Posted on 05/31/2017 8:21:28 PM PDT by Swordmaker
>> My belief is yes,
If ‘belief’ isn’t good enough for a conviction, how can it be good enough to classify private knowledge as tangible evidence to be used against the defendant? Private knowledge is not the tangible fingerprint nor DNA.
What if a third-party had access to the phone, placed content on it, and also changed the password without the defendant’s knowledge? Such things cannot be done to the defendant’s fingerprints and DNA.
“Didn’t he get 180 days?”
Didn’t you read the story?
How about involuntary blood draw for DWI arrests?
let’s say a person has 2000 devices, each with a separate passcode.
Then is it reasonable to expect that person to know and keep track of all 2000 passcodes, and be able to retrieve them all from memory (in the limiting case), while under duress of incarceration and being accused of felony crimes of any sort?
What if you happen to meet a politician on day 1 for lunch, and then get arrested on day 2 by the government for allegedly dealing state secrets? Meanwhile some or all of your devices have been in state police custody during your arrest and are therefore subject to damage and tinkering by the state?
(I do not understand the reasoning of the ruling in the general case...)
According to liberals (and many republicans), the founding fathers
* didn’t have internet, so speech can be regulated on the internet
* didn’t have modern weapons, so the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to those
* didn’t have phones, so modern communications can be spied on
* didn’t have computers, so you can be forced to provide digital evidence against yourself
I guess it makes sense that they want to eliminate modern power sources and go back to living like it was the 1700s. On the plus side, without electricity/computers/phones/internet, the government won’t have the opportunity to violate as many of our rights.
Well, there is that without due process of law part at the end...perhaps a warrant is part of the legal due process?
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.
So - two courts on either end of this nation reach two different conclusions regarding access to smartphones... We need a bunch of popcorn to watch this.
But as others have posted - what ever happened to the 5th Amendment?
And don’t get me wrong - I’m all about locking up the slimebalms walking among us - but at what point do we make ourselves prisoners to the police state for the grasp at “justice”?
Which is based on probable cause - nearly always after failed field sobriety tests and often a breathalyzer test has been refused.
What's worse is that in civil case you don't even have a fifth amendment right to begin with. If a creditor is looking for your assets and can get you into court, the judge can order you to disclose all you accounts and throw you in jail until you do.
You can’t be forced to TESTIFY against yourself. Providing evidence (finger prints, DNA, access to your home, data, computers) is all OK as long as they’ve run the right paperwork past a judge.
That’s one of the most pernicious and 100% FALSE ideas about the 5th. It is totally invokable on a question by question basis. I don’t know what bad TV show put that piece of lies out there, but the writers should be beaten severely. You are 100% allowed to say “I wasn’t at the bank” AND refuse to say where you were.
A Hollywood man must serve 180 days in jail for refusing to give up his iPhone password to police, a Broward judge ruled Tuesday — the latest salvo in intensifying legal battles over law-enforcement access to smart phones.
Christopher Wheeler, 41, was taken into custody in a Broward Circuit Court, insisting he had already provided the pass code to police investigating him for child abuse, although the number did not work.
That’s not what the Fifth Amendment says. “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. I would think that being forced to provide passwords to your accounts would be covered. If the police want evidence, you don’t have to give it to them. They may seize it, but it’s up to them to unlock it.
Important part there being WITNESS. If they have a warrant for the item in question you most certainly DO have to give it to them. And if they have a warrant that says you have to unlock it (say the item in question is a tamper proof safe) then you have to open it. That’s where a lot these cellphone cases hang, because many of them will wipe the data if you fail login too many times they have a reasonable expectation that evidence could be destroyed if they tried to unlock it themselves you get to open it for them.
The courts are split on the matter. Some say you can be compelled to provide a pass code, others say not. I would refuse.
They’ll all come around to it. In the end it’s like a safe combo, it in and of itself is not evidence against.
LOL. Obviously you didn’t read the WHOLE story!
I read enough to know he was taken into custody to serve 180 days.
Did you skip that part?
LOL indeed.
“I read enough to know he was taken into custody to serve 180 days.”
Obviously you didn’t read enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.