this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
439 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
86613 readers
3143 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
He would have had a lot better legal leg to stand on I think if he had just refused to give them any passcode. Now instead of a potential case of being forced to compel speech, he is facing what will be argued is an attempt to destroy evidence. His defense is probably a lot stronger with the former than the latter.
To charge someone with destroying evidence wouldn't they first have to somehow prove the evidence existed?
No they would have to prove that what was on his phone was evidence in the first place. Which is why arrest and search warrants list all kinds of potential evidence and if it isn't listed in the warrant they can't collect or use it against you.
I'm not exactly sure how this works during a border patrol search. It's technically his phone and if it's locked they would need his permission or a warrant to search it.