It's Unconstitutional For Cops To Force Phone Unlocking, Court Rules (arstechnica.com) 116
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Indiana's Supreme Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment allows a woman accused of stalking to refuse to unlock her iPhone. The court held that the Fifth Amendment's rule against self-incrimination protected Katelin Seo from giving the police access to potentially incriminating data on her phone. The courts are divided on how to apply the Fifth Amendment in this kind of case. Earlier this year, a Philadelphia man was released from jail after four years of being held in contempt in connection with a child-pornography case. A federal appeals court rejected his argument that the Fifth Amendment gave him the right to refuse to unlock hard drives found in his possession. A Vermont federal court reached the same conclusion in 2009 -- as did a Colorado federal court in 2012, a Virginia state court in 2014, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2014.
But other courts in Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that forcing people to provide computer or smartphone passwords would violate the Fifth Amendment. Lower courts are divided about this issue because the relevant Supreme Court precedents all predate the smartphone era. To understand the two competing theories, it's helpful to analogize the situation to a pre-digital technology.
But other courts in Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that forcing people to provide computer or smartphone passwords would violate the Fifth Amendment. Lower courts are divided about this issue because the relevant Supreme Court precedents all predate the smartphone era. To understand the two competing theories, it's helpful to analogize the situation to a pre-digital technology.
wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case due process was followed. The police got two different warrants compelling her to unlock her phone.
This wasn't a "pull someone over and demand access to their phone" situation.
Re:wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:5, Insightful)
The police got two different warrants compelling her to unlock her phone.
A warrant gives police the authority to search and seize evidence.
A warrant does not give the police the authority to demand that the suspect incriminate herself.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so. A warrant allows them to gain physical control of something. It does NOT require the original owner to provide them with anything but the actual piece of hardware specified in the warrant.
Re: (Score:1)
So, if I have a bomb-shelter under my house, its multi-inch steel door locked with a password, the cops cannot compel me to open it?
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. They might get a warrant allowing them to cut their way through the door is they provide a sufficiently compelling reason to believe they'll find something probative inside.
Also consider, you moved in to a house with a bomb shelter whose door is a combination lock (password). You do not and never have known the combination, They can't prove you do know it and you can't prove you don't.
Before you mention that someone might have been using their phone recently, ask any IT support person how often they d
Re:wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:4, Insightful)
Also consider, you moved in to a house with a bomb shelter whose door is a combination lock (password). You do not and never have known the combination, They can't prove you do know it and you can't prove you don't.
And that is really the core of it. There is no sane way to prove you know something unless you willingly (!) give it up. Also, even if you know the password, being able to compel you to give it violates all sorts of basic legal principles. For example, what if your passphrase is "I buried the bodies at 34.45 south, 43.24 west"? Then you would at the same time be required to give it up and could not be made to give it up. And you could not prove that without revealing it.
For that reason, compelling accused people to participate in any way in their prosecution is the road to hell. Same for witnesses if they claim they could incriminate themselves and hence become accused.
Re:wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:5, Informative)
So, if I have a bomb-shelter under my house, its multi-inch steel door locked with a password, the cops cannot compel me to open it?
That is correct. If you are a suspect, they can't compel you to open it.
But they can get a blowtorch and open it with that.
It's called discovery / subpoena (Score:2)
Courts order people to turn over evidence all the dang time. It's called a subpoena duces tecum. And order to.hqnd iver over evidence.
Where the person in possession of the evidence is a party to the proceeding, there are additionally a few other procedures available, which fall under the heading of "discovery". Discovery is the stage of a legal proceeding in which each party provides the other party with all relevant evidence they have, minus some very specific exceptions (basically evidence that is NOT re
Re: (Score:3)
People argue in court that prosecutors should not be given financial records, such as tax returns and supporting bank and other records. Sometimes they do so successfully. Some even fight against other records being provided, civil contracts, for instance.
