Ultimately, when you choose to enter a duress PIN that will wipe your device, you have to recognize that choice may have legal consequences. I don't like the amount of power our government has at the national border when it comes to detaining and pressuring citizens, but our Constitution explicitly grants it at least some of the power it now exercises in that context.
If your threat model includes US state actors at the national border, then your security practices need to account for the confiscation of your device at that border without requiring you to willfully wipe the phone and (in the eyes of police and prosecutors) destroy evidence.
That means:
1. Don't travel with anything you can't afford to lose on device. This means setting up travel-specific password managers and hardware keys for a subset of your accounts that you absolutely need to access while abroad, and being prepared to reset those passwords and disable those hardware keys very quickly once home.
2. Review past legal cases against travelers and identify what behaviors the government considers worthy of prosecution or harassment. Your secure setup must function without needing you to engage in those behaviors, even if it is less convenient as a result. This isn't perfect, as the government may decide some new behavior is prosecutable.
3. Consult with a lawyer and review your security procedures from a legal standpoint. All of the above is technical and practical advice, not legal counsel and no substitute for it.
We Americans are fortunate to carry powerful passports and enjoy relatively easy international travel but, for better or worse, that velvet glove covers an iron fist we would be foolish to forget or ignore.
> 1. Don't travel with anything you can't afford to lose on device. This means setting up travel-specific password managers and hardware keys for a subset of your accounts that you absolutely need to access while abroad, and being prepared to reset those passwords and disable those hardware keys very quickly once home.
> 2. Review past legal cases against travelers and identify what behaviors the government considers worthy of prosecution or harassment. Your secure setup must function without needing you to engage in those behaviors, even if it is less convenient as a result. This isn't perfect, as the government may decide some new behavior is prosecutable.
> 3. Consult with a lawyer and review your security procedures from a legal standpoint. All of the above is technical and practical advice, not legal counsel and no substitute for it.
Just don't go to the usa and if it's for professional reason, don't bring your personal phone.
> Just don't go to the usa
As a Canadian. I won't be going there for a long time
Canadian border control has the legal authority to search your phone and you are obligated to provide a password.
Are you a Canadian lawyer? I did some research and your statement doesn’t hold up.
CBSA policy does state you are obligated to provide your password if they are conducting a lawful device examination, however they cannot do it arbitrarily, and they must have a legal basis for searching the device.
> CBSA policy states that examinations of personal devices should not be conducted as a matter of routine; such searches may be conducted only if there are grounds or indications that “evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media.”
Furthermore, Canadian courts have not yet definitively ruled on whether compelling password disclosure is constitutionally permissible.
This is very different than the US, where CBP can conduct a basic search without any individualized suspicion.
So, Canada and the US are definitely not the same, which seems to be the implied meaning behind your comment, and your explicit statement that CBSA has legal authority to search your phone is, at best, misleading.
I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert so I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me if you have Canadian legal experience.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/airports-and-border...
You've left out the important qualifier I put at the outset of those three points:
> If your threat model includes US state actors
It was not advice for everyone, nor even most people. I have plenty of friends abroad, and a few of them have even traveled to my country for the World Cup and had a grand time.
I roll my eyes at this kind of overreaction, the same way I imagine Europeans rolling their eyes to hear Americans worried about migrant crime news stories not wanting to travel to Europe. Or maybe they used to roll their eyes at that... I'm less sure now.
Have the duress PIN on sticker on your phone. Maybe put it backwards and don’t say anything to border patrol. Have them try it out and erase the phone and then you can legitimately say you didn’t do anything and they did it themselves.
But if the prosecutors can make a convincing argument that your intent was exactly that all along, then you may end up convicted anyway.
Intent matters. It might be hard to prove, but it matters.
It may not even be that hard; what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?
> what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?
Two obvious answers:
1. It's for the general case of lost/stolen phone.
2. It's for the owner. I can't remember numbers I don't type in, might as well keep it visible on the device.
>what other possible explanation is there for someone putting a PIN visible on their phone that wipes it while crossing a border?
For thieves, obviously.
There’s no way to prove intent if you keep your mouth shut and don’t answer anything.
Yea, that’s not how it works in practice. If they catch you standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon. Then you can’t just say they can’t prove intent if you keep your mouth shut.
