3 ms·

>In many situations you cannot be forced to provide evidence that would be used against you or information which would lead to such evidence. I would go further

>In many situations you cannot be forced to provide evidence that would be used against you or information which would lead to such evidence. I would go further and say that in all cases you shouldn't be required to provide such information. If you have illegal materials in your home, and the cops present a warrant to search your house, should you have the right to shut the door and not let them in?

rbritton 7y ago
You should not be required to assist them. If they can get in on their own with a warrant, that's fair game.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  An online persona soliciting child pornography has their IP traced to an individual with a criminal history, registered on a sexual offender database. The police have probable cause to believe this individual has and distributes child pornography. A judge signs a warrant to perform a forensic search of the individual's hard drive. The individual refuses. So then, it's just tough shit for the police right? Given that they can't get in on their own with a warrant.
cannonedhamster 7y ago
I mean, you've got the right to not answer the door. They just have the right to break the door down because of the lawful warrant. You don't have to help with your own incarceration, i.e. point out evidence they were unable to find, why would you be expected to do the same thing on their phone? Police can't force people to testify either. If your only evidence of a crime rests on the defendent's compliance you've got a poor case. If you can't tie an IP to a device on a specific date and time without forcing someone to open their own device and admit guilt and ownership, then you're really not trying hard enough. The only way that the police can prove who committed a crime on a cell phone that is encrypted is either admission of ownership or compulsion. Neither of which is evidence of a crime in and of itself. They would still have to prove that the person who owned the phone committed the crime, otherwise why have the burden of proof on the prosecutor? These aren't civil cases we're generally talking about where the evidence requirement is lighter these are criminal cases where, as far as I understand anyways, the burdens are much higher. Add to that a cell phone is essentially a tracking device. While your position is certainly a reasonable one to take, I don't think it truly encapsulates the intent of our court system as designed and in fact expressly works against innocent until proven guilty.

rbritton 7y ago

You should not be required to assist them. If they can get in on their own with a warrant, that's fair game.

oarabbus_ 7y ago
An online persona soliciting child pornography has their IP traced to an individual with a criminal history, registered on a sexual offender database. The police have probable cause to believe this individual has and distributes child pornography. A judge signs a warrant to perform a forensic search of the individual's hard drive. The individual refuses. So then, it's just tough shit for the police right? Given that they can't get in on their own with a warrant.

cannonedhamster 7y ago

I mean, you've got the right to not answer the door. They just have the right to break the door down because of the lawful warrant. You don't have to help with your own incarceration, i.e. point out evidence they were unable to find, why would you be expected to do the same thing on their phone? Police can't force people to testify either. If your only evidence of a crime rests on the defendent's compliance you've got a poor case. If you can't tie an IP to a device on a specific date and time without forcing someone to open their own device and admit guilt and ownership, then you're really not trying hard enough. The only way that the police can prove who committed a crime on a cell phone that is encrypted is either admission of ownership or compulsion. Neither of which is evidence of a crime in and of itself. They would still have to prove that the person who owned the phone committed the crime, otherwise why have the burden of proof on the prosecutor? These aren't civil cases we're generally talking about where the evidence requirement is lighter these are criminal cases where, as far as I understand anyways, the burdens are much higher. Add to that a cell phone is essentially a tracking device. While your position is certainly a reasonable one to take, I don't think it truly encapsulates the intent of our court system as designed and in fact expressly works against innocent until proven guilty.