> A wiped phone can't contain contraband
There is no requirement that evidence is "contraband".
As other comments have said, the courts aren't autistic. They don't fall for filly semantic games.
There is no requirement that evidence is "contraband".
As other comments have said, the courts aren't autistic. They don't fall for filly semantic games.
but to say that the laws and precedence aren't largely concerned with building some semantic context, and that lawyers don't build chains of reasoning in that framework to prophet their positions is absolute nonsense.
you're positing a world where a judge just rules entirely on feels, and I think most judges would be quite offended by that notion.
Claiming that destroying evidence of a crime proves no crime was committed is the logic of a 1 year old who thinks the world disappears when they close their eyes.
A lawyer can go into court and argue semantics around the edges but isn’t going to get very far using semantics to argue destroying evidence also erases a crime.
A wiped phone cannot contain contraband data, so the border search exemption cannot apply.