I thought that being forced to provide evidence against yourself was unconstitutional.
Only in criminal cases.
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 offence 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.
ordered by a judge to produce a pass code to phones suspected of containing text messages showing their collusion in the extortion plot. If we had a Constitutional Amendment making “Probable Cause”( Most Likely, Almost Certain) the standard for a warrant instead of “Reasonable Suspicion”(maybe, i think so, could have,...) maybe these types of Abuses wouldn’t happen.
You are Correct! When standing in Criminal Court in Front of a Judge you are supposed to be protected from being Ordered to Incriminate yourself. Producing your writings is the same as testifying.
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.