Political Post: Should Phone Privacy Tools Be Illegal for Citizens?

[HibikiR]

I was just humoring him and this foil hat conspiracy about the CBP.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Per United States v Meyer, he is an evidence destroyer so he can't be allowed access to his personal electronics. So now they have the right to take his computers and toss his home for hidden laptops or whatever. At minimum, the warrant is for preventing destruction of data, not finding "evidence".

He might be guilty and they'll find something in his home during the course of the device seizure to expand their investigation into him.

He might be innocent and they'll have access to his residence to plant something and expand their investigation into him.

Either way, he tried to be fancy and instead gave the authorities access they would not have had if he had done things differently.

What's the crime or suspected crime?

Deleting or destroying your own data for your own prerogative is not a crime. You have to suspected of an actual crime.

What's the suspected crime the police will get that warrant for?

 

[RickD427]

The biggest issue here is that the entire reason there is an exception to the 4th amendment at the border is for contraband being brought into the country. If the search extends to things outside of that scope, which is very easy and appears to be the issue in this case i.e. personal contacts, emails etc. related to another potential domestic crime, it's inconsistent with the scope of the exception at the border. The defendant's other activities are irrelevant because they are domestic and nothing to do with contraband, pretend he was a Jan 6 protester and think about the same issues in the context of someone that's on "your side". If you don't want this used against you arbitrarily you have to defend the rights of people that you disagree with.

There is no "4th Amendment Exception" at the border. The 4th Amendment requires that ALL searches be reasonable. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that requires warrants for all searches. The courts have held that unrestricted searches at the border, are reasonable and therefore comply with the 4th Amendment.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I was just humoring him and this foil hat conspiracy about the CBP.

Perhaps you missed this?

“Matthew Dodge, who is also Tunick’s attorney, told Atlanta News First that officers told Tunick they believed he had child pornography on his phone — a claim they later walked back.

“That was a lie,” Dodge said. “The agents came to court two weeks ago for our court hearing and admitted they had no reason to believe that Sam had child pornography. They made it up as a ruse.”“

Activist faces federal charge after airport phone search

Samuel Tunick was stopped by CBP agents on Jan. 24, 2025, upon returning from the Dominican Republic.

www.kkco11news.com

J

Post in thread 'Political Post: Should Phone Privacy Tools Be Illegal for Citizens?'

Aug 14, 2026

I have no insights into the actions of the U.S. Government. I would suppose there was credible evidence this person was guilty of the crimes for which he was initially accused. This is ostensibly why he was targeted. Today, unfortunately, we must also cede the possibility he was targeted for other political reasons. Again I have no insights, my observations are intended to be general in nature.

And yes, before you're admitted to the U.S. the Government can detain and search at their own will, they don't need justification. Passenger profiling is a thing. This is where they...

• john_marsten_1873

 

[HibikiR]

What's the crime or suspected crime?

Deleting or destroying your own data for your own prerogative is not a crime. You have to suspected of an actual crime.

What's the suspected crime the police will get that warrant for?

Probably the same one that they had when they took his phone. Whatever rattled him enough to make a novice mistake seems to do it.

Your claims about charges made/dropped/fabricated are hard to verify without official accounts or documents. At this point I'll assume all possible charges, including CP and terrorism, are still in play.

And no, didn't miss that. That talk is foil hat level.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Probably the same one that they had when they took his phone. Whatever rattled him enough to make a novice mistake seems to do it.

Your claims about charges made/dropped/fabricated are hard to verify without official accounts or documents. At this point I'll assume all possible charges, including CP and terrorism, are still in play.

So the allegations (not charges) the CBP admitting to fabricating, in court?

“Matthew Dodge, who is also Tunick’s attorney, told Atlanta News First that officers told Tunick they believed he had child pornography on his phone — a claim they later walked back.

“That was a lie,” Dodge said. “The agents came to court two weeks ago for our court hearing and admitted they had no reason to believe that Sam had child pornography. They made it up as a ruse.”“

Activist faces federal charge after airport phone search

Samuel Tunick was stopped by CBP agents on Jan. 24, 2025, upon returning from the Dominican Republic.

www.kkco11news.com

 

[RustVendor]

There is no "4th Amendment Exception" at the border. The 4th Amendment requires that ALL searches be reasonable. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that requires warrants for all searches. The courts have held that unrestricted searches at the border, are reasonable and therefore comply with the 4th Amendment.

