> 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