I expect this that the case is going to get dismissed on technical grounds without addressing the core issue. If you are not directly charged with the specific offense, what is the limit of "destroying evidence" as its own crime?
- If I rob a bank and then burn all of my planning materials after the crime - did I destroy evidence?
- If I rob a bank, the police question me but do not charge me with anything. I then burn all of the planning materials - did I destroy evidence?
- If I rob a bank, the police have a warrant to search my house in relation to an unrelated insurance scam across the street. Then I burn all of my bank heist materials - did I destroy evidence?
When the police are "just having a chat" and you later destroy all of your papers which might have been linked to a crime - isn't that fully within my rights to destroy my property? When do I have an explicit requirement to maintain my effects so the state can use it against me?
If I have a dash-cam in my car and it records me speeding - am I not allowed to overwrite the old footage? What if that dash-cam footage is the only thing that proves a crime were committed? Now I am forced to let my possessions testify against me.
Let's be clear, there is no underlying crime at all as far as we are aware. So the appropriate hypothetical is:
You ate a grilled cheese in your home and wipe the crumbs into the bin. The police arrest you for destruction of evidence for robbing a bank that never even got robbed. Then they hit you with qualified immunity and high five each other.
It's utterly ridiculous that police seem to just have infinite powers now. All they have to do is say "I suspect" and they have boundless ability to arrest anyone (potentially losing their job or missing key life events), declare any object as evidence (which the department can conveniently keep for themselves even if you're found innocent), or use mass surveillance systems (to stalk women).
EDIT: Finding another article, it's even worse. He didn't do it at all - he was interrogated, was never allowed his lawyer, never read rights, with no warrant. And after having the device seized an agent triggered the device wipe themselves by trying to get in under this duress.
So in this case, the the cop eats the grilled cheese and throws out the crumbs and then arrests you for destruction of evidence.
Disturbing to hear that even as an American citizen I only have rights when I'm on the ground in specific sovereign territory, of which the border (which is obviously American soil) is exempted.
With respect to the phone, I'd say one has the right to delete everything on one's phone at any time. There is no evidence that the person in question was "destroying evidence" because there was no evidence - or suspicion, or charges, or anything substantive.
I think the authorities just got ticked off by the duress password, and they're flinging mud.
You must remember that there is no such thing as a “right” - just temporary privileges under this thing we call government. You gotta steal your rights. Sometimes that’s as easy as just turning a blind eye to nonsense or otherwise being noncompliant with stupid nonsense, other times (like when we founded this country), it’s with a rifle. But nobody can grant you rights, you have to steal them:
“Stealing” implies they aren’t rightfully yours. Ownership of self determination, freedom etc are human rights, as is breathing clean air, or drinking clean water. We all are born into this world with an inherent set of rights.
No authority should ever be above that, unless you take those same rights away from another.
Authority and the State steals these rights from us, slowly eroding them under the guise of safety, passing immoral midnight legislation like Chat Control, or declaring a state of emergency. Time and time again we find ourselves in a prison and time and time again we start the next inevitable revolution.
There are so many peculiar things here, I - as not an US citizen - don't understand:
If the border isn't "US soil" then what jurisdiction is it?
How come American forces can seize goods if that's not US? What prevents them from trying the same, e.g. in Europe or Australia?
Also I find the law penalizing people who might deprive state of evidence especially odd. In (AFAIK) most of the Europe there's no self indictment, so destroying any kind of evidence that might get you indicted is fair game and you can't get penalized by such fact alone.
And of all of it the fact that US government is pulling this stuff on US citizens is unbelievable.
No idea, might be only me, but I start to perceive US more and more as a totalitarian state.
ICE has openly murdered multiple US citizens in broad daylight and on camera, hundreds of miles away from any border, with zero consequences.
You're starting to perceive us as totalitarian? We are! For 30% of us, proudly, apparently. Our president attempted to violently overthrow our government for God's sake!
There has always been a difference between physical presence and actually being considered in a country, this is not unique to the US by any means. From a practical standpoint it's impossible to not physically enter a country before being admitted except by means of airports that do pre-clearance. Until you have been admitted to the country you are required to proceed directly to the station where your admissibility is evaluated. You may not go anywhere else except in an emergency.
In the US there's no self indictment but it's interpreted as applying to anything in your mind, not to physical things. You can not be compelled to answer a question (except if you have been granted immunity about what you will say) but things like your fingerprints are fair game. Likewise, your phone.
The part of this case that I find bad is that there are no charges. This was a fishing expedition, cops can't get warrants for fishing expeditions. I find using the border patrol's ability to inspect arriving individuals for local law enforcement way out of line.
It’s all borders. They’re nonsense, other than physical separation by water or mountains being a thing, arbitrary political lines have always been nonsense.
It used to not even be like this - you could just like; move to France 150 years ago or move to the US and nobody gave a damn (I’m simplifying it, but basically this is the case). The only places where this wasn’t the case was like messed up countries like Russia or feudal China, but even then, borders were way more porous.
We got stupid after WW1 and were paying for that to this day. These imaginary lines will go away one day, I just hope it happens before their cause our extinction.
