agreed.
I initially wanted to link to this tweet[1] with more context, but then decided to link to the original content/pdf instead. The word "overseas" should probably be removed but the window that allowed me to edit the title was already over unfortunately. That they happened to be overseas added some nuance (background info) in this specific case but it is confusing in the wider context of the discussion.
[1] Paul Oetken rules that your phone can be seized with a warrant from DHL if you're sending it to your lawyer from overseas. So not a good way to avoid your phone being seized if you know you're going to be arrested on arrival. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1275095032954052608
Yeah, I know that it's illegal, but corruption doesn't care.
(Parallel construction would generally not be permitted, as that's usually only allowed for technical or inadvertent procedural defects in gathering evidence, not intentional and unlawful violations.)
> It is important to note that if Correia had simply handed his notebooks and electronic devices to his counsel personally, the documents would not be privileged.
At least in the U.S., attorney-client privilege does not apply to just any old thing you send to your lawyer. It's applicability depends on the content of the communications.
> Because nothing in the package revealed any privileged communications between Correia and his counsel, the package cannot become privileged “merely because it was sent . . . between an attorney and client.”