Hacker News Reader

Comment by jameson | Hacker News Reader

> During the questioning, agents repeatedly asked Tunick to unlock his phone and warned they would seize it if he refused. When he finally provided a passcode, the phone appeared to restart.

I'm confused to understand if Tunick did anything illegal here. If the authorities want the phone, they should have the warrant and seize it without Tunick's permission.

It appears authorities did not have the warrant which give Tunick all the right to do whatever he desires with his property.

What am I missing here?

View on HN

They don't need a warrant to seize the phone at the border. They were after the pin code, he should have just refused to give the pin. That's the 5th.

What they got him on, is that supposedly he destroyed evidence.

Among other things that CBP does not need a warrant to search or seize anything and everything at a border. Everything is subject to search at the border. To make a seizure all that is needed is reasonable cause that customs law/regs were violated. And there are specific federal laws relating to thwarting such seizures.

If you don’t want something searched do not bring it across the US border. There is very clear constitutional and statutory authority for these searches.

> To make a seizure all that is needed is reasonable cause that customs law/regs were violated.

What would be the reasonable suspicion that a USC bringing their personal phone on a trip with them would be a customs violation?

That doesn't sound at all reasonable.

In fact, the only "suspicion" they had was that he was someone who didn't like LE or Trump which is still not a crime, nor a customs violation.

No idea if its true, but one rumor mentioned was he was suspected of possessing CSAM

That’s a huge reason for electronic search but it can also be for evidence related to any other customs violation such as drugs or other contraband.

CBP doesn't need a warrant to search at the border, including electronic devices.

However, if Tunick was smart he would have refused to provide the PIN, and let them seize it. He'll get it back eventually, but it was in his right to refuse.

It appears to be illegal to destroy property to prevent seizure. I don't know the details; if you search that phrase you can find more info yourself.

Did he actually destroy any property, though?

I guess the jury will decide.

Where will they find 12 GrapheneOS users?

(The peers)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com