That these appeals sometimes succeed is an interesting problem, since one theory presented here would seem to dictate that any such records must be given over.
I'm still thinking that the distinction between evidence and testimony was never so simple or pla
"their papers" (Score:2)
The fourth amendment says people should be secure in their papers .... warrant.
It seems pretty clear to me that my tax returns and other such papers are my papers. That's what the fourth amendment is about.
One could obviously argue that my tax return isn't relevant to a shoplifting charge - it's not evidence in a shoplifting case. Warrants shall issue only for evidence relevant to the case. So sure you could make all kinds of arguments about a specific paper in a specific case. I think it's pretty f-ing
Re: (Score:2)
People argue in court that prosecutors should not be given financial records, such as tax returns and supporting bank and other records.
Given by who? Criminal defendants can't be compelled to provide this information.
Defendants in civil court can be compelled to produce evidence, but there are no "prosecutors" in civil court.
Re: It's called discovery / subpoena (Score:3)
Criminal defendants in tax cases are demanded to provide financial records regularly, and tax court is a special case we should leave alone...
But in embezzlement cases tax records are often demanded... Criminal cases. Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
But in embezzlement cases tax records are often demanded... Criminal cases. Yeah.
Citation needed.
Please provide a link or case number where a criminal defendant, in America, was required to provide the evidence needed to establish guilt or innocence.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts order people to turn over evidence all the dang time.
Yes, in civil proceedings.
A criminal defendant can't be subpoenaed for information, nor is a criminal defendant under any obligation to respond for requests for discovery.
You appear to be confused about the difference between civil and criminal law.
Technically (Score:4, Insightful)
You bring up an interesting point.
Technically a criminal defendant isn't subject to discovery, until they request discovery under Jencks. Jencks establishes that the defendant can file discovery for police reports, witness statements, etc. Then there is reciprocal discovery, if the defendant first initiates discovery.
Since a defendant should almost always (or at least very often) do discovery in any significant case, that door is frequently opened. Under reciprocal discovery, a defendant may be subpoenaed for any evidence in their possession. Under FRCP 26, defendant must provide hard copies of any records stored electronically, if such records can feasibly be printed.
What the defendant can NOT be compelled to do under reciprocal discovery is create new testimony (spoken evidence) - the 5th amendment says they can't be compelled to testify against themselves, so that's a hard rule.
Going off memory, I think it's FRCP 26.2 if you care to read it over and discuss further.
Mod up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahaha, no. If you turn over you phone but the cops cannot unlock it, you have actually turned over the evidence they asked for. You are not required to provide a "translation", same as, for example, if it is in some binary format or some foreign language. The document on the pone exists in the encrypted state. It does not exist in the decrypted state and they can only compel evidence that does exist.
Re: It's called discovery / subpoena (Score:1)
There is a difference between a warrant providing evidence they know exist (discovery in court) and evidence they don't know exists or information they want while they are still investigating. For example they can warrant your bank records if they know you have a bank account with a specific bank. They can't go on what's called a "fishing expedition" and give you warrants in vague terms.
If you have records on your phone such as email which the other party can prove exist and you should still have control ov
Yes, one is a subpoena/discovery, the other is a (Score:3)
> There is a difference between a warrant providing evidence they know exist (discovery in court) and evidence they don't know exists
Yes, a subpoena or certain kinds of discovery motions are used to get evidence you know about. See FCRP 26.2 of memory serves.
A search warrant is used to go looking for evidence which is probably there.
Two different things, yep.
Distinctions (Score:2)
Here we enter the land of distinctions, where not everything is glaringly obvious and things that look similar at first glance end up being different. So we have to look carefully at the question raised by a particular case and fact of a particular case.
Heck even to starf with, what do we mean when we ask "Can they compel" - are we asking whether the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a process for it, or are we asking if the Constitution prevents it? That is, are we asking if the *law* says a par
PS I could argue the other way (Score:2)
PS, I said:
--
If I'm being intellectually honest, I'd have to say that I *unlock* my phone, then I read the plain-English words I have stored within. I do not leave my phone unlocked and use code words for everything I write.