Yea but that's where "reasonable suspicion" comes in a court of law. If you are standing next to a dead body, with a bloody knife in your hand.
That’s good advice to not talk, but it won’t necessarily save you.
claim your password to be some derivative of the duress PIN, for example: 1234 is password reminder for 2444 (one 2 three 4), the device is erased anyway.
For if someone steals the phone?
if the cops do that, they're breaking the law with that search already
theyll have a hard time showing that you intended for the government to break the law. first the government would have to admit breaking the law
Unfortunately I think they have pretty wide latitude to perform searches at border crossings.
They might be able to convict on that, but that sets a dangerous precedent imo, which is that doing anything preemptively to prevent searches is conviction worthy, including the preparation the OP suggested.
"it would be funny if the border police typed it in to my phone"
I think you should read the other reply about not saying anything at all.
Not saying anything at all is one of the worst things you can do when questioned by law enforcement in the US (though "it would be funny" is a close second). The right way to remain silent is to loudly proclaim "I am exercising my right to remain silent."
As a speech.
Or just make it your birthday. Though I'm not at all sure the agents will try typing random codes in without at least some idea that they may work, given that many OS's will quickly start to punish with tarpitting.
Be funnier if you even write “do not enter 123456”.
That might have actually been legal. I'm not a lawyer, but it's definitely better for the accused than what happened in reality.
"I told you not to. You're the ones who wiped my phone. You owe me money for destroying my personal property."
I'm not saying you would get a check courtesy of Uncle Sam for your troubles, but the argument that you deceived authorities into destroying evidence is a lot weaker.
I might go with "do not enter 696969" instead because the stranger fiddling with your phone probably expects a your phone to do something funny, like load a shock site.
I wouldn't write it down, I would just make it 1234. They're bound to try that. Then they have absolutely no case against you.
That's the combination on my luggage!
The police will ask you if the PIN unlocks the phone before using it.
Refusing to answer questions IS one of the rights that the US government mostly honors.
Well, these days especially at border police don't care about "rights"
That's missing in this entire conversation. This all sounds like it's 2016 or something
This is not a "these days" thing. Most rights essentially being abrogated at the border is a thing we've had for many decades now. In particular, no non-citizen has the absolute right of entry, and border agents have discretion bordering on insane when it comes to not admitting people or temporarily detaining them. Worse yet, this being the case, the job attracts the kind of people who relish the petty power trip. I've seen this many times back in 2010-2011 when I was traveling regularly as a non-citizen between US and Canada.
I don't think denying entry to non-citizens abrogates anyone's rights.
Under US law, you have a nearly absolute right to not answer police questions.
Yes of course. But their use of the PIN will likely only occur if you answer, which many people will. This is a common setup in interrogations.
the utah cops definitely would, based on whats been released from the rwckless ben bodycam footage
I belive this only applies if you are a US citizen and not a visitor.
Up in the air. SCOTUS didn't decide on this specific right. They did rule on other constitutional protections though, sometimes granting, sometimes denying them to non-citizens. It also depends if you're just arriving or already are in the US. For example, illegal immigrants who jumped the border fence have more rights than legal immigrants who didn't leave the airport yet.
It unlocks the phone.
Why would agents think that a number written on your phone is the PIN? That would only make sense if it was a communally-used device, not a personal one. Also, no one would put sensitive info on a devices that has the PIN affixed to it.
I suppose it's possible someone might enter it without thinking, but the odds seem low. Also seems risky to put a self-destruct PIN on your device, lest a friend (or enemy) enter it by accident or as a prank.
I've worked with fleets of company phones and mobile devices, people absolutely do this.
They do this with devices that have sensitive information that would be of interest to federal agents?
with this sort of configuration, you either trust your backups or you don’t ;)
the funny part is he didn't enter the pin he gave it to them and they entered it..., not sure if it makes any difference but there is a certain irony to it that it was the non warrant based search actions (which might be legal at the border) which lead to the erasure of data
Edit for the confused and misinformed: 18 USC 1001. Also, is ≠ ought.
Lying to a federal officer is a crime, IIRC, and if the lie results in destruction of evidence, the person who told the lie is probably accountable for both crimes. This isn't a lie with plausible deniability: you have to set a duress PIN, understanding what it does, and then communicate that PIN instead of the unlock PIN.
