5 ms·

> The updated law makes clear that travellers must provide access - whether that be a password, pin-code or fingerprint - but officials would need to have a rea

> The updated law makes clear that travellers must provide access - whether that be a password, pin-code or fingerprint - but officials would need to have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Does the Law in NZ have any provisions against self-incrimination? The US has the 5th Amendment, some countries in the Americas signed the American Convention on Human Rights. How does NZ deal with this issue? Can't it be considered that providing a password to a safe or personal device is akin to being a witness against oneself?

debacle 8y ago
The 5th amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens and doesn't mean as a US citizen that your device can't be confiscated on potentially frivolous suspicions.
- css 8y ago
  In America the Bill of Rights applies to all people, irrespective of immigration status when dealing with criminal law. Immigration law is administrative, not criminal, which is why this behavior is allowed to occur in the States.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  The 5th amendment doesn't apply to citizens, either. It applies to the government. And the instructions to the government make no mention of citizenship status. "...nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The 4th amendment likewise applies to the government, and makes no mention of citizenship. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The 14th amendment: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The government, of course, holds that physical searches at border crossings are reasonable searches, and therefore do not require warrants. Since Riley v. California (2014), SCotUS established that searching the data contents of electronic devices is unreasonable to do after an arrest, and therefore requires probable cause and warrant. They still have not applied that to searches of border-crossers' electronics, and different federal appeals circuits currently hold different positions on it. Hopefully, SCotUS will soon rule that forensic analysis of electronics at border crossings requires individualized suspicion, but the current nominee debacle does not give me much confidence.
cheeko1234 8y ago
I might be wrong on this but according to this updated video[0] by James Duane, things have changed considerably due to Obama and a recent Supreme Court decision and even using the 5th improperly can be used against you. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
hugh-avherald 8y ago
The law specifically says self-incrimination is not a reasonable excuse.

debacle 8y ago

The 5th amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens and doesn't mean as a US citizen that your device can't be confiscated on potentially frivolous suspicions.

css 8y ago
In America the Bill of Rights applies to all people, irrespective of immigration status when dealing with criminal law. Immigration law is administrative, not criminal, which is why this behavior is allowed to occur in the States.
logfromblammo 8y ago
The 5th amendment doesn't apply to citizens, either. It applies to the government. And the instructions to the government make no mention of citizenship status. "...nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The 4th amendment likewise applies to the government, and makes no mention of citizenship. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The 14th amendment: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The government, of course, holds that physical searches at border crossings are reasonable searches, and therefore do not require warrants. Since Riley v. California (2014), SCotUS established that searching the data contents of electronic devices is unreasonable to do after an arrest, and therefore requires probable cause and warrant. They still have not applied that to searches of border-crossers' electronics, and different federal appeals circuits currently hold different positions on it. Hopefully, SCotUS will soon rule that forensic analysis of electronics at border crossings requires individualized suspicion, but the current nominee debacle does not give me much confidence.

cheeko1234 8y ago

I might be wrong on this but according to this updated video[0] by James Duane, things have changed considerably due to Obama and a recent Supreme Court decision and even using the 5th improperly can be used against you. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8

hugh-avherald 8y ago

The law specifically says self-incrimination is not a reasonable excuse.