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

[RustVendor]

FBI wanted his data - probably his contacts and messages.

They didn’t have an active investigation or reason to get a warrant to search and seize.

The CBP has broad authority for routine enforcement.

FBI saw this guy coming back into the country as a way to use CBP to target this guy seize his phone - without needing a warrant - so CBP fabricated the CSAM stuff. They admitted it was fabricated and he’s not even being charged for that.

The ONLY charge is destruction of evidence but the government has yet to say evidence of what.

In all likelihood, CBP wouldn’t have stopped him at all if FBI hadn’t conspired against him.

I would not trust ANY of these folks with my data if they would go through all of that.

I have enhanced privacy and security features on my phone, primarily for loss or potential theft.

This reminds of the people who say there’s no reason to carry gun unless you’re looking for trouble.

Extremely sickening!

If they lie about csam in the first place are they above planting it if they gained access to the phone?

 

[RustVendor]

I'm sure everyone here would be happy to give the authorities access to their credit card statements at the border to make sure they haven't procured any magazines or ammo across state lines. Even though obviously none of us would ever do that this is the same exact situation.

 

[HibikiR]

No. They’re either looking for something to further target he or his contacts with. It’s basically corruption. Even if they don’t find anything to charge him with they have a bunch of other people they can now target in a similar manner. Charging him in the first place is probably retaliatory so he has to now spend time and money defending them.


The security is not in the phone or the OS. It’s in making sure there’s no longer any data to secure or making it really difficult to recover.

What is the judge issuing a warrant for?

Unless the phone is zeroed, then there's something to find, including contact info. The OS is what he used his duress code on so that's where the security is.

The guy made an attempt at destroying the contents of his phone in front of law enforcement, that's enough for a judge to say he has something that he committed a crime to hide. Him actively wiping devices moves the matter into exigent circumstances, especially if he does have access or contacts that have access to his devices at home. If he didn't try wiping the phone, then there would be no justification for a warrant.

You keep saying the police had no justification for the search, I'm saying he had no justification for losing his cool.

Exigent Circumstances and Warrants

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[RustVendor]

refusing a search isn't probable cause. See: the 4th and 5th amendment

 

[HibikiR]

Refusing a search isn't probable cause, but in Kentucky v. King:

When the police, in executing a warrantless search, have not created the exigency in question, the Court has held that such “warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”

The suspect had constitutional protection until he crossed a line with that phone and now the police can argue that should he be able to access his devices or direct a contact to those devices then the suspect will continue to destroy evidence as he has already demonstrated. Should have played it cool and got a lawyer to tank any phone searches.

Consider United States v. Meyer:

FACTS

After the government discovered financial ties between William Meyer and individuals in the Philippines who were livestreaming sex acts involving children, two federal agents visited Meyer at his home. After the agents knocked on his door, Meyer insisted on speaking with them outside, so the agents spoke with Meyer in their car. During their conversation, Meyer revealed a number of facts that stirred the agents’ suspicion, including that Meyer had personal and financial ties to the individuals involved in the abuse. When Meyer admitted that he used a computer and cell phone to contact them, the agents asked Meyer if he would be willing to turn those devices over to them for an examination. Meyer told the agents that he was willing to turn them over later, after he had a chance to “check [his] email and stuff.” Once the agents expressed concern that a delay would give him a chance to erase what was on them, Meyer still refused to consent, claiming that his house was “a mess” and “not . . . in any condition to entertain people.” Then, after the agents mentioned the possibility of getting a warrant, Meyer suggested that the agents “come back later.” One of the agents told Meyer that if they obtained a warrant, they would not tell him beforehand when they were coming to execute it. A short time later, Meyer went back inside his house.

Concerned that Meyer would destroy evidence if they waited any longer, one of the agents called a prosecutor for advice on whether “an exigent circumstance existed.” When he was told that it did, the agents again knocked on Meyer’s door, searched his home for electronic devices, and seized two computers, a cellphone, and a hard drive. Afterward the agents obtained a warrant to search the devices seized from Meyer’s home. The search revealed child pornography videos and evidence that Meyer had sent money in exchange for the videos.

