you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 1 month ago (59 children)

That privacy was already long gone by the time of this case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2232

(a)Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure.—
Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

If he hadn't used duress and had just refused, he'd have been fine. Graphine is secure and would have had his back

If he hadn't given them the code and instead left it in his wallet, and they did it themselves, he'd have been fine.

All he had to do was plead the 5th.

He's going to get hit with a felony for destroying data to prevent a search. There are tons of precedents in the 11th Circuit for searching without a warrant.

A duress password is only useful if what you'd be facing is worse than 18 U.S. Code § 2232a, and then only if they don't have enough to convict you already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rokxux5cU`___`

Dude is just protesting the construction of a large cop training facility near him. I don't know what the fuck he did to get on the FBI radar, but I wish him good luck; he's gonna need it.

  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I don't know what the fuck he did to get on the FBI radar

    ....

    Dude is just protesting the construction of a large cop training facility near him.

    That is what did it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    i mean, the broad strokes are obvious, but if they went after every person who was vocal about something being build in their backyard, they'd need the whole of ICE to staff themselves. He must have been saying some shit to an insider. Come to think of it, I bet they have a pretty fucking big online presence for that purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago

    He associated with Defend the Atlanta Forest, which due to being against Cop City, has been flagged as a terrorist organization by the fascists in charge.

    There is literally no other reason to be found.

    His lawyers have already found (through internal CBP emails) that they flagged him for suspected terrorism because he was associated with Defend the Atlanta Forest.

    They internally categorized the group as anti-government, anti-authority, and a violent extremist group.

    He protested against Cop City and associated with a non-violent, peaceful org that also protested against Cop City. Thats it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I don't think ordinary citizens should be required to know the law in lawyer-like detail when they travel.

    I think in the broad strokes, you're probably right about his legal situation, but it suuuuuucks and it's not what I think of when I hear the word "freedom," for sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I don’t think ordinary citizens should be required to know the law in lawyer-like detail when they travel.

    It becomes a slippery slope. He is unfortunately going to be a martyr that teaches us

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The issue I'm seeing with the whole case is they siezed his phone, they kept his phone, the seizure of his property happened successfully. A person later entered something they believed would open it but instead it wiped it. The end user didn't wipe it, and didn't lie to the agents of the state because a duress PIN is still a PIN, I'm willing to wager they didn't specify that they wanted his 'unlock PIN' and instead just asked him for a PIN (personal identification number), which he gave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I think the application of that law depends on whether a seizure is valid (aka legal), which is kind of up in the air, as your video points out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    It's legal within most of the US for customs/border enforcement to do warrantless phone searches, because their definition of border is 100 miles from point of entry to the country. So every coastline, every international airport, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    Maybe so. But probably guessing targeting someone for a warrantless search would not be legal. That is to say, the cops can't follow a guy and wait until they're 100 miles from the border to pull them over and call over customs to search them. What may save Turnick is he was already being investigated and this search was clearly an endrun around needing a warrant.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    My understanding is that it's "only" 100 miles from the coast/border, which turns out to be most major population centers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    If they found a duress password in his wallet, and used it, they would 100% prosecute for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    They would, but he'd have a significantly better chance at winning. Having a duress setup/password isn't illegal. if you plead the 5th on what that pin code is, i don't think they'd have a leg to stand on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I don't know if it would win or not. But the cops could argue that you put that piece of paper as a premeditated trap designed to wipe evidence and interfere with their investigation, if they caught you. Especially if you wrote any of that down and they found it. Honestly I'm not sure what the jury would agree with in this country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    So what? Yes, that's what the paper note is for. If someone wants to get unauthorized access, they will likely try it and wipe the phone. You have zero obligation to warn them not to do that. You didn't authorize access.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    That would have been a completely different situation though. Even if the pass was written in a note inside his phone case, it's not illegal to have it, right? If your computer has a button that wipes it and a cop presses it, you aren't liable, right?

    The issue here is that he told the cop that that button switches the computer on, which is a lie and it shows intent on destroying evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    What if you set a durress password to something simple like 12345, plead the 5th, and the cops try to brute force your device? Would it still be your fault or is it the cops fault since they are the ones who entered the password while trying to bypass your phone's security measures?

    Also, what if you explicitly tell them there is a durress password, but refuse to tell them what it is? Surely if they were informed of the risk and proceeded regardless the blame would fall squarely on them for risking a process that might "destroy evidence"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    They're there because you're being watched already. You're coming in from an international flight to the 11th district so they have unreasonable search and seizure rules.

    Graphine is clean enough that they can't sidestep it. Just plead the 5th and leave it at that. They'll probably confiscate it in hopes they'll eventually be able to break it on a zero day.

    Telling them the duress password is the unlock code will def get you fucked.

    Pleading the 5th and then them entering a password found in your wallet that wipes it will get you dragged into court, but probably in a defensible position; those lawyer fees are going to be immense.

    Pleading the 5th and having your duress as 1234, which they try, would also put you in a defensible position with 10s of thousands in lawyers' fees.

    The duress password isn't illegal. The knowing destruction of data is. If you set it up so they're likely to destroy the data in attempting, you're going to get served.

    Don't go through a border with a phone full of questionable personal data. Legal or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children)

    Here is my problem with this interpretation...

    Is data property? Sure, ideas, concepts, photos, etc can be trademarked/copy-write protected and have some degree of ownership, but I'm talking at a much lower level here... Is the particular configuration of memory on your phone a piece of property? If no, then no property was destroyed by wiping the phone. All of the storage and memory is still intact and functional. If yes, then we must look further...is the position (not the switch itself) of a binary switch (like a light switch) a physical thing that you can own? Would you consider it destroyed if it was switched away from it's original position?

    I don't think you could charge him with destroying property... Destruction of evidence maybe, but the property is undamaged and functioning normally.

    Other arguments. The cop actually destroyed the data. Or, defendant claims he did not know the cops would use the pin to wipe the phone, and that they just wanted to know what the PIN was.

    I wouldn't say there is enough evidence here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy destroyed any property in response to a search. He didn't destroy anything, what was destroyed is arguably not property, and he may not be aware that his duress pin was going to be used on the device in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (15 children)

    If yes, then we must look further...is the position (not the switch itself) of a binary switch (like a light switch) a physical thing that you can own? Would you consider it destroyed if it was switched away from it's original position?

    the light switch is not something intended to store data, but the memory in your phone is. wiping the data destroys all the photos, media, logins, configuration on your phone, making them permanently and irreversibly inaccessible. and all of that is my property.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    The video I provided covers this. There are plenty of statutes and precedents. There's a tiny little bit of unsettled case law to be decided here that will, at best, lower his sentence a bit.

    I strongly suspect an imminent plea bargain, unless they want to use him as an example.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)