[SeeSharp]

The 5th Amendment was repealed? When did that happen?

When a judge orders you to turn over something, that is a warrant, which is all the 5th amendment requires.

To my mind, what is at stake in these cases is the first amendment. I consider it implicit that the right to free speech means the right to speak privately.

[alexander_busek]

2ndDivisionVet: The 5th Amendment was repealed? When did that happen?

SeeSharp: When a judge orders you to turn over something, that is a warrant, which is all the 5th amendment requires.

To 2ndDivisionVet: The 5th Amendment cannot be invoked if the accused has already made statements in his own defense. In other words: It cannot be selectively invoked. If the accused says "I wasn't at the bank that day," he cannot then refuse (citing the 5th) to answer the question "Well, where were you, then?"

To SeeSharp: It is necessary to make a fine but important distinction here. A judge can issue a warrant authorizing the police to search for and seize physical evidence, but you cannot be required to "turn over" physical evidence - and certainly no judge can force you to speak (unless: see above). (However, a Grand Jury can force you speak.)

Regards,

P.S.: Full Disclosure: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on t.v.

[Gene Eric]

I believe this is the relevant clause:

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

And I don't see anything related to warrant.

Consider the case of the missing body where the defendant takes the 5th. Is the defendant still obliged to specify the location of the body as it may provide evidence of the alleged crime?

I'm not remotely educated in criminal law. Just curious if you see any parallels between knowledge of the missing body and knowledge of the missing password.

[Abundy]

When a judge orders you to turn over something, that is a warrant, which is all the 5th amendment requires.

Wrong.

That is an unconstitutional order to incriminate yourself.

The only means for a Court to lawfully make such an order would be if the Prosecutor gave the phone's owner immunity. Which obviously means that the order is useless regardless of what is found on the phone since there could be no prosecution based on the evidence found on the phone.