this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
538 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

87597 readers
3777 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
538
U.S. Citizen Who Deleted Phone’s Data Says His Prosecution Puts Privacy at Risk (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 day ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

Yes.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This was a custodial search by a police force, so civil procedure doesn't apply.