4 ms·
> The suspect appealed the indefinite prison sentence twice, but both appeals failed. His lawyers tried to argue that holding him breaches his Fifth Amendment r
by lsaferite 9y ago
> The suspect appealed the indefinite prison sentence twice, but both appeals failed. His lawyers tried to argue that holding him breaches his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself, but appeal judges did not see it that way. Judges pointed out that the Fifth Amendment only applies to witnesses and that the prosecutors didn't call him as a witness but only made a request for him to unlock his device, hence Fifth Amendment protections did not apply.
> The government also said that Rawls doesn't have to provide them with his password anymore, as they only need him to perform the act of unlocking the hard drive.
Those two statements seem at great odds. If the government actually knows the password now, the only thing having the defendant himself unlock it does is make it some sort of testimonial fact. The prosecution will use the fact that the defendant unlocked the device himself a point to the jury.
- ameliaquining 9y agoThey don't know his password. They're claiming that they're not asking him to tell them what the password is, only to enter it into the computer, and that this makes it not a Fifth Amendment violation.
- dTal 9y agoI think you misread; the government doesn't know the password. Nor are they interested in the password, per se; they are interested in the contents of the suspect's hard drive. Therefore, rather than ask for the password itself, which is information contained in his head and therefore arguably "testimony", they are merely compelling him to perform an "action" in decrypting the drive; he is free to keep the secret of the password itself.
- lsaferite 9y agoI find that so wrong I guess. The act of decrypting the drive is "testimonial" itself, even without providing the password to a third party. But yes, I agree that I misunderstood what they were saying.