--
I could also argue the other way. I understand that argument and I'm not saying it's a stupid argument.
I also have friends, including a well-known pair of African American brothers, who are very smart, well informed, and they are strong supporters of Donald Trump. They make good argum
Re: (Score:2)
No they cannot. They will advise you to open it. When you refuse they will hire a contractor with a blow torch to cut it open. So you choose the combination or the blow torch. Same for the phone, you choose to unlock it, or they pull it to pieces to unlock it.
To crack any device, found out how the chip containing the data you want works and custom mount it on a board to bypass all the other chips, and use your chips to crack that chip. For the owner, well, you hand them back the pieces, there is no requirem
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I have a bomb-shelter under my house, its multi-inch steel door locked with a password, the cops cannot compel me to open it?
Pretty much. But they _can_ drill a hole in it if they have a warrant for that. And maybe charge you for the effort if they find anything. Of course, if they do not find anything they may just have to pay for the damage they did.
Re: (Score:2)
admittedly that's not clear in my first posts
Re:wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:5, Interesting)
Ehh, Bill of Rights doesnt exactly speak directly to your iPhone's lock screen, that's kind of why all this is getting attention - did the 5th amendment mean to prevent authorities from extracting information from your papers at-large, or merely require probable cause to search through all your stuff? It's quite apparent that non of the authors of the US Constitution or BoR could have imagined the amount of ancillary data and potentially incriminating information that can be carried around in the palm of your hand - even if a magistrate allowed the sheriff to paw through your parchments back in 1790 its unlikely the could have pieced together your ever movement for the past 6 months, and find every conversation you've had with peers via 'grep' search for 420 or 'adderall'.
If you want to understand the legal arguments and why this is actually a big deal that might end up before the Supreme Court go read Volokh [reason.com] - that analysis is written by an actual constitutional law scholar (including having written referenced amicus briefs in Federal courts looking at similar cases).
The big deal is that this ruling causes a split between the Indiana ruling, a different more permissive ruling from Massachusetts, and similar ruling compelling people to unlock their phones in the 11th Federal district. Now that there is a split between these courts, the only way to harmonize back to a "one rule for all citizens across the US" is for the Supremes to wade in.
Personally, I think Indiana has it right here, there's no reason police should be wading through everything in your phone on a suspicion, I'd be more willing to consider this acceptable if they were prohibited from using anything found for any reason other than the warrant, but once they unlock the phone its open season to find something, anything to charge you with in order to compel a plea-bargain, even if the original charge wont stick. And often the process is the punishment once you've angered police and/or prosecutors enough to take notice of whatever they can find to prove they are "tough on crime".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that any ruling that you must provide the password opens the door to punishing people without even getting a conviction.
What if you actually don't know the password anymore? Good luck proving that you DON'T know something!
How far is that from picking a likely suspect and telling them "Show us the body or go to jail until you do". No need for that inconvenient evidence or proving it in court thing.
If you think using that for a murder case would never happen, try "Show us the unreported income
Re: (Score:3)
What if a bad cop uses the password you give them, unlocks the phone, changes the password and then comes back and says the password does not work, you are going to jail until you provide the password, too easy, anyone goes to jail until they provide the password they do not know. What happens when the device fails, simply does not process passwords properly, you go to jail until the phone fixes itself. What if you phone was hacked and the password changed, you go to jail until the hacker comes forward and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The federalists did have safes. There are plenty of cases surrounding safes and whether it is legitimate to inventory, search, break open etc.
You can find some legal info here:
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/de... [fletc.gov]
The problem for law enforcement is that a phone is a virtually unbreakable safe. That's not the defendant's problem, that's a physics and law enforcement problem, they can try to find a technical solution for it, but the defendant should not have its constitutional privileges violated because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said, sir.
