Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I live in a country with 4 times more homicides than the US after adjusting for population. Our laws state very clearly that the police does not get much extra immunity either (although, corruption gets in the way there), and our courts have no trouble at all to discard any piece of information the police acquires while they have a gun pointed at somebody's head. I really don't understand how the US justice…
The police in the US can point a gun at you and get you to comply, but if you think the courts are going to accept evidence collected while that gun is unholstered, then you definitely don't understand the justice system here. That's probably the single easiest win for a defense attorney in court.
Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
351–360 of 615 posts
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
A police officer compels you to turn over a password at gunpoint. You do so in an act of self preservation. Will any evidence acquired as a result be admissable in court?
Well if the officer lies and says you gave it willingly, I imagine yes!
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole 250 comment thread is basically people discussing what they'd do or what you should do when finding yourself in a police encounter. My counterpoint is that none of that discussion actually applies. As for most people wanting it that way, I think it is because most people have not actually encountered it. They want it in the abstract, likely not so much when it happens to them. Kind of the classic...the peo…
This is a very USian take. There are many countries in the world where people aren't scared to death when police come knock on their door. There are many countries where police officers are actually scared of using their weapon. In these countries it helps to know the law and how to deal with these situations.
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. A corrupt cop is unstoppable, especially one with a corrupt municipality supporting their behavior. However, like netsec, it is a matter of lots of small steps. Asserting "I do not consent to this search" aloud may not stop the search, but it can be used it court, where it may not matter, or it might. The point is, you have to protect yourself. Maybe someone caught recording of you saying that which sho…
This is why, in a just society, the penalties for corruption and abuse of power for LEOs should be extreme. Same goes for elected officials I suppose, but abuse of the state's threat of violence is antithetical to a free society.
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#355"In Valdez, the defendant was charged with kidnapping his ex-girlfriend after arranging a meeting under false pretenses. " 'Valdez' is not going to be arbitrarily charged with kidnapping, he'll have the ex-girlfriend as a primary witness. If I were innocent and accused of kidnapping someone I'd check with my lawyer and then hand over my phone because it would exonerate me. I'm inclined with the ruling, but let's be p…
> If I were innocent and accused of kidnapping someone I'd check with my lawyer and then hand over my phone because it would exonerate me. I think it's very unlikely that there would be any exculpatory evidence on the phone of someone wrongly accused of kidnapping. It's way more likely that there would be something innocent that can be used as an indication of guilt by the prosecution. I can't imagine any lawyer advi…
...
"I think it's very unlikely that there would be any exculpatory evidence on the phone of someone wrongly accused of kidnapping. It's way more likely that there would be something innocent that can be used as an indication of guilt by the prosecution. "
First, this is kind of besides the point.
Second, it's likely false.
GPS location information is collected by many apps, that right there is quite a lot of good evidence.
Also, communications. That I was writing a long business email to my colleagues indicating the list of 30 or so outstanding bugs in our new delivery software, while I was supposed to be 'kidnapping' someone, isn't going to help their case.
"It sounds like you are assuming that the defendant is guilty. "
I'm assuming that someone charged with kidnapping where the person kidnapped is still alive to identify them - is probably guilty, yes. Because that's reality. Obviously, he may not be, but I'm not judging here, this is all besides the point when we're using it as an anecdote.
Someone charged with kidnapping has a very reasonable likelihood of actually being guilty, which is why we allow police to look at records.
"It should never be legal to force someone to give up passwords or otherwise aid in their own prosecution. "
Ideological rubbish.
It's shameful the magical, academic thinking, detached from the reality of crime and victimization, especially among the hacker crowd.
If there is reasonable grounds that evidence exists somewhere, then the authorities should be able to examine that evidence with oversight and due process.
In this case, it looks pretty much like this guy is guilty, and getting off on a technicality i.e. 'the jury was influenced because of his unwillingness to provide evidence' is total rubbish.
Everyone here is effectively arguing to let someone who literally kidnapped someone at the point of a gun, and cut her face, off on a technicality. It's shameful.
....