I expect this that the case is going to get dismissed on technical grounds without addressing the core issue. If you are not directly charged with the specific offense, what is the limit of "destroying evidence" as its own crime?
When the police are "just having a chat" and you later destroy all of your papers which might have been linked to a crime - isn't that fully within my rights to destroy my property? When do I have an explicit requirement to maintain my effects so the state can use it against me?If I have a dash-cam in my car and it records me speeding - am I not allowed to overwrite the old footage? What if that dash-cam footage is the only thing that proves a crime were committed? Now I am forced to let my possessions testify against me.
Let's be clear, there is no underlying crime at all as far as we are aware. So the appropriate hypothetical is:
You ate a grilled cheese in your home and wipe the crumbs into the bin. The police arrest you for destruction of evidence for robbing a bank that never even got robbed. Then they hit you with qualified immunity and high five each other.
It's utterly ridiculous that police seem to just have infinite powers now. All they have to do is say "I suspect" and they have boundless ability to arrest anyone (potentially losing their job or missing key life events), declare any object as evidence (which the department can conveniently keep for themselves even if you're found innocent), or use mass surveillance systems (to stalk women).
EDIT: Finding another article, it's even worse. He didn't do it at all - he was interrogated, was never allowed his lawyer, never read rights, with no warrant. And after having the device seized an agent triggered the device wipe themselves by trying to get in under this duress.
So in this case, the the cop eats the grilled cheese and throws out the crumbs and then arrests you for destruction of evidence.
[dead]
Disturbing to hear that even as an American citizen I only have rights when I'm on the ground in specific sovereign territory, of which the border (which is obviously American soil) is exempted.
With respect to the phone, I'd say one has the right to delete everything on one's phone at any time. There is no evidence that the person in question was "destroying evidence" because there was no evidence - or suspicion, or charges, or anything substantive.
I think the authorities just got ticked off by the duress password, and they're flinging mud.
You must remember that there is no such thing as a “right” - just temporary privileges under this thing we call government. You gotta steal your rights. Sometimes that’s as easy as just turning a blind eye to nonsense or otherwise being noncompliant with stupid nonsense, other times (like when we founded this country), it’s with a rifle. But nobody can grant you rights, you have to steal them:
“Stealing” implies they aren’t rightfully yours. Ownership of self determination, freedom etc are human rights, as is breathing clean air, or drinking clean water. We all are born into this world with an inherent set of rights.
No authority should ever be above that, unless you take those same rights away from another.
Authority and the State steals these rights from us, slowly eroding them under the guise of safety, passing immoral midnight legislation like Chat Control, or declaring a state of emergency. Time and time again we find ourselves in a prison and time and time again we start the next inevitable revolution.
I’m laughing at the downvotes. Such a privileged world so many people live in.
There are so many peculiar things here, I - as not an US citizen - don't understand:
If the border isn't "US soil" then what jurisdiction is it?
How come American forces can seize goods if that's not US? What prevents them from trying the same, e.g. in Europe or Australia?
Also I find the law penalizing people who might deprive state of evidence especially odd. In (AFAIK) most of the Europe there's no self indictment, so destroying any kind of evidence that might get you indicted is fair game and you can't get penalized by such fact alone.
And of all of it the fact that US government is pulling this stuff on US citizens is unbelievable.
No idea, might be only me, but I start to perceive US more and more as a totalitarian state.
ICE has openly murdered multiple US citizens in broad daylight and on camera, hundreds of miles away from any border, with zero consequences.
You're starting to perceive us as totalitarian? We are! For 30% of us, proudly, apparently. Our president attempted to violently overthrow our government for God's sake!
There has always been a difference between physical presence and actually being considered in a country, this is not unique to the US by any means. From a practical standpoint it's impossible to not physically enter a country before being admitted except by means of airports that do pre-clearance. Until you have been admitted to the country you are required to proceed directly to the station where your admissibility is evaluated. You may not go anywhere else except in an emergency.
In the US there's no self indictment but it's interpreted as applying to anything in your mind, not to physical things. You can not be compelled to answer a question (except if you have been granted immunity about what you will say) but things like your fingerprints are fair game. Likewise, your phone.
The part of this case that I find bad is that there are no charges. This was a fishing expedition, cops can't get warrants for fishing expeditions. I find using the border patrol's ability to inspect arriving individuals for local law enforcement way out of line.
>The government has countered that they were not required to produce a warrant because Tunick had not yet been granted permission to enter the US.
But he's a US citizen? Do US citizens need permission to be in their country? Where else would they be if not granted?
US border thinking seems insane
It’s all borders. They’re nonsense, other than physical separation by water or mountains being a thing, arbitrary political lines have always been nonsense.
It used to not even be like this - you could just like; move to France 150 years ago or move to the US and nobody gave a damn (I’m simplifying it, but basically this is the case). The only places where this wasn’t the case was like messed up countries like Russia or feudal China, but even then, borders were way more porous.
We got stupid after WW1 and were paying for that to this day. These imaginary lines will go away one day, I just hope it happens before their cause our extinction.
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49024436