3 ms·
Fortunately that argument is being made in the NY case which is not the terrorism related case in CA.
by heartbreak 11y ago
Fortunately that argument is being made in the NY case which is not the terrorism related case in CA.
- MBCook 11y agoThe interesting thing in the CA case that's not getting a ton of play is the FBI has the support of the phones legal owner (a government agency) but the owner doesn't know the passcode in this situation. If the suspected terrorists owned the phone themselves, we'd also have the 5th amendment wrapped up in that case too.
- rosser 11y agoIf the suspected terrorists owned the phone themselves, we'd also have the 5th amendment wrapped up in that case too. No we wouldn't. The "suspected terrorists" are dead.
- lern_too_spel 11y agoNot all of them. Their neighbor is a suspected accomplice and is currently being investigated.
- rosser 11y agoIrrelevant. He has no 5th Amendment standing vis à vis the deceased shooter's work phone.
- lern_too_spel 11y agoThe what-if scenario was if the suspected terrorists owned the phone (as opposed to the deceased's employer). The living neighbor is a suspected terrorist. If he owned the phone and let his now-deceased neighbors borrow the phone, the complications mentioned above could arise.