If the FBI comes in your office with a warrant and you refuse to speak I'm guessing they'll be taking your phone anyway and/or arresting you. Making things harder for investigators often means making things harder for yourself too. Winning an argument about your personal device's admissibility in court six months later isn't really winning is it?
>you refuse to speak I'm guessing they'll be taking your phone anyway and/or arresting you
If you refuse to speak without a lawyer there, they'll either a) move on because they're out fishing and you're not biting, or b) arrest you because they already have evidence but were looking for an easy confession to make it a slam dunk case for the prosecution. Once arrested, you can hire/be assigned a criminal defense attorney who will figure out if you have a good chance of being found innocent or can minimize prison time through a plea deal.
>Winning an argument about your personal device's admissibility in court six months later isn't really winning is it?
Not taking their bait and running your mouth will minimize the chances of the FBI being able to get a warrant for your device to begin with. It's not just about the phone, it's about your freedom, financial stability (you will lose your job and you can't pay your bills from prison, so say goodbye to your credit score), and employment opportunities (federal convictions don't bode well for job hunting).
Look up "don't talk to the police" on YouTube if you want more reasons why letting the FBI look at your phone is a bad idea.
the whole point of the above anecdote was that by answering the questions, you've expanded their scope.
if they're going to arrest you, there's nothing you're going to say to talk them out of it. all you can do by talking is convince them to arrest you.
you can't talk them out of anything they were already going to do; they're just talking to you because so many folks think the way you do, that they're somehow clever enough to say the thing that prevents the arrest.
> Winning an argument about your personal device's admissibility in court six months later isn't really winning is it?
