4 ms·
None of those Fourth Amendment concerns are at play. What is at stake are the limits of the Fifth Amendment. I think there's more here than just that, but tha
by sbuttgereit 10y ago
None of those Fourth Amendment concerns are at play. What is at stake are the limits of the Fifth Amendment. I think there's more here than just that, but that's the more interesting part.... and may well be "ugly".
If you can be forced to divulge something that you know in order to convict yourself, where exactly do you draw the line? Yes, revealing a password that you know isn't exactly forced confession, but there are a lot of stops along that path that are short of being forced to confess and yet probably prejudicial against yourself. So what is the right being defended and are the current boundaries appropriate?
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago> revealing a password that you know isn't exactly forced confession Revealing a password reveals that you knew the password. It's admitting to having access to the device. There is also the obvious problem when you don't know the password. It's manifestly unreasonable to punish someone for not doing something they can't actually do. But if not knowing is unconditionally a valid excuse then this is all a just hair splitting exercise to determine how defendants will phrase the refusal. And if it's only conditionally a valid excuse then you're back to forcing someone to testify as to why they don't know the password (e.g. admitting "that's not my phone").
- danenania 10y agoPeople forget their passwords all the time, even after using them regularly for long periods of time. Unless we want to risk keeping people in prison their whole lives in order to compel information they simply don't have, wouldn't a simple 'I forgot' have to suffice, even if it's for a device proven to belong to the suspect?