Re: (Score:3)
5th says (well several things, but the relevant part appears to be) "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". 4th says "Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause... particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". I don't see anything making it clear that the subject is not required to provide access to things that already exist, only that they cannot be required to create new evidence (by testifying as a witness). Would you
Re: (Score:2)
I know there are mechanisms and exceptions, but the bar should be extremely high to counter gov't overreach since it's power to do harm cannot be countered w/out individual ri
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, giving up a password is a "witness" against one's self. It is compelled and that is, as a libertarian, very troubling (being compelled).
The role of government isn't to punish criminals, it is to provide a protection for violations of rights. THAT is the primary purpose of the BoR, to outline what RIGHTS we have by default. The "punishment" part of governance is secondary to a violation of a right, and deterrent to others for the same. Once one has that particular viewpoint, it becomes much simpler to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
when the amendment was written searches meant homes or some other easily accessible place. There was no lock that could keep the cops out then
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:3)
When the amendment was written, we didn't have cops.
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 - 2 years after the establishment of the US Marshals in 1789.
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:3)
Marshals aren't cops (from "coppers", from British police "capturers", introduced in the 19th century). Marshals act on court orders. Police act as roaming violent enforcers under their own authority. Not the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Cops are about as old as civilization itself. So are safes and physics problems. Simply because it is really expensive for law enforcement to do something doesn't mean we should sacrifice our rights for it to be cheaper.
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:2)
Apparently that's a point you've been itching to make...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
jm007 has a nugget there, so dont just discard it. There are important hurdles regarding the 4th that the police had to deal with first before the specific barriers in question about the defense based on the 5th is invoked. Courts have to issue a warrant, and the text of the Indiana decision does in fact raise a 'loophole' using the 4th around the defense based on the 5th amendment.
Specifically if the warrant is for information that the police already know (for example they have someone else's phone, or ev
Re: (Score:1)
You cannot bypass the 5th amendment, any legislation that does it is unconstitutional. The police cannot make you break the 5th, the Grand Jury is the only place where you can be ordered to even answer to a charge.
Re:wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:5, Insightful)
When the amendment was written we had people writing journals in private codes. The precedent for that was that the police could seize the journals (with a warrant) but couldn't force the owner to translate the content into something intelligible. That seems like a pretty straightforward analog to modern cryptography—they can physically seize your phone but you can't be compelled to provide a decryption key / password / etc. to render the stored data intelligible. It's much better than any sketch analogy based on locks or safes, at any rate, which overlooks the difference between physical property and information content.
Re: (Score:2)
No. This amendment means that if you're questioned, you're not allowed to expose self-incriminating evidence. In response to a question, you can avoid answering it by claiming that "The answer to this question will incriminate me for something else, so I'm not going to answer it." And now phones are being looked at as personal speech.
But to my way of thinking, this doesn't make any sense. If your home is raided for drugs, and while they're looking for drugs, they request that you open a locked door in t
Re: (Score:3)
Historically if you refuse to unlock the door or say you've lost the key they will just smash it open. They don't request that you bash holes in your drywall or tear up your flooring to see if you've hidden drugs there, but by they gods they will do that and it's **your** responsibility to fix it at your own cost. My parents used to have rental houses, and when they found out the shit that police could get away with while conducting a legal search they were horrified. Apparently one of their acquaintance
Re: (Score:2)
That has been a problem in several places. If someone ticks you off, for just $0.25 you can give overly credulous cops an anonymous tip and have them gut your victim's home.
Re: (Score:2)
If your home is raided for drugs, and while they're looking for drugs, they request that you open a locked door in the house (to further their search for drugs), you have to unlock the door, even if Jimmy Hoffa's body is in there.
No, you absolutely do not! There are so many things horrendously wrong with that sentence that I might have a small coronary.
1) If your house is raided for any reason, you say that you do not consent to the search (you'll use this later to quash the warrant if it is found to be defective), pick a spot, sit still, and say nothing.