After the district court denied Meyer’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered on his devices, he plead guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of children. On appeal, Meyer claimed that the agents’ warrantless entry into his home violated the Fourth Amendment.

If not a search warrant for the contents, the police scored a seizure warrant for the hardware because the guy didn't keep it together.

Exigent Circumstances When Handling Electronics - DLG Learning Center

In United States v. Meyer, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considers a case that examines the application of exigent circumstances when handling electronics. This case delves into the rules and exceptions that apply when law enforcement officers seek to enter a home and search for evidence...

dlglearningcenter.com

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Unless the phone is zeroed, then there's something to find, including contact info. The OS is what he used with his duress code on so that's where the security is.

He didn't lose his cool. He was prepared. FBI/HHS/CBP fabricated lies in order to detain him and search him.

To date, they haven't announced any actual charges or investigations that were a valid reason to detain and search him in the first place.

When it was clear they were acting in a corrupt manner he protected himself.

Maybe the government should disclose what evidence they were looking for - beyond the admitted lies.

 

[Gawernator]

Dude, are you seriously taking the "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have no reason to hide" stance? I haven't committed any crimes, I don't have any illegal material on my phone, but I'm still not gonna gladly hand it over for anyone to rummage through my personal photos and messages, badges or no. An invasion of privacy is still an invasion of privacy, and we should be adamantly opposed to it. They wanted to see his phone, they should've gotten a damn warrant.

Don't go through CBP then. That's your choice to make. They don't need a warrant at border inspection.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Refusing a search isn't probable cause, but in Kentucky v. King:



The suspect had constitutional protection until he crossed a line with that phone and now the police can argue that should he be able to access his devices or direct a contact to those devices then the suspect will continue to destroy evidence as he has already demonstrated. Should have played it cool and got a lawyer to tank any phone searches.

Consider United States v. Meyer:



If not a search warrant for the contents, the police scored a seizure warrant for the hardware because the guy didn't keep it together.

Exigent Circumstances When Handling Electronics - DLG Learning Center

In United States v. Meyer, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considers a case that examines the application of exigent circumstances when handling electronics. This case delves into the rules and exceptions that apply when law enforcement officers seek to enter a home and search for evidence...

dlglearningcenter.com

“warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”

Evidence of what?

CBP admitted the CSAM allegations were a lie. He's not being charged with terrorism or terroristic threats.

What suspected crime or investigation did he destroy evidence for and why wasn't there a warrant to retrieve it?

 

[Gawernator]

I'm sure everyone here would be happy to give the authorities access to their credit card statements at the border to make sure they haven't procured any magazines or ammo across state lines. Even though obviously none of us would ever do that this is the same exact situation.

You carry your CC statements around with you when crossing the border? lmaoooooo

You're defending possible CSAM, we get it. Which federal law prohibits buying ammo or mags across state lines btw? If you're just gonna say random BS

It's funny to me how heated you guys are this guy got caught

 

[HibikiR]

Prepared would be having a sanitized phone with all the regular stuff, but nothing useful like critical information. Wiping the phone in front an audience is not prepared, that's knee-jerk reaction stuff.

Now the police will follow the playbook from United States v. Meyer and tear through his life. You think he sanitized everything?

 

[RickD427]

Refusing a search isn't probable cause, but in Kentucky v. King:



The suspect had constitutional protection until he crossed a line with that phone and now the police can argue that should he be able to access his devices or direct a contact to those devices then the suspect will continue to destroy evidence as he has already demonstrated. Should have played it cool and got a lawyer to tank any phone searches.

Consider United States v. Meyer:



If not a search warrant for the contents, the police scored a seizure warrant for the hardware because the guy didn't keep it together.

Exigent Circumstances When Handling Electronics - DLG Learning Center

In United States v. Meyer, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considers a case that examines the application of exigent circumstances when handling electronics. This case delves into the rules and exceptions that apply when law enforcement officers seek to enter a home and search for evidence...

dlglearningcenter.com

Please keep in mind this was done as a border search. There is no requirement for any "Probable Cause" in order to perform a reasonable search.

 

[RustVendor]

Don't go through CBP then. That's your choice to make. They don't need a warrant at border inspection.

that has yet to be decided. The search authority is not unlimited hence why they can only look "by hand" and not just copy the entire phone at the border, according to recent case law (Cardozo).

