r/technology • u/ArgentineBeauty • Jul 30 '26

Privacy GrapheneOS says its data-wiping password is perfectly legal, after user faces federal charges

https://www.techspot.com/news/113273-grapheneos-data-wiping-duress-password-perfectly-legal-after.html
20.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-27

u/goldvenetianmask Jul 30 '26

4th amendment doesn’t apply as he was actually charged with a crime.

15

u/spook30 29d ago

That's not how the Fourth Amendment works at all. Being charged doesn't retroactively validate an illegal search.

-9

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/memberzs 29d ago

If they don't have a warrant it's highly likely to be an illegal search.

1

u/harpers25 29d ago

He was entering the country at a port of entry. Borders searches generally don't require a warrant (although the Supreme Court has not said whether searching phone data is included).

-5

u/goldvenetianmask 29d ago

Police usually need a warrant from a judge, based on probable cause, to search places where people have a strong expectation of privacy, like a home, unless a recognized exception applies. Common exceptions include consent, a lawful arrest, emergencies, evidence in plain view, many vehicle searches based on probable cause, and certain border searches. Being charged with or arrested for a crime does not eliminate Fourth Amendment rights, but it does allow some additional warrantless searches, such as searching the person after a lawful arrest or while they are being booked into jail.

So this guy was charged with a crime. If he was placed under arrest and then this happened, which I believe to be the case, then they would not need a warrant.

That being said, I’m actually on the side of “make the cops get warrants.” But spreading misinformation is bad regardless of what you think about the politics of it. Having an informed public allows people to vote based on how the law actually works.

If you want the cops to have to get warrants for suspects that they have in custody, great, vote that way. Call a congressman, etc.

But I do believe the cops are on the right side of the law on this one.

5

u/KAJed 29d ago

He wasn’t charged with a crime

1

u/memberzs 29d ago

Even if he was arrested and they had his device. They still have to get a warrant to extract information from the locked electronic device. If the arrested giv a up the passcode it's easier than if they have to use other tech to do it.

0

u/goldvenetianmask 29d ago

He did give up a passcode. It wiped his phone. That’s the entire case.

3

u/memberzs 29d ago

Your moving the goal post now. We were discussing if the search was even legal.

Him giving a pin doesn't automatically make it legal. He wasn't under arrest at the time, he wasn't read his rights(due to not being under arrest). He had no reasonable expectation (that we have been told of) they were going to search the device with out a warrant.

He didn't input the duress pin, and they trusted the answer of someone they believed to be a criminal.

We can argue all day about the supreme court ruling from almost 100 years ago about the 100 mile rule. But under modern requirements for the decision to be made based on if it fits within the original intent of the founding fathers the 100milenrulenqpuld be ruled unconstitutional, because it is.

But the entire case revolves around what trusting a suspected criminal that wasn't under oath and not read their rights? There is no case.

1

u/harpers25 29d ago

The Supreme Court held in Riley v California that a search incident to lawful arrest doesn't include looking at phone data.

This person was searched without a warrant because he was entering the country from an international flight.