What happens if we take this as precedent?
Dismantling a safe to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the safe is left damaged.
Tearing a house apart to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the house is left damaged.
Disassembling a car to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the car never runs the same later.
Meanwhile you'll find me in the corner that reads the 4th Amendment as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think that if the result of a seizure is the potential permanent damage of my property, then my right to be secure in my possessions should be defended by demanding a higher standard from the government than that required for a mere temporary possession after a seizure. That principle applies just as much to electronics as it does to any physical item.
Dismantling a safe to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the safe is left damaged.
Tearing a house apart to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the house is left damaged.
Disassembling a car to facilitate a search, isn't a search. So it's allowed, even if the car never runs the same later.
Meanwhile you'll find me in the corner that reads the 4th Amendment as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think that if the result of a seizure is the potential permanent damage of my property, then my right to be secure in my possessions should be defended by demanding a higher standard from the government than that required for a mere temporary possession after a seizure. That principle applies just as much to electronics as it does to any physical item.