A duress PIN to wipe the device don't exist to absolve the owner of liability... It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.
It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios. People need to be sober in weighing its use.
> It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.
Devil’s advocate, it sounds like the accused could be part of some mutual aid networks who could be helping people who are vulnerable against the actions of the current government. People who may die if they’re deported, or returned to their family (gay or trans youth). This person may literally have saved lives by not handing over their phonebook and messages.
> It exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.
Or it's preferable to get caught lying to a federal officer than it is for them to have the evidence on your phone.
possible
but not necessary evidence, as evidence would imply a crime. But when it comes to police harassing activists, or outright mislabeling them as terrorists, there are many fully legal things you still might prefer the police not to have. Lets not forget that boarder police has in the past tried absurd things like trying to seize Attorney-client privilege protected information from a US attorney.
Through most likely many people setting up and using a duress pins never truly think this thought from a legal POV.
>Lying to a fed
They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"
>Destroying evidence
How did they know there was any evidence on there?
>it exists for when compromising the device could get people the owner cares about killed or disappeared and the owner considers their own liability, disappearance, or death a preferable outcome.
No, the duress pin is there for when I'm under duress and being forced to unlock my device against my will
>It is an extreme solution for extreme scenarios
Wiping a device I own is extreme?
> >Lying to a fed
> They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"
The law doesn't work like that. Unless you're provably at the developmental level of a 5 year old, the court knows you know what was required, and also knows what you intended when you gave the duress pin.
The justice system famously never plays "simon says"...
> They asked for the pin, maybe they should have said "not the duress pin"
This is a Mickey Mouse distinction no court will take seriously.
> Wiping a device I own is extreme?
When the consequences are potential years in prison for lying to the US government or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government, then yes... Extreme.
All I'm saying is to decide to use a duress PIN at any national border or in any foreign country soberly, with knowledge of the potential or likely consequences.
Just submit citizen. Nothing to hide, right?
That's a different discussion. Are you interested in staying out of trouble at the border? Or are you interested in taking down the system (or at least fixing it)?
If you think the system needs fixed or destroyed, you do you, but don't be surprised when that approach gets you in trouble at the border.
> or, in another country, torture or death in prison for obstructing an authoritarian government
Also happens in the US
It's sad that your perfectly valid previous comment is dead (and that HN even works that way) ... adding is ≠ ought probably doesn't even help for the people who don't grasp that in the first place.
People who think that tricking the cops into wiping your device legally absolves you need to grow up. Also those who argue that LE can't prove any evidence was destroyed since it's been destroyed.
Yeah, but the way HN works is leagues ahead of other, similar platforms. And the top voted comment of a subthread (at that moment) being flagged is its own interesting signal about both the issue at hand and the HN userbase. I'll be grateful if reasonable folks vouch, but I'm not mad about it either way.
It's now undead.
I’m quite unfamiliar with this notion. What law says it’s illegal to lie when you’re not under oath during a court proceeding?
18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1]
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
does this apply to defendant ?
the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"
In America, the defendant generally has the right not to testify against himself by remaining silent, both in court and when questioned by agents of the state out of court. Not a right to lie. This is why criminal defense attorneys advise everyone to shut up, shut up, SHUT UP without a lawyer present. Police can and will attempt to catch you in a provable lie.
> the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"
What on Earth is this second part of your comment supposed to mean?
Do you expect to be able to lie to the government in an authoritarian country? And not be arrested if they catch you in the lie there? And not be charged or worse if they consider the lie serious?
Alright. Most places would investigate crimes and charge you for them before they look at your defense itself, so I had several worries about that
One of which is self indications (even of things that cops didn't know about or couldn't prove) that would allow them to just question anyone into admitting even a parking offense, but I guess you can shut up indeed
I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing, but you can also shut up
I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate (while they have cctv but you have no vcr in your brain). But again, you can shut up.
When I'll be in America, I'll remember not to talk to cops.
Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail
> Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail
Very few states have anything resembling this specific federal statute, and one doesn't typically call 911 to obtain service from federal law enforcement agencies. And in the case of a 911 call specifically, "heat of the moment" and "good faith" do a lot of work.
Unless you obviously intended to mislead an emergency services response, you will not be criminally implicated from good faith statements made during a 911 call regarding some incident you merely observed as a bystander.