 

[HibikiR]

He could have gone on his merry way if he played this differently.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Prepared would be having a sanitized phone with all the regular stuff, but nothing useful like critical information. Wiping the phone in front an audience is not prepared, that's knee-jerk reaction stuff.

Now the police will follow the playbook from United States v. Meyer and tear through his life. You think he sanitized everything?

Why will the police now tear through his life? What evidence of what crime are they looking for? What will the warrant be based on?

 

[RustVendor]

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.

 

[Gawernator]

Bottom line after looking into it: people in this thread are mixing up several different legal issues.

CBP generally does not need a warrant to search a phone at the border in Georgia. That is already Eleventh Circuit law. So this case is not going to suddenly create some brand new rule allowing border phone searches.

The more interesting issue is whether federal agencies used CBP border authority as a pretext to investigate this guy for unrelated domestic activity. That is what his defense is really fighting over.

Also, there is no public basis to say he was “caught with CSAM.” He has not been charged with CSAM or terrorism. The available reporting indicates agents did not have individualized CSAM suspicion, and the defense argues that line of questioning was a ruse.

That said, people are also being way too cute with the “refusing a search isn’t probable cause” argument. He allegedly did not merely refuse to unlock the phone. He had a duress code configured and used it so the phone would wipe during the encounter. That is an affirmative act of destruction, which is why he got hit with 18 USC 2232.

Does that prove the phone had CSAM or even criminal evidence? No.

Does intentionally nuking your phone while federal agents are trying to examine it strongly suggest that whatever was on there was extremely important for them not to see? Obviously yes.

Could it have been political contacts, other people’s communications, embarrassing but legal material, or evidence of some unrelated offense? Sure. We simply do not know.

CBP border-search authority is broad.
Refusing consent by itself is not probable cause.
Destroying data to defeat a lawful seizure is a different issue.
Exigent circumstances do not magically create probable cause for every other device you own.
And nobody here can honestly say what was on the phone because he made sure nobody could find out.

Cardozo doesn't establish that rule for this case. That's Fourth Circuit law.

Tunick was searched in Atlanta, which is Eleventh Circuit. Touset is binding there and expressly held that the Fourth Amendment does not require even reasonable suspicion for a forensic border search of an electronic device. The Eleventh Circuit was still citing that rule in 2025.

So yes, border-search authority is not literally unlimited. There can still be arguments about scope, purpose, pretext, detention, etc.

But “CBP can only look through the phone manually and can't forensically copy it without suspicion” is not the current rule in Georgia. You're importing another circuit's limitation into an Eleventh Circuit case.

 

[Gawernator]

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.

Fk the "jan 6 protestors" (also lol to still be bringing that up) they can get searched at the border too. Terrorists deserve the rope

 

[Gawernator]

He could have gone on his merry way if he played this differently.

He wouldn't have. Whatever they would have found on his phone probably would have meant prison time. Innocent people don't panic wipe their whole phone at a border inspection. Whether it was CSAM or terrorism material, he was so scared of getting caught. couldn't own up to what he was doing

 

[HibikiR]

Why will the police now tear through his life? What evidence of what crime are they looking for? What will the warrant be based on?

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.

 

[Gawernator]

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.

That's not what Meyer held.

Meyer already had probable cause stacked against him: agents had evidence tying him to child sexual exploitation, financial transactions, and admissions that he used his phone/computer to communicate with the people involved. The destruction risk created the exigency to act immediately. It did not create probable cause out of nowhere.

"Preventing destruction of evidence" is not some independent warrant basis where the cops can now search your house for whatever. They still need probable cause and a nexus between the alleged crime/evidence and the place or devices they want to search.

Even Meyer involved agents seizing the electronics because of the exigency and then obtaining a warrant to search their contents.

Tunick allegedly wiping one phone can absolutely hurt him. It gives the government an obstruction/destruction theory and can support an argument that evidence is at risk. What it does NOT do is turn him into an "evidence destroyer" who can now have every computer he owns seized and his house tossed without the normal Fourth Amendment showing.

And the "they can plant something" part is just speculation. There's enough questionable conduct in the actual case to argue about without making things up.