8 ms·

This happened to me. The police wanted my password and refused my right to silence, wouldn't let me call a lawyer. I wouldn't talk. Then they threatened my wife

This happened to me. The police wanted my password and refused my right to silence, wouldn't let me call a lawyer. I wouldn't talk. Then they threatened my wife and I gave up my password to stop them from hurting her. The password was suppressed by the court, but they let the police use it