2) If your house is raided for any reason, they need to have a warrant specifying exactly where they're searching. "The whole house" is not specific enough. You have a right to view
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, you don't have to open the door yourself, but they can and will (at least in Alabama) break it down, and they'll do the same to anything else in your house that hinders their search for whatever the warrant covers. I know this from direct, personal experience.
Your point "2)" is just flat out wrong. Indeed a "the whole house" is a completely legal thing to search. Maybe you're thinking along the lines of an apartment building...? If so, no, they don't have the right to search the whole bu
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can't be forced to assist with a search, you can invoke the 5th, the cops CAN unlock the door for you if they have a warrant or under some other exigent circumstances (hot pursuit etc), either by finding a locksmith or by smashing the door down. However if they do so, they must have a warrant, if they want to break stuff, they need to have reasonable cause.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be forced to assist with a search, you can invoke the 5th
I don't understand what you mean here. "Invoking the 5th" isn't what you think it is. This would be like saying, "If you're robbing a bank, and you have hostages inside the bank and the cops are outside with a bullhorn, telling you to come out with your hands up ...you can invoke the 5th." You CAN invoke the 5th, but you could also invoke "football" or anything else that doesn't, in any way, apply to the situation.
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:1)
Whenever a cop asks you something you should say something to the effect of invoking your amendment rights.
"Did you murder someone" "I do not consent to this and invoke my rights under the constitution to remain silent"
"can you open this door for us" same answer
"can you unlock this phone for us" same answer
Because if you say yes and you screw something up, or the stress tricks your brain and you wipe your phone after 10 tries, you can get arrested.
Whilst executing a search warrant the only thing you should
Re: (Score:2)
No, you should say what your lawyer tells you to say.
Your lawyer isn't present? Then you're already fucking up. The first, last, and only words until you've talked to your lawyer are 'I want my lawyer.'
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's not it. Physical or documentary evidence can be subject to search warrants. A suspect can be forced to provide fingerprints or DNA, that's physical and not testimonial. The line is knowledge - the 5th protects from having to give potentially incriminating testimony, i.e. knowledge - the combination to a safe, the PIN for a phone. Traditionally, that hasn't been an issue for law enf
Re: (Score:2)
But encryption is different, it's not always possible to break without a subject's knowledge.
More accurately, ... w/o knowledge/information from the subject.
[ Your statement more implied, w/o the subject knowing about it. ]
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:1)
Encryption can be broken, it just takes a really long time. But that's not your problem, that's a physics problem for whoever needs access.
Numerical keys to vaults cannot be compelled (1988 Doe v United States)
Re: (Score:2)
seems straightforward and simple.... your shit can't be searched or used against you unless you do it voluntarily; when folks try to take a simple concept and have to overcomplicate, twist and contort it to mean something else, that's a good sign that some fukkery is afoot
This is the fifth, where in the text do you find the "simple concept" you're referring to?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the simplest interpretation is "if the suspect doesn't comply and the only way to get the information from them is to beat it out of them with a $5 pipe wrench then the 5th amendment applies."
What in the fifth applies exactly.
Not all that clear... (Score:1)
That's the Fourth Amendment, which she hasn't even attempted to use.
So, you don't have to open your closet either — even if the cops come with a perfectly legal search warrant?
And if they break the lock — is the skeleton they find now inadmissible in court?
No, different reason. (Score:5, Insightful)
seems straightforward and simple.... your shit can't be searched or used against you unless you do it voluntarily;
Absolutely wrong. Your stuff can be searched IF a judge can be convinced that there's "probable cause" (credible external evidence or testimony) to believe that it contains evidence of a crime. In that case he issues a warrant - naming the place to be searched and what to be searched for. (This is the FOURTH amendment requirement, which is to keep the authorities from arbitrarily searching stuff until they find something.) Courts have carved out some exceptions - like when the stuff is very portable and likely to be gone by the time the warrant can be issued, while the probable cause evidence is strong.
