3 ms·
Forcing someone to provide evidence is not a 5th amendment violation. Law enforcement can require that a person hand over all sorts of evidence: documents, phys
by harryh 9y ago
Forcing someone to provide evidence is not a 5th amendment violation. Law enforcement can require that a person hand over all sorts of evidence: documents, physical artifacts, even a person's own blood.
- Clubber 9y agoSorry, provide evidence from his mind was probably a better way of saying that.
- harryh 9y agoLots of evidence can come from your mind. The location of a document, the passcode on a safe. What makes these things similar to an encryption key and different from other types of testimony is that they only unlock information that already exists outside of the witnesses's head so they aren't subject to the same prohibitions under the 5th amendment.
- Clubber 9y agoThe compelling of revealing a safe's combination is protected in prior cases (I liked on earlier in this thread but I'll quote it again) We do not disagree with the dissent that “[t]he expression of the contents of an individual’s mind” is testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. … We simply disagree with the dissent’s conclusion that the execution of the consent directive at issue here forced petitioner to express the contents of his mind. In our view, such compulsion is more like “be[ing] forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents” than it is like “be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to [petitioner’s] wall safe.” Of course, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it as far as I know, but it's an interesting case. I'd like the SCOTUS to rule on it.