used to be they'd have to prove that it was evidence in order to say it was evidence that was destroyed

now they can just point at you and call you "terrorist," and that's that, nothing you can do

welcome to fascism

Evidence of what?

What crime did this person commit that you needed the "evidence" on his phone?

This is as bullshit as seeing "resisting arrest" being the only conviction. You didn't have a legitimate reason to arrest, or you wouldn't have gone with "resisting", you would have convicted for that reason. If they were probably doing something illegal, then the conviction should be simple and easy, not "well we couldn't get the primary charges to stick, but when we broke his hand he fell, so he clearly resisted arrest and that's why he's in jail"

It's scare tactics. This particular case will get thrown out because you simply can't have "evidence" with being a part of an official investigation.

So they'll make a big stink about it. The poor bastard will be dragged through the legal system to great fanfare. The case will be tossed SILENTLY...with or without a counter suit and settlement for the victim.

No one will report on the settlement or the case being tossed because the purpose was never to prosecute, it's to normalize the idea in people's minds that the authorities can do whatever they want, so don't fight.

talk about the streisand effect... how many of you set up a duress pin in the last few days?

For me, it's privacy.

But, two things are true: a. they shouldn’t be compelled to unlock their phone, even with a warrant. Like, unlock it yourself, you lazy, cowardly fascist and b. customs officials have legally been given the authority to confiscate and go through your shit whether or not we agree or like it.

The risk absolutely pales in comparison to the privacy benefits (and the risk of abuses by law enforcement, that were already seeing bear out).

In the USA you supposedly have a right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment.

I don't see how being asked to provide your private unlock code or password so that the pigs can trawl your phone just fishing for anything incriminating (or just add something incriminating) would be anything other than "self-incrimination". You should have a right to tell them to fuck off, and this has never been tested by the supreme court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Combinations_and_passwords

"the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself".

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

However, the conservative Roberts SC has already indicated their pleasure in weakening this protection - there's a good chance they'd weaken it more, so long as it's for a conservative cause.

Professor James Joseph Duane of the Regent University School of Law argues that the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision in Salinas v. Texas,[45] significantly weakened the privilege, saying "your choice to use the Fifth Amendment privilege can be used against you at trial depending exactly how and where you do it."[46]

The person being searched should have refused to provide any password. US courts have agreed that the right not to be a witness against yourself means that you can refuse to answer questions about your password, since it is forcing you to confess to knowing the correct password to unlock a phone.

I believe that that is what the person's lawyer is arguing, that he was never told of his right to stay silent, so the password is illegally seized evidence, and anything that law enforcement found based on the evidence is also inadmissible in court.

What investigation? What evidence were they looking for?

Maybe they should add a feature where instead of completely erasing some files, it would just hide certain files when an alternative pin-code is inputted. Would work against these kind of ass-hats pretending to be police to look at your photos.

Well it didn’t wipe itself, which is a big and likely legally important distinction. He wiped it.

Both arguments make sense, it being protecting privacy and it destroying evidence, so it will be fascinating to see what the ruling is and the reasoning behind it.

hot take, he probably should've done this before the trip