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

Post by BobbyJo » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

63 wrote: post #62

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…

It's crazy to me the amount that people who have never dealt with the cops think "I'll just show them x legal code so they can see they don't have the right to do that." Turns out, they don't care. For minor infractions, they'll use whatever intimidation and coercion they want, then make you feel lucky for letting you out because they didn't feel like prosecuting. In most circumstances, the word of the person with th…

Post by goodpoint » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #90

quacked wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right, and it's insane that people don't realize this. So many people that want police reform in the US think that somehow we can continue to let the police be mostly made up by people with a certain political persuasion and education level, and that we can simply control them with laws and incentives.

> political persuasion and education level Sorry, I'm not following. My understanding is that the job attracts bullies and I see bullies from all political persuasions and all education levels.

Post by rootusrootus » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

Ansil849 wrote: post #233

Here's the thing: you can have all sorts of detached, academic discussions on a forum like HN or on a blogpost about what the best thing to do is, or the most pragmatic thing, or the worst thing when dealing with a police encounter. But if you ever find yourself in a situation where a police officer is pointing a gun at you, none of this discussion matters. I've had that happen to me (when an AirBNB owner failed to m…

Post by ziddoap » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

pdimitar wrote: post #238

ziddoap wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a vast difference between reaching the supreme court with your amicus briefs and "spreading awareness" in a blog post. They also aren't mutually exclusive. > But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. This is always funny to read. Write a strongly worded opinion, but refuse to engage with others. >but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any differe…

Funny -- only if you don't know what the words mean. Both are not strictly facts so any discussion around them is bound to derail into... exactly what's going on here.

Post by thatcat » Fri, Oct 22, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #45

LinuxBender wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. That's why I believe it might be super handy if every or at least many phones had this in place so that you don't really stand out. At least every phone using an alternate OS. If all the mainstream operating systems had this I would expect an arms race between the OS devs and the forensics device devs. As a side note, this would not necessarily be only used for law enforcement authorities. It could be that an…

You might not stand out but it would still be contempt of court. Not turning over evidence with a constitutional defense is easier to defend in court than malicious fake-compliance.