3 ms·

Contempt is only supposed to be for when someone's action brings the mechanism of a trial to a halt. Refusing to do an action that the court thinks it's allowed

Contempt is only supposed to be for when someone's action brings the mechanism of a trial to a halt. Refusing to do an action that the court thinks it's allowed to compel you to do is an example. Say she waits two days. The phone won't be unlocked with a fingerprint now; it requires a passcode, and the court can't compel someone to provide a passcode in the same way that it can compel them to provide fingerprints. Contempt wouldn't be a valid charge anymore, at that point. If the judge won't recognize that, the prisoner/suspect could appeal. The above is my understanding of the theory of how it works. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it works differently in practice.

chris_wot 10y ago
Probably a ridiculous thought experiment, but I know folks have done similar things before, what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? Or something less permanent like dipping her thumb in acid to destroy the fingerprint surface - which would take weeks to heal. Would would the court do then? It sounds to me like fingerprint authentication is not something a criminal should use if they don't want to get caught. Apparently a passcode is protected under the Fifth Amendment but not a fingerprint. [1] But it's ridiculous really. All that a criminal needs to do is restart their phone to prevent their fingerprint from being used. And there are good reasons for doing so other than to escape incrimination! And that can be done from the lock screen... Imagine the criminal held down the power off button for three seconds then swiped, is that a crime? Perhaps that falls under spoliation of evidence, but then again how is not giving a passcode not considered spoliation? Apple should require a user configurable timeout for requiring of a passcode. I'm sure it normally takes more than two hours to interview and charge someone. 1. http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/31/fingerprints-not-protected-by-fifth-amendment/ http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/31/fingerprints-not-protect...
- khedoros 10y ago
  > what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? A contempt charge wouldn't hold any more (probably), but there's probably another charge that would apply, like spoliation of evidence [sorry, realized that you mentioned that charge further down in your comment]. > It sounds to me like fingerprint authentication is not something a criminal should use if they don't want to get caught. True. > Imagine the criminal held down the power off button for three seconds then swiped, is that a crime? It's also not normally a crime for her to mutilate her thumb or for me to wave a knife around if I believe I'm alone and don't intend to harm anyone. Motive and context matter. > but then again how is not giving a passcode not considered spoliation? The act of making the fingerprint unusable would be the spoliation, I suppose. Not giving the passcode would be protected under the 5th.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Sounds like obstruction of justice.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    As often happens, I've heard of this term but had to look it up. I think you are right, that is obstructing justice.
- xkcd-sucks 10y ago
  >what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? Or something less permanent like dipping her thumb in acid to destroy the fingerprint surface Sounds like intent to harm oneself, which gets one locked up in the loony bin until one demonstrates oneself to be of sound mind.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Not necessarily, thank goodness!

chris_wot 10y ago

Probably a ridiculous thought experiment, but I know folks have done similar things before, what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? Or something less permanent like dipping her thumb in acid to destroy the fingerprint surface - which would take weeks to heal. Would would the court do then? It sounds to me like fingerprint authentication is not something a criminal should use if they don't want to get caught. Apparently a passcode is protected under the Fifth Amendment but not a fingerprint. [1] But it's ridiculous really. All that a criminal needs to do is restart their phone to prevent their fingerprint from being used. And there are good reasons for doing so other than to escape incrimination! And that can be done from the lock screen... Imagine the criminal held down the power off button for three seconds then swiped, is that a crime? Perhaps that falls under spoliation of evidence, but then again how is not giving a passcode not considered spoliation? Apple should require a user configurable timeout for requiring of a passcode. I'm sure it normally takes more than two hours to interview and charge someone. 1. http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/31/fingerprints-not-protected-by-fifth-amendment/ http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/31/fingerprints-not-protect...

khedoros 10y ago
> what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? A contempt charge wouldn't hold any more (probably), but there's probably another charge that would apply, like spoliation of evidence [sorry, realized that you mentioned that charge further down in your comment]. > It sounds to me like fingerprint authentication is not something a criminal should use if they don't want to get caught. True. > Imagine the criminal held down the power off button for three seconds then swiped, is that a crime? It's also not normally a crime for her to mutilate her thumb or for me to wave a knife around if I believe I'm alone and don't intend to harm anyone. Motive and context matter. > but then again how is not giving a passcode not considered spoliation? The act of making the fingerprint unusable would be the spoliation, I suppose. Not giving the passcode would be protected under the 5th.
mywittyname 10y ago
Sounds like obstruction of justice.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  As often happens, I've heard of this term but had to look it up. I think you are right, that is obstructing justice.
xkcd-sucks 10y ago
>what if she cut off her thumb and disposed of it in such a way that it was irretrievable? Or something less permanent like dipping her thumb in acid to destroy the fingerprint surface Sounds like intent to harm oneself, which gets one locked up in the loony bin until one demonstrates oneself to be of sound mind.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Not necessarily, thank goodness!