovery/spoliation-of-evidence/ --which is destroying evidence you think might be subpoened. I don't think it would apply in this scenario.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

Your linked source only applies to civil matters (think lawsuits for a slip and fall). It even says:

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37

That basically arises out of the Fifth Amendment, which reads:

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

In the criminal conrext, the Fourth Amendment rules, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

All that "probable cause", "stop and frisk", and "reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing" stuff arises from the "unreasonable searches and seizures" bit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments