Just being silly. Owner gave permission (and the pin code) that will give them access to an empty phone. No search refused.
The police ask for the combination.
The owner provides a combination that opens the safe, but the safe’s security mechanism first destroys its contents. The police can now inspect the safe but there are no documents left.
Even if the documents had remained, they would still have been written in an indecipherable code unless the police also had the codebook.
This person was complicit with the search: he gave the police access to search the safe.
> The owner provides a combination that opens the safe, but the safe’s security mechanism first destroys its contents. The police can now inspect the safe but there are no documents left.
> This person was complicit with the search: he gave the police access to search the safe.
The problem is that it's very obvious the police didn't want access to the safe because they like opening safes but to get the documents inside. The person denied that intent.
> ... written in a code that only the owner understands.
> Even if the documents had remained, they would still have been written in an indecipherable code unless the police also had the codebook.
This is an orthogonal argument basically saying "if the documents had also been encrypted, then there would have been no difference between destroying the documents and just leaving them encrypted".
First, that's not what was the case in the original situation - there is nothing saying there was secondary encryption on the phone.
Second, obviously, destroying documents and encrypting them is not equivalent because in the second case there is still an option to try and brute-force the code or try to decrypt them in another way.
A GrapheneOS phone stores its files encrypted. The PIN is not itself the encryption key; it is used, together with a high-entropy secret protected by the Titan M secure element, to derive the material needed to unlock the randomly generated filesystem-encryption keys.
The duress PIN does not overwrite every file. It irreversibly destroys the multiple layers of key material and encryption metadata needed to decrypt the data, making any encrypted remnants effectively unreadable.
A hypothetical, extraordinarily powerful quantum computer could theoretically decrypt the remaining ciphertext by searching for the encryption keys.
it's ridiculous on the face of it that that guys phone should be searched at all
"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."
But I'm curious what the officer specifically requested. If the officer just asked for "the pin code", without explaining what they were trying to do or which pin code, then it seems he did comply: he gave them a pin code that gives them access to the [cleaned] phone.
Then the officer destroyed the property...
"Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure .. takes any action ... for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property ..."
CBP is trying to gain access to the files contained in the system.
The files in question were functionally accessible to an authorized party (the owner, GrayKey or Cellebrite acting with judicial authority, etc)
The actions undertaken by Defendant during this investigation (which Defendant was obviously aware of and participating in) permanently impaired the ability for any party to access these files. Any reasonable person, or more importantly, a sworn technical expert, would agree with this.
Specifics here are irrelevant: feasibility of access doesn't change the intent or effect of the act in question. Files existed in every reasonable characterization, now they don't.
This is functionally the same as artfully convicing the officers to light a bunch of seized documents on fire, or to open a booby trapped container that is known (and intended) to effectuate the destruction of its contents.