> I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing
In authoritarian countries, that absolutely happens. In America and the West, police are generally expected to have reasonable suspicion of anyone they detain to interrogate, and the length of detention is also limited if no evidence validating suspicion is forthcoming. They could not simply arrest everyone in the proximity of a crime, and geofence warrants are controversial exactly because that was the standard in the analog world.
> I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate
Again, they must have reasonable suspicion to even detain you. You are reasoning about law codes as if they were literalist computer code for a compiler. The law, at least common law in America, is written by and for humans who are expected to exercise good faith as a part of enforcing and interpreting the law.
Do know your right to remain silent, and ask for a translator and consular assistance if detained or arrested. Police departments will provide these things because attorneys in court will question the reliability and admissibility of any testimony in the absence of their provision.
Don't worry too much about police if you're in America to visit. They're ordinary people who mostly want to catch criminals who are hurting their community. Bad apples are rare, and bad apples who harass someone on a tourist visa are rarer still.
From the cited statute:
> Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
Famously, 18 USC 1001
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
Here's one: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-37-08/
you had answers here. I'm trying to understand why our leaders can get away with lying so much and it being obviously in the public record, with videos on YouTube etc, and there being no recourse or accountability?
Is it true that the law is only selectively applied to some people?
if you follow the links theres a lot of carve outs for the government to be allowed to lie
"Our leaders" also are sometimes persecuted for lying to a federal officer; the past few years there have been more than one high-profile case.
Yes and did you see how Biden issued dozens of pardons before he left office absolving several leaders of their lies and whatever was actually persecuted to the "crime" level?
Seems if crimes are only crimes for normal people, theres rarely actual application of law for everyone. It instead shows itself to the governed as a system of control for them for the benefit of the leadership (since their friends absolve them of crimes, and also participate in the systematic neutering of any other forms of justice opposing their friends privileged behaviors).
Not saying this as a political thing to target one side like Biden/right and say Trump/left is clean. I'm saying I notice this in all levels both left and right.
> Lying to a federal officer is a crime
That doesn’t pass the sniff test
Double check your nose.
18 U.S. Code § 1001 [1]
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
but it is perfectly legal when federal officers lie themselves?
Generally yes, unfortunately, with very narrow exceptions. Not all countries follow this rule, but the US does, and it’s certainly not alone in this respect.
If you ask me, this law ought to be removed completely.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/25/939064270/trump-pardons-forme...
> President Trump has issued a pardon to his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and then recanted.
Rules for thee but not for me.
"Rules for thee but not for me" - isn't that beyond obvious now? The folks running things simply do not play by the rules you or I do (assuming you do).
a pardon is still within the rules
make sure to give trump a payout and you too can loe to the fbi
I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour and there’s a whole lot of linking intent to action where you can be liable if a court can prove it. Not that an LLM is legal gold but it’s the best thing I have to pass ideas around with.
The entire situation is sort of nonsensical and boils down to lots of minutia in law that no normal person would know about.
For example having normal widely known security features like wiping the device after N failed PIN attempts is fine. Even having long standing security practices that can’t be related are fine, like having a timed touch point where if you don’t enter the PIN every… 15 days or whatever the device wipes, perfectly fine if it can’t be connected towards the crime and you’re not compelled to tell officers you have such a security mechanism.
Even if you were to set a trap where you use the same PIN for your bank, your laptop, and some other security devices in repetition then decide to set your duress PIN to that by assuming it would be discovered as a probable option they’d use, you’d be ok but it could be questionable if that was by design…
It’s so obscure really as to how and how you’re not allowed to protect your data, even if you’re not the one performing the action to clear destroy the potential evidence yourself. The entire thing seems pretty absurd a frankly arbitrary to me, and I don’t know how people could know which cases are and aren’t legal. I know not to destroy evidence myself but I wouldn’t know to tell someone to not use the duress pin or that even giving them my duress pin could somehow be my liability. It’s madness if you ask me.
> I’ve been arguing against some LLMs about this point for a good hour
One of the most depressing things I've read on here
Well I don’t have any legal need to hire a lawyer or anything I would need a lawyer for. It’s a rather fast way to surface legal information and precedent. I don’t see how it’s any more depressing than Google diving on a topic you’re interested in for an hour..
