Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

Post by aardvarkr » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #97

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Sorry, I don't buy that this happens with any kind of frequency in the 21st century United States, such that a person could reasonably expect this to happen to them. Do you have more than ambiguous innuendo to back up this claim?

What you "buy" makes no difference to what happened to people out there. Believe what you will.

Post by xandofish » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #78

pdimitar wrote: post #53

Formally the police can't demand a lot of stuff. Informally, they'll put you in a room and tell you that they have the legal right to keep you anywhere from 24 to 72 hours in there and they definitely can make you reconsider during that period -- to put it very mildly. Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Until there's true acc…

>Hint: some cops are really good in the skill of inflicting pain to people without lasting medical trace to prove it afterwards. Sorry, I don't buy that this happens with any kind of frequency in the 21st century United States, such that a person could reasonably expect this to happen to them. Do you have more than ambiguous innuendo to back up this claim?

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 2:21 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #112

dragonwriter wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not having to reveal the passcode has been the rule for a while No, its not. It is an issue that is left open in US Supreme Court Fifth Amendment case law, and on which lower courts are split. > Not being allowed to bring that refusal up as evidence of guilt on Fifth Amendment grounds during the trial is new No, it is well-established that you can't raise use of Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights to suggest…

You can't say the first is left open but the second is not. If "can I be forced to reveal the passcode" is undecided, "can refusing to do so imply guilt" depends on the resolution of the first.

Post by pdimitar » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

adwn wrote: post #105

pdimitar wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you "buy" makes no difference to what happened to people out there. Believe what you will.

They asked for any evidence beyond "it's like this, trust me" and you answered with "really, it's like this, trust me" . Do you realize that if someone isn't convinced after the first "trust me", they won't be convinced by the second "trust me"?

Post by goodcanadian » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #43

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but that access has to come from your brain; doesn't it therefore fall under the 5th amendment that you have the right to remain silent and something something self-incrimination? I mean I'm trying to think of other instances of getting access to evidence, and the only things I can think of is companies having to provide certain administrative documentation that may not even be their own. But that's probably me…

Generally speaking a court can compel self-incriminating testimony if they first grant you immunity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_immunity Say, for example, you were a low level drug dealer and the court wanted evidence from your phone to convict your boss/supplier/whoever. They could compel you to unlock your phone, but could not use the evidence on it against you , only against your supplier, thanks to t…