Tunick asked four times during the interrogation to speak with a lawyer, but was rebuffed each time, according to courtroom testimony. Additionally, the agents produced no warrant and did not read Tunick his rights.
If he’s not even accused of a crime, how is wiping his phone “destroying evidence”? What is the crime being committed here? You are allowed to wipe your own phone, and technically he didn’t even do that.
Furthermore, asking a suspect for their passcode is bargain basement police work. Being surprised when this doesn’t work seems pretty incompetent. I think they’re throwing the book at him because they fucked up.
No, they’re throwing the book at him to make a statement.
Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don’t apply.
Similarly, this isn’t destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that’s a law in the US, but he isn’t in the US yet…?
Of course, it’s all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.
The argument is that the US government doesn’t have to follow US laws when interacting with US citizens outside of the US?
That’s especially dubious when “outside the US” is referring to a legally flimsy distinction like the international terminal of an airport which is on US soil and controlled exclusively by the US government.
There’s no way this isn’t going to be abused if allowed by courts.
If he’s not even accused of a crime, how is wiping his phone “destroying evidence”? What is the crime being committed here? You are allowed to wipe your own phone, and technically he didn’t even do that.
Furthermore, asking a suspect for their passcode is bargain basement police work. Being surprised when this doesn’t work seems pretty incompetent. I think they’re throwing the book at him because they fucked up.
No, they’re throwing the book at him to make a statement.
Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don’t apply.
Similarly, this isn’t destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that’s a law in the US, but he isn’t in the US yet…?
Of course, it’s all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.
The argument is that the US government doesn’t have to follow US laws when interacting with US citizens outside of the US?
That’s especially dubious when “outside the US” is referring to a legally flimsy distinction like the international terminal of an airport which is on US soil and controlled exclusively by the US government.
There’s no way this isn’t going to be abused if allowed by courts.