Welcome to moltnews. Everyone here is addicted.
Not a lawyer, but destruction of evidence would only be valid if there was first some reasonable suspicion of a crime? Is that right?
This is my core question as well. At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself?
If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding? The dash-cam automatically over-writes old footage - perpetually destroying evidence.
Given nebulous cases such as "hacking" a site by looking at the HTML[0], am I destroying evidence of crimes whenever I format my PC? I hope the government requires specific charges and more proof of a crime other than missing evidence. Say I destroy my diary - can the government claim that is the key evidence where I confessed to being the gunman on the grassy knoll?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28992667
"At what point do you have to maintain property so the government can use it to testify against yourself?"
For the duration of the border search. This guy is at risk because he caused the data to be deleted during a border search, when CBP asserts they can legally look. He would have been fine if he deleted data on the plane or after leaving the airport.
(This is my understanding of the government's position; personally I don't think this prosecution is constitutional)
> If I have a dash-cam, and I wipe the SD card, can the government imply that because I erased the card, it must prove that I was speeding?
If the erasure was a non-automated result of them asking you, and you alone, what conclusion do you think is possible? Probable?
the government might not, but your insurance company definitely will
Also, can they proof that there was evidence on the phone?
this means: put a good government in charge of the border that respects your rights
Well I prefer simply to stay out of countries that haven't got their ducks in a row when it comes to freedom. Saves a lot of hassle.
It is so sad and worrying when the already oppressed population argue for paranoid practices constraining their own practices considerably and with great efforts, eroding the other thing that constitution was so famous about, freedom, so some officers supposed to serve the population can do things easily to anyone. If they please and want it easy for themselves.
>destroy evidence
Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.
You’re way off about when it’s illegal to start destroying your property that the police want to seize during an investigation.
"Investigation" is a pretty generous way to label "some thugs working for an authoritarian state want to look for incriminating stuff - including criticism or mockery of them or their leader - on your communications device".
Whatever the American legal system may say, a couple of thugs with no warrant conducting searches and seizures of data is a blatant violation of the Constitution's intent. This is the sort of behavior Americans used to rightfully condemn.
Calling border patrol "thugs" doesn't really bolster your argument to anyone except people who already agree with you.
I find that choice of words more likely to cause people who already disagree with them to fixate on it rather than the substance of their comment.
Check my last submission on this site -- same news story (different site). I agree with them, and it's distracting and damaging to the cause.
You're also essentially saying the same thing I did, because I'd argue most people already have a non-neutral stance on the subject.
it just makes those people dismiss it. doesn't really do any good.
I'm all for privacy and find this seizure stuff really wrong but to me it just looks like another form of "orange man bad"
The Border Patrol have been a violent and abusive branch of government since their inception. Their abuses under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have been reported across the spectrum of America's media for many years. 'Thug' with it's roots in groups of violent organized criminals who preyed on travelers - is an accurate description for them.
I would also like the fourth amendment to apply at the border.
Have you read United States v. Flores-Montano? The border search exception (which I disagree with) is pretty old. Can you find an era in which Americans in general found it objectionable or were united in rejecting its application to data?
To me it’s all quite analogous to walking up to, but not crossing, a border with, say, a fruit that’s legal to possess on the side you’re on, but not on the other side, and either eating or throwing away that fruit before crossing.
“Hey! I saw you holding that Mexican pepper in Mexico, and then you threw it in that Mexican trash can before crossing into Texas!”
“Yeah, so?”
But that's not what happened here. Here, you were trying to bring the pepper over, got inspected and somehow got rid of it because you were able to be found out.
This is more like bringing the pepper across and then quickly swallowing it when they ask you to look at it.
Or emptying your bottle of water when the TSA found it on the XRAY. Unlike the pepper he's actually allowed to have that data on his phone both sides of the border.
which also would be fine?
Hit and miss, depending on the security guy. Some had me pour it out.
"Evidence" has never been limited to the subject of a warrant. Destruction of evidence statutes typically include material that is subject to a police investigation.
But are not investigations typically under some reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred?
Reasonable suspicion is required for a terry stop but that does not apply at a border crossing. Everyone can be stopped and questioned and searched at a border crossing.
