• stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    as far as I understand, they were not there to serve a warrant. he was crossing a border and the feds are claiming that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply because he hadn’t yet crossed into America.

    border patrol was essentially using a loophole to preemptively collect potential evidence (they’ll figure out what to charge him with after they see his phone contents). he’s a political activist against a cop city, they were obviously trying to do him dirty.

    they were not serving a search warrant. they were abusing what should be an illegal search at the border in order to silence those who speak out against govt overreach.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 minute ago

      So the important takeaway is to delete your phone before customs. Presumably you have an encrypted backup you can restore without too much effort

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      38 minutes ago

      In addition, the law that he’s charged with relates to knowingly destroying property that the police have a warrant to sieze.

      There is no precedent of it being applied to border searches where they may not even have reasonable suspicion of a crime and can stop people for questioning on a whim.

      The State has absolutely no claim over your personal property at that point and destroying property that the police hope and dream of siezing isn’t the same as destroying property where they’ve demonstrated probable cause to a judge.

      This argument from the border patrol that you can be arrested for destroying data that is in your possession without ever been given due process and 4th amendment protections isn’t supported by precedence.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        The US claims jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are.

        Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because it means you can be prosecuted in the US for stuff like going to Thailand and sexually abusing children there.