FYI this is the guy:
"Valdez and Ex-Girlfriend dated and cohabited for a timein 2017 and, as Ex-Girlfriend recounted it, their relationship was a volatile one. She described Valdez as accusatory and violent, sometimes hitting and choking her, other times confining her in a locked room and once beating her so severely that her injuries required hospitalization. After their relationship ended, Ex-Girlfriend moved out of Valdez’s apartment, but Valdez continued to contact her via phone and text message.Ex-Girlfriend maintained that, after they parted ways, she largely tried to keep her distance from Valdez but acknowledged that she had willingly seen him “a couple times” after their breakup, but before the incident at issue here occurred. ¶3About two months after their relationship ended, Valdez sent Ex-Girlfriend a text message telling her he had some mail to give her and asking her to meet him.Although Ex-Girlfriend had concerns about meeting Valdez, she thought it was “nice of him” to reach out for the purpose of passing along her mail, and she “had hope” that their meeting “would be decent.” Ex-Girlfriend told Valdez to meet her early one morning near her workplaceafter she finished her night shift. When Valdez pulled up in an SUV, Ex-Girlfriend approached the passenger side of the vehicle. She later testified that when she leaned into the open passenger-side window to speak to Valdez, he pulled out a revolver and told her to get in the car. Frightened, she complied, and Valdez began driving. ¶4After Ex-Girlfriend got in the vehicle, Valdez told her “how stupid [she] was” for agreeing to meet him before saying, “I hope you have talked to your kids today, because you are not going to get away from me this time.” Valdez also pulled out a twelve-inch knife, which he wedged, blade pointed upward, between Ex-Girlfriend and the vehicle’s center console. Ex-Girlfriend testified that, as Valdez drove, he held the gun in his left hand, hit her in the head with it, and struck her “several times in the head and face” with his other hand. He also demanded that she give him her phone and purse, which she did, and that she take off her clothes, a demand she perceived asan attempt to prevent her from escaping. Other than beginning to unlace her shoes, she did not remove her clothing. ¶5At one point, while the vehicle was stopped, Valdez dislodged the knife and ran it down Ex-Girlfriend’s face, cutting her lip. Ex-Girlfriend testified that, soon thereafter, she went into “survival mode,” and began attempting to get out of the vehicle, an endeavor Valdez impeded by putting his hand around her throat and holding on to her hair. Eventually, Ex-Girlfriend was able to spin out of Valdez’s grip, open the car door, and exit the vehicle. She then ran toward nearby houses, first knocking on a door and receiving no answer, and then attempting to flag down a passing vehicle. Finally, Ex-Girlfriend noticed a woman (Witness) standing on a nearby front porch and made her way toward that house. ¶6Ex-Girlfriend explained to Witness that she was trying to escape from Valdez, and that Valdez had a knife and a gun and was trying to kill her. Ex-Girlfriend did not mention any injuries, and Witness did not see any blood on Ex-Girlfriend. Witness called the police, and a detective (First Detective) soon arrived and took statements from both Witness and Ex-Girlfriend. "
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should you encounter, at some point in your life, a situation where a police officer is pointing a gun at you, you will do whatever the fuck they are telling you to do. That's the grim reality. I'm not sure if that's grim, though; don't most people want it to be exactly that way? We grant the police extraordinary power and some amount of immunity on purpose .
> [D]on't most people want it to be exactly that way? The people who are not having police encounters with any regularity, who aren't drawn on when they do get pulled over, who perhaps have property or other reasons to be invested in the status quo, often want things this way. The people on the wrong side of the gun feel differently. Giving cops lethal power does not create safety. It shifts around what the danger is…
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#357Nothing stopping them from holding it up to your face to unlock it, though, right?
It's probably the only thing I would ever call an insecurity feature.
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the recently-departed administration in the U.S. has done a good job of helping bullies self-select themselves into its party.
I find that bullies can be found in equal proportions in both parties, but I do agree that the type of bully who is willing to walk the street with a gun in the name of justice does have a more welcoming home in one major party than the other.
Their life experience is dealing with the disproportionately bad aspects of society, just like you probably have a disproportionately good existence. There are assumptions and biases that come from both these exposure models.
And maybe it’s just a problem with their delivery, but if you hear a political party (unfortunately the loudmouth fringe more often than not) incessantly talking about how you suck, should be presumed to be an evil murderer, and advocate policies that you feel put your daily safety at further risk, you might rethink your donations and voting history as well. Not defending the bad cultures and actors whatsoever, but there’s more room for nuance in discussing the issues we have policing this large, individualistic, culturally heterogenous, heavily medicated and critically unmedicated country. The problem is a hard one, so easy simple answers should be viewed with skepticism. There is no “just do what Norway does” answer to the problem that can be made in good faith.
Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#359Re: Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should you encounter, at some point in your life, a situation where a police officer is pointing a gun at you, you will do whatever the fuck they are telling you to do. That's the grim reality. I'm not sure if that's grim, though; don't most people want it to be exactly that way? We grant the police extraordinary power and some amount of immunity on purpose .
> [D]on't most people want it to be exactly that way? The people who are not having police encounters with any regularity, who aren't drawn on when they do get pulled over, who perhaps have property or other reasons to be invested in the status quo, often want things this way. The people on the wrong side of the gun feel differently. Giving cops lethal power does not create safety. It shifts around what the danger is…
We're up to something like 1/3 of the population having some kind of criminal record, though, so the balance could tip in the coming years. The culture wars we are experiencing right now may be a manifestation of that.