An ”investigation” is just a fancy word that broadly describes the type of information collection that law enforcement does. Yes, it is typically about things they think are crimes. Because that’s their job. But there’s not some legal hurdle they have to pass here, the word describes their work.
they of course arent police and arent investigating anything
instead they are harassing
It is illegal to destroy evidence even if you weren’t guilty of the crime that was allegedly being investigated.
If someone accuses you of a crime, committing a different crime is probably not a good move, in any situation.
> Who said it was evidence? Did a judge authorize or issue a warrant to collect said evidence? Absent that, it's just your property, and you can do with it as you please.
Why do people go sovereign citizen when reality doesn't work their way? Stop imagining that the way you want things to be is the way things really are.
Cops do not need a judge to authorize the seizing of evidence. Cops do not need judges to decide what evidence is. Tell me, why did you just pretend like these are real requirements? I can understand why you'd want it to be that, but you wanting it to be that doesn't change reality.
It's as if you've just learned about the Fourth Amendment but know nothing about the nuance behind it.
Your system wouldn't even work at all. Let's imagine the cops get a tip that a bald man with a blue tshirt shot a man. They patrol the streets and find a match. By your logic they should not have the ability to search the man and seize his gun as evidence until a judge issues a warrant.
How about, is there reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred?
Not required at an airport, for whatever reason.
The constitution doesn't disappear at the airport. The man is a US citizen. He could have remained silent, and they would eventually have let him in.
Relevant reading for you: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
And no, they wouldn’t have denied him entry, but they would have seized his device.
I enjoy the funny implication it creates, that then perhaps if you're entering US in 2026 it means there's something wrong with you.
The reason is anti-immigration
uhh, are you a lawyer with knowledge about how evidence works?
its not just a word, its a specific legal term
cops definitely do need judges to say what evidence is admissible, and they really dont have thr ability to just declare anything they want as evidence and just steal it
Yes this is different than when law enforcement serve a warrant and the defendant wipes his computer before the agents can get a hold of it. In that case the warrant covers what you destroyed as evidence.
Though during traffic stops, if a defendant disposes of his drugs while on the run, that can also carry a charge of destroying evidence even though no warrant was issued.
IANAL
Hm but the drugs are only evidence because they're illegal? So the phone owner only destroyed evidence if the phone contained something illegal, but innocent until proben guilty?
No, destroying evidence is a crime even if possession of that evidence is legal.
Who decided that it's evidence?
Evidence is simply a word to describe the artifacts that one wishes to use to support their case. There’s not some gate-kept process to “become evidence”.
Law enforcement. That's like, their job.
After they get it when they are authorized to get it. You cannot point at random things and call them evidence. For instance, I can take a dump and flush it, despite law enforcement's assertion that my stool is evidence in some imaginary crime.
It doesn’t have to be something the police have already collected. It could be something that they have yet to collect.
The textbook tampering with evidence example is: drug dealer tries to flush the drugs when the police knock on the door.
Yes, when they are authorized to make a drug bust. And that's assuming they catch him before he flushes, i.e., get the drugs. Otherwise, what are they going to say? He is a drug dealer because we heard the flush? Or let's say they are doing a missing person's search and hear the flush. What now? We came looking for a missing person, but heard the flush, so there were drugs whose evidence he destroyed?
Of course, tampering with evidence is — itself - a crime. And you need evidence to prove that crime.
But yeah, people tamper with evidence because they think they can get away with it. That doesn’t mean they always succeed in cleanly doing it without creating evidence of the tampering itself.
Without even looking if it's worthy of evidence or not?
Yes, absolutely. Something can be evidence if the police haven’t even seen it at all.
For example: the police think you are running a fraud scheme. They knock on your door. You shred a bunch of paper. The police wanted to see what was on the paper. You have violated the US law on tampering with evidence.
The prosecutor can argue that you violated some laws, but they will have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of that. And they will need a lot more than "I heard the shredder" to convict you. In an overall case, the shredding can be a piece of the puzzle. Shredding, standing alone, is not a crime, nor is shredding as a general matter tampering with evidence.
Yes, if someone wants to bring charges for evidence tampering, they will be required to collect additional evidence to successfully prosecute that crime. That's how it always works. They might collect fragments of the documents themselves, communications regarding the shredding, etc.
Destroying evidence is a crime, regardless of any warrant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519