this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
245 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
86580 readers
3730 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Perfectly legal. Unless they were legally charged and ordered by a court to preserve data considered to be used in a crime, they can't be charged with shit. Cops don't dictate this, courts do, AND that scope only applies to an active prosecution anyway.
Legality seems to be a fairytale concept in the USA, except for oligarchs. They get full legal coverage.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not arguing that you're wrong here, but the article describes the federal law the journalist was charged with. It seems very broad, and it's a bullshit law, but from what's here, it seems more grey area than perfectly legal. All of 2232 seems to require knowledge (which it seems like he had, but might be arguable) and action. You could argue that the journalist didn't take any affirmative action to wipe the phone. The action that wiped it was the feds entering a code.
Yeah, you're wrong in a number of different ways. No, you're not a lawyer.
What you linked to is precedent par notice. Every single subordinate literally mentions notice.
A law enforcement officer of ANY type is not able able to issue that notice.
There’s a bunch of legislation and case law saying that searches are OK within x (50?) miles of a border crossing which covers something like 90% of the population because they count international airports.
So it might get sticky for the person.
100 miles, but it does not include airports. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
Search is not the same thing. Search means they CAN legally search. It absolutely does mean that wiping your phone prevented, obstructed, or obscured a SEARCH. Search all you fucking want, that data is gone. It's not retroactively comparable.
That being said, had there been a judge that said "You can't wipe your phone, because you are being charged with a crime, and we believe there is evidence of this crime on your phone, and here is why..."
Way different, and these laws only exist to prevent law enforcement from being caught in a cyclical legal roundabout in court related to the 4th amendment, and even then, many defense lawyers get "gray area" material data evidence thrown out because of Miranda Rights, or illegal searches by law enforcement of data harvested when the defendent was not properly advised or advocated for their ability to refuse.
Murderers get off for this shit because Cops get overzealous and don't follow the letter of the law or chain of custody in evidentiary collection.
From the article
"The government’s indictment, which contains a typo (“Untied States Code”), accuses Tunick of allegedly providing a passcode to border agents that caused the phone to “delete the digital contents,” prior to the device being seized."
"When Tunick provided his passcode and the authorities entered it, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart.” The authorities seized his phone anyway, before telling him that he was free to go and could enter the United States."
Yes, and only JUDGES are able to make that determination.
There is no stature in Federal or State law that says this is a crime, and no superceded precedent for this.
It depends. If the police suspect the owner has evidence of some sort on the phone, destroying it can lead to a tampering with evidence charge from the police.
A tampering charge doesn't have to be from a court order. If someone eats or dumps out drugs where the police can't collect the physical drug, it will stick.
But in the story's case, it falls within the 100 miles of the US boarder (called a boarder search exception) a warrant, probable cause, or RAS aren't needed here. It's considered a reasonable search so the 4th amendment is limited here.
There is a lot to it and really don't think this is the best format for it here.
It does not depend. 4th amendment is superceded by any state law, and it's SUPER clear that unless a crime has been committed and prosecutorial procedures are in place, no search or seizure is legal.
That's the whole point.