Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules::Phone-unlocking case law is “total mess,” may be ripe for Supreme Court review.

  • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not complicated at all. The constitution guarantees the right that no one be compelled to testify against themselves.

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is complicated in the US because of biometrics and the wide use of contempt citations. If you “forget” your password, you can be held in contempt and jailed for up to 18 months (I missed that; last I knew it was indefinite). Biometrics and other “something you are” items can be forcibly taken (eg your fingerprints or retinal scans) with full legal backing. Your perspective, while laudable, only exists in the potential future orgs like the EFF and ACLU are fighting to create. It is very wrong today.

      • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t understand the USA law that well, probably not a good thing because I’ve lived here my whole life, but don’t the Miranda rights say “you have the right to remain silent” and the 5th amendment says you have the right to not answer any questions that would self incriminate yourself? The police can’t legally compell a private citizen to tell them a phone passcode or anything and I think any defense lawyer would immediately call out a judge who posed the threat of contemp over this.

        • thesmokingman@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          IANAL. I recommend you start with the link I shared and the OP article which has a massive number of links to related cases (included the one I shared). The basics, as I understand them, is that being compelled to share a password and being compelled to give details of a crime you committed are viewed differently by the law.

          • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Last I looked at it, it was like having a safe. They can take the safe and break in.

            If the safe is locked by a key. They can subpoena a key since it’s a physical object. It’s something you have, not something you know. If you’re phone is locked by biometrics, it’s something you have. They can force you to give them something you have.

            If the safe is locked with a combination, they cannot force you to talk. You have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate yourself. If your phone is locked with a pin or passcode, it’s a similar concept.

            However, things get murky, because if we stay with the safe analogy, and they know you have a specific document or item in that safe. They can subpoena that specific document and you may be compelled to provide the document, although maybe not the combination.

            Anyway, long story short. Shit is weird and not cut and dry.