0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man charged for wiping his phone with "duress password" during airport search
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:50 pm to Ingeniero
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:50 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.
“people’s” is a broad term. SCOTUS needs to make sure US citizens are excluded due to something called the bill of rights. They want unlimited power over a citizenry with zero rights. Government is asshoe.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 8:55 pm to LemmyLives
quote:
The motion said that the border agents claimed they did not need a warrant to search Tunick’s phone because he had not yet crossed the U.S. border.
This is why I assumed he wasn't in the US.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:12 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t have a problem with the government accessing your phone upon demand
Well frick that….the constitution of the United States would disagree.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:21 pm to Tygerfan
quote:
If That is the case, how are they able to charge him for a "crime" that he supposedly committed outside of US jurisdiction
Agreed…if they are outside of their jurisdiction, how can they even demand to search his phone?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:42 pm to Uncommon Idea
quote:Apparently, yes.
But the US can force a citizen to allow unfettered access to their papers (and potentially incriminate themselves) just because they've traveled internationally?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:43 pm to Roaad
I guess the better phrase would be “obstruction”.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:46 pm to Spankum
Customs is allowed to search any physical item in your possession. But technically they can’t search anything stored in the cloud without a warrant. From a functional perspective, I doubt that line is respected.
That guy went spent an awful lot of effort to choose the worst available solution to his problems.
That guy went spent an awful lot of effort to choose the worst available solution to his problems.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:53 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Border Search Exception: The "border search exception" allows federal officers to conduct warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. This authority extends to electronic devices, and while officers cannot force a traveler to provide a passcode, refusal to unlock a device can lead to prolonged detention.
Case closed
He doesn't have to, he never refused
He gave them A code, he did not have to provide any code
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:59 pm to lsuconnman
I am more interested in the implication that he has no rights to counsel simply because he hadn't crossed the border (according to CBP), like is the govt really going to argue he has no rights outside the US even as a citizen? That's a wild take, on top of the 4th and 5th amendment considerations.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 9:59 pm to Roaad
quote:I am going to play devil’s advocate here.
Case closed
quote:You are right.
He doesn't have to, he never refused
He gave them A code, he did not have to provide any code
He, apparently, doesn’t have to give them the code, BUT if he knowingly supplied them with a false code that would result in destruction of the data/phone, that could be construed as “obstruction”.
Had he simply refused to give them the code, I would agree entirely.
It was the act of destruction of the phone that could be argued otherwise.
Again, makes for an interesting case.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This "logic" is how the Police State has been allowed to grow so much
I’m not supportive of the police state. I wasn’t a supporter of the patriot act either when it was proposed and implemented. But what necessitates someone to have something like this?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:20 pm to NYNolaguy1
I don’t see the issue. Any time you go to the airport there’s a million signs that say anything you’re carrying is subject to inspection, then someone tells you the rule. I think some international airports even offer an immunity box before you cross the threshold. …what additoonal insight would Matlock bring to the table to assist in a straightforward expectation?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:26 pm to Ingeniero
“In case of death please clear my browser search history….” taken to the extreme.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:40 pm to Ingeniero
Does the term “unlawful search and seizure” mean anything to you, bootlicker? Shooting from the hip. Get a warrant, assholes.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:51 pm to Scruffy
quote:Not if he isn't required to provide them one, i don't think.
BUT if he knowingly supplied them with a false code that would result in destruction of the data/phone, that could be construed as “obstruction”.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:00 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
JohnnyKilroy
You are on a roll with shitty posts
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:06 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
I think prior to passing through customs is a gray area?
Not really. Even if you are in an airport located within the confines of the US, until you pass out of the international area having been cleared by customs. When you are standing face to face with the customs officer and he/she has you passport you are not in the US. When they hand you back your passport and tell you welcome back or enjoy your stay then you "magically" are in the US. It is a legal fiction.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:09 pm to Scruffy
quote:
He, apparently, doesn’t have to give them the code, BUT if he knowingly supplied them with a false code that would result in destruction of the data/phone, that could be construed as “obstruction”.
This is the correct legal analysis. Not giving a code is one thing covered by 5A; giving a code that results in the destruction of potential evidence is an overt act that constitutes destruction of evidence. Don't get me wrong, there are still arguments to be made, but the gaps to squeeze through just got a lot narrower.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:18 pm to Obtuse1
I think the error was giving the false code. If he didn't give them a code and let it time out he may be a little better off. Kind of like not having to ID prior to being arrested. Typically, don't have to give your name but you for sure in the wrong giving a false name.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:42 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
The U.S. government has long claimed it can search and seize people’s devices without a search warrant or court order until they are permitted entry to the United States.
Now you understand why terrorists were sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News