3 ms·

This is the right call, once you realize that the article buries the lede - this only happens when the phone contents are deemed relevant to the investigation.

This is the right call, once you realize that the article buries the lede - this only happens when the phone contents are deemed relevant to the investigation. If a complaining witness refuses to cooperate in an investigation by handing over relevant information, it would be inappropriate for the government to proceed toward a prosecution. In the United States, there is case law requiring the prosecution to turn over exculpatory material known to the government. In my jurisdiction, that specifically includes the existence of relevant exculpatory material held by a complaining witness. The fact that the only person capable of providing that evidence refuses to do so allows the drawing of an adverse inference, which means it's presumptively exculpatory. Refusal to turn over exculpatory evidence is per se a violation of the defendant's rights. Sexual assaults of all kinds are horrific, and we should generally do a better job investigating and prosecuting them, but not at the expense of basic due process rights. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
>this only happens when the phone contents are deemed relevant to the investigation Perhaps you stopped reading the article part way through? > Olivia (not her real name) reported being drugged and attacked by strangers. Police asked for seven years of phone data, and her case was dropped after she refused. “My phone documents many of the most personal moments in my life and the thought of strangers combing through it, to try to use it against me, makes me feel like I’m being violated once again,” she said. “This isn’t about trying to stop the police from putting together the facts of the case. This isn’t about objecting to the police downloading information from the time that it happened. This is about objecting to the police downloading seven years of information that pre-dates the event and therefore has zero relevance. “I kept trying to ask them if the data that they took could be restricted just to the period of time of relevance to what actually happened, and they said no. “They told me that if I didn’t consent, they may just drop the case and may not proceed with it. They have now dropped the case citing one of the reasons being that I have not handed over seven years of my personal life which is of complete and utter irrelevance to that one night. “I am willing to hand over the information that is relevant to what happened – I’m not willing to hand over seven years’ worth of information that is totally and utterly irrelevant.”
- bleah1000 6y ago
  But how would you enforce only downloading the relevant data? How do you get only the data you think is relevant before looking at the data? It could be the police couldn't agree that they wouldn't download more than they need because they simply do not have the expertise to be able to not download it all, and then process it afterwards. At the very least, someone would probably have to look at huge chunks of the data. And depending on how UK courts work, they may be required to get everything. In the US, you would probably still have to get it all, but the prosecutor would likely be able to limit what was turned over to the defense. And if the defense wanted more, they might be able to get a neutral third-party to look at the data and decide whether it should be turned over (or the judge might do this). I don't know if the UK has something similar where the prosecutor can avoid turning all data over to the defense. It might be that there is no good way to handle this type of case.
  - mydongle 6y ago
    Just #BelieveWomen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football...
  - whack 6y ago
    When I'm victimized and want to press charges against my assailant, I should only have to provide any and all evidence that I have against the assailant. The police can then decide whether or not to pursue the case, based on the strength of the evidence I've provided. In no sane world should the victim be expected to expose ALL of her private information. It's the digital equivalent of getting robbed in a dark alley, and the cops telling you they will drop the case unless you allow them to search your home.
    - torstenvl 6y ago
      So if I go to the police and give a statement to the effect of "whack assaulted me in an alley!" you're okay with a system where I don't have to substantiate that complaint any further or hand over my phone (to determine whether we were on a date, flirting, sexting, or I had sole motive to fabricate an allegation), but you can be interrogated, your electronic devices confiscated and searched, your friends and relatives called and interviewed, all based on an allegation I refused to provide information for? As a general rule, the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving it. This general rule is even more important in the context of criminal allegations. I don't think there should be an exception just because of the sexes of the complaining witness and the subject of the complaint.

ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago

>this only happens when the phone contents are deemed relevant to the investigation Perhaps you stopped reading the article part way through? > Olivia (not her real name) reported being drugged and attacked by strangers. Police asked for seven years of phone data, and her case was dropped after she refused. “My phone documents many of the most personal moments in my life and the thought of strangers combing through it, to try to use it against me, makes me feel like I’m being violated once again,” she said. “This isn’t about trying to stop the police from putting together the facts of the case. This isn’t about objecting to the police downloading information from the time that it happened. This is about objecting to the police downloading seven years of information that pre-dates the event and therefore has zero relevance. “I kept trying to ask them if the data that they took could be restricted just to the period of time of relevance to what actually happened, and they said no. “They told me that if I didn’t consent, they may just drop the case and may not proceed with it. They have now dropped the case citing one of the reasons being that I have not handed over seven years of my personal life which is of complete and utter irrelevance to that one night. “I am willing to hand over the information that is relevant to what happened – I’m not willing to hand over seven years’ worth of information that is totally and utterly irrelevant.”

bleah1000 6y ago
But how would you enforce only downloading the relevant data? How do you get only the data you think is relevant before looking at the data? It could be the police couldn't agree that they wouldn't download more than they need because they simply do not have the expertise to be able to not download it all, and then process it afterwards. At the very least, someone would probably have to look at huge chunks of the data. And depending on how UK courts work, they may be required to get everything. In the US, you would probably still have to get it all, but the prosecutor would likely be able to limit what was turned over to the defense. And if the defense wanted more, they might be able to get a neutral third-party to look at the data and decide whether it should be turned over (or the judge might do this). I don't know if the UK has something similar where the prosecutor can avoid turning all data over to the defense. It might be that there is no good way to handle this type of case.
- mydongle 6y ago
  Just #BelieveWomen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football...
- whack 6y ago
  When I'm victimized and want to press charges against my assailant, I should only have to provide any and all evidence that I have against the assailant. The police can then decide whether or not to pursue the case, based on the strength of the evidence I've provided. In no sane world should the victim be expected to expose ALL of her private information. It's the digital equivalent of getting robbed in a dark alley, and the cops telling you they will drop the case unless you allow them to search your home.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    So if I go to the police and give a statement to the effect of "whack assaulted me in an alley!" you're okay with a system where I don't have to substantiate that complaint any further or hand over my phone (to determine whether we were on a date, flirting, sexting, or I had sole motive to fabricate an allegation), but you can be interrogated, your electronic devices confiscated and searched, your friends and relatives called and interviewed, all based on an allegation I refused to provide information for? As a general rule, the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving it. This general rule is even more important in the context of criminal allegations. I don't think there should be an exception just because of the sexes of the complaining witness and the subject of the complaint.