It's known as the "4th amendment exception" because it's an exception to the rules applied inside the border and don't have an unlimited scope

Loading…

constitution.congress.gov

 

[Gawernator]

It's known as the "4th amendment exception" because it's an exception to the rules applied inside the border and don't have an unlimited scope

Loading…

constitution.congress.gov

Finally you admit it at least:

"Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity."

 

[RustVendor]

The scope of the exception is "to protect it's borders" https://edge.sagepub.com/epsteinrig...-and-personal-liberty/carroll-v-united-states

 

[ButteFlyFisher]

The scope of the exception is "to protect it's borders" https://edge.sagepub.com/epsteinrig...-and-personal-liberty/carroll-v-united-states

Keeping a child abuser out seems like a good use of resources to me.

 

[RustVendor]

United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 621 (1977) (describing the border search exception as a “longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general principle that a warrant be obtained.”).

 

[HibikiR]

Great, but they haven't walked back enough to just let him off the hook. CP might be the ruse, but the real charge hasn't been revealed, and we only have his lawyer's speculation about the Defend the Atlanta Forest Movement. This guy might be into something serious enough that the CBP is still hounding him.

 

[RustVendor]

Keeping a child abuser out seems like a good use of resources to me.

Except the agents admitted in court that they made that part up.

 

[dvoncock]

Eleventh Circuit precedent already holds that forensic searches of electronic devices at the border require neither a warrant nor even reasonable suspicion.

As does the Seventh Circuit. But Fourth and Ninth Circuit president is the opposite. In others words, there’s a clear circuit split. That is why so many attorneys who practice criminal law are watching this case closely.

SCOTUS has not addressed this issue directly. However, given their decisions in Riley v. California (warrant required to search a cellphone’s contents), U.S. v Carpenter (warrant required to obtain cell site location data, or CSLI) and Chatrie v. U.S. (warrant required for geofence data), many attorneys (including me) suspect that SCOTUS might rule in favor of the Fourth and Ninth Circuit’s interpretations when/if this issue reaches them.

In Carpenter and Chatrie, the gub’ment’s arguments boiled down to this: people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their public movements because they’re in public, and so warrants aren’t required to track specific individuals via CSLI or anyone in a specific location via geofence data. Both times, SCOTUS rejected that argument.

Here, the DOJ’s argument would be something like people don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone’s contents when they re-enter the county because of the border search exception…blah, blah, blah…national security…blah, blah, blah…chomomos…we don’t need a warrant. That is kissin’ cousins with arguments SCOTUS has rejected twice.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Great, but they haven't walked back enough to just let him off the hook.

Enough of what?

CBP's entire premise of detaining and searching him was fabricated. If there's more then they're absolutely required to disclose that to his legal team.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Keeping a child abuser out seems like a good use of resources to me.

“Matthew Dodge, who is also Tunick’s attorney, told Atlanta News First that officers told Tunick they believed he had child pornography on his phone — a claim they later walked back.

“That was a lie,” Dodge said. “The agents came to court two weeks ago for our court hearing and admitted they had no reason to believe that Sam had child pornography. They made it up as a ruse.”“

Activist faces federal charge after airport phone search

Samuel Tunick was stopped by CBP agents on Jan. 24, 2025, upon returning from the Dominican Republic.

www.kkco11news.com

 

[HibikiR]

His legal team is for the charge of destruction of evidence. They don't get to know the workings of a different active investigation. If the guy was figured in a different investigation, that's not automatically shared with the defense.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

His legal team is for the charge of destruction of evidence. They don't get to know the workings of a different active investigation. If the guy was figured in a different investigation, that's not automatically shared with the defense.

From what I understand (I could certainly be wrong) if specific details of another investigation are material to the destruction of evidence charges against Tunick then they have to be disclosed. Not necessarily the entirety of the other investigation(s) but anything that's exculpatory or damaging to his defense.

And the CBP hasn't disclosed anything beyond the false CSAM allegations.

 

[Gawernator]

Enough of what?

CBP's entire premise of detaining and searching him was fabricated. If there's more then they're absolutely required to disclose that to his legal team.

They can detain and search anyone for any or no reason at the border.

 

[RustVendor]

If they had evidence of other crimes, why would they blow up their investigation with a BS search of his phone at the border which would alert him to being under investigation? They instead could have searched his phone and everything else he owns by getting a warrant.