The FIFTH amendment prohibition is against forcing you to disclose what's IN YOUR MIND if it could be used against you. It exists mainly to keep authorities from torturing confessions out of people. (It's been known for thousands of years that cops tend not to bust dirty cops: "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" - who will watch the watchers / guard (against) the guardians?) The Fifth amendment tries to prevent tortured confessions by making them useless in court.
The claim here is that the crypto key / unlocking procedure is IN YOUR HEAD, so getting it out involuntarily would require torture/extortion/etc. And since it unlocks the phone, and the material on the phone can then be used as evidence against the person from whose head the key is extracted, it's an open-and-shut compulsion to provide evidence against oneself.
So the cops can get what they can off the LOCKED phone, and copy the ENCRYPTED files. But if the Fifth Amendment claim applies they can't force you to UNlock the phone or give them the DECRYPTION key if the procedure or key must come FROM YOUR MIND.
(I'm in full agreement with the claim that the Fifth applies here. And I'm glad the courts are starting to rule that way: I've got a lot of encrypted data lying around for which I've forgotten the keys - just in case I ever remember them, or because I haven't had the time an inclination to purge old files and backups. So I'd hate to be thrown into jail for years for contempt of court because I couldn't remember an old, lost key.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: wordsmithing and sophistry (Score:1)
Exactly. They can trick the phone and do all sorts of stuff physically. They can't make you tell them the passcode. This has been established in the 80s in Supreme Court in regards vaults.
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different than requiring someone to tell the police the combination to a lock, which is something the courts have said is in violation of the 5th. The difference is now the police use to be able to simply obtain a warrant and cut the lock off and access the contents. However, that is no longer possible so they are trying to remove rights so they can still get access to what they want.
Except that's not exactly what the courts have said. There's a very good description of what they've actually said and the two competing theories that makes this case interesting in an article I happened to read recently: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is it IS possible to break any encryption - if you wait 5 years.
Or pay enough money to do so.
The cops are lazy and cheap, so they would rather take our rights rather than obey the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point:
If the police get a warrant to search the safe for the body, could you be held for suspicion of murder until the safe is opened? By extension, could you be held for suspicion of murder until they break the encryption on your phone to see if you were discussing the murder? We expect the safe could be opened in hours, but what if it to months or years to open it?
Re: (Score:2)
Judges take into account how long the cops want to hold you on suspicion. If they ask to hold you for 24 hours, the judges are usually fine with it. If they ask to hold you for 24 days, that is another question entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different than requiring someone to tell the police the combination to a lock, which is something the courts have said is in violation of the 5th.
Sort of.
If the police say, "open up that safe, we want to see what's in there," you tell them to go pound sand.
If the police see you put a bloody knife in the safe when they show up with a warrant, the judge will order you to divulge the combination or sit in jail until the contempt statute runs out.
In theory, if the police say they saw you watching ki
Re: (Score:3)
It's a little more complicated.
Probably the biggest issue police have is that 'default' encryption that is out of the box. There is no effort needed on the part of people to essentially have encrypted files/communication.
This is really unlike any part of history. Phone calls or mail in the old days were considered private unless the police got a warrant. Then they could in fact snoop on you. No doubt people tried to communicate in codes, but it required effort and it's really hard to maintain across large n
This will change. (Score:1)
While we are being distracted by bullshit - mostly from TV news - we, the people, are being screwed over by the Trump Administration.
I do not give a shit how slow he walks down a ramp.
I have to dig to find out what he is really doing while he is distracting everyone else with his bull
Should be a slam dunk (Score:5, Insightful)
If the police find a safe in a suspect's house that they believe contains incriminating evidence of their crime, they cannot be compelled to unlock the safe. If the police have a warrant they are free to try to guess the combination, or break the lock, or cut into the safe, or whatever else they want to try to get in, but the suspect cannot be compelled to assist them.
So if the police find your phone and believe it contains incriminating evidence, they should similarly not be able to compel you to unlock it. That strong encryption is harder to break than a physical lock and thus makes the police's job harder is not the problem of the suspect. Very obvious rights should not be stripped because they make it harder to prosecute.
Re: (Score:2)
If the police find a safe in a suspect's house that they believe contains incriminating evidence of their crime, they cannot be compelled to unlock the safe.
That's pretty much the case where there's no dispute that they can compel you to open the safe, I suggest you RTFA.
Re:Should be a slam dunk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANACL but don't think the authors of the constitution considered the possibility of a 100% impenetrable container...
Except they did.
https://www.cato.org/policing-in-america/chapter-4/blackstones-ratio [cato.org]
When crimes occur, societies often cannot know for certain if a suspect is guilty or innocent. Consequently, societies must grapple with what type of "mistakes" they will tolerate more - sometimes punishing or scrutinizing innocent people or sometimes allowing guilty people go free.
As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote, "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." This principl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
what if a warrent is issued. I assume that is the case here. There is probable cause and a warrent. Problem is court still can't look.
Sooo... trying to force you to 'tell' something but the law says you 'have a right to stay silent'.
Re: (Score:2)
honestly though, i mean... dude I forgot it. you scared me so bad I can't remeber. Maybe I'll remember later.
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
honestly though, i mean... dude I forgot it. you scared me so bad I can't remeber. Maybe I'll remember later.
DO NOT SAY THIS. Lying to a federal agent is a crime, even if you not guilty of anything else. Lying to local law enforcement may be a crime depending on the jurisdiction.
If you are questioned by the police, you should say exactly four words:
1. I
2. Want
3. A
4. Lawyer
If you are under 18, substitute "parent" for "lawyer".
Watch this, then make your kids watch it: Don't talk to the police [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The key word here is "unreasonable".
If a warrant is issued, by definition the search is reasonable. The court case here is to determine if whatever search given is reasonable. However, I think the more relevant issue here is the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
let the people decide (Score:2)
I cast my vote on the poll and wasn't too surprised to see the Nay at 84% and the Yay at 16%. When it's closer to a 60/40 split, it's probably time to look at compromise or breaking down the issue a bit so you can get a clearer consensus. But when you're past 80/20, the people have spoken, and you ought to do law the way the people want it done.
But I suppose I'm probably being waaay too optimistic here again?
Oh, that's just fine! (Score:2)
Equal treatment for male stalkers, damnit!
had to say... (Score:4)
it's like a blast from the past.... why I signed up so long ago, thanks to all
Wont stop them (Score:2, Informative)
There are new videos almost daily of cops doing unconstitutional things. Since they have immunity they feel like they can do whatever they want. We need to get rid of the immunity, which the supreme court just upheld. We are fucked, constitution or not, as long as cops have immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes down to my word or the word of a cop I lose every single time. Cops shoot people all the time with zero consequences. I can envision a scenario where I refuse to comply with a cop's order to unlock my phone and then I get shot - at which point the cop says that I was resisting and reached for my waist band. This is a losing scenario. I have heard soldiers say that they are held to a higher standard than cops - which goes against your entire statement. Blanket immunity from punishment for
What about evidence against others? (Score:2)
This subject, and encryption: (Score:1)
Why do you think "electronic" ID is around (Score:1)
Wow, Indiana?!? (Score:2)
That this was a ruling by the Indiana Supremes is flabbergasting!
But since Indiana and Wisconsin (which now disagree on this issue) are both in the U.S. 7th Circuit, you can be reasonably assured that this will end up in the US Supreme Court at some point .
Congress really needs to update laws (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The warrant must particularly describes the place [justia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
to me, part of the point is that the gov't is so much more asymmetrically powerful than the individual, that we the people cannot afford to give one inch of ground on this; it must be extraordinarily difficult to remove a person's rights because history is full of examples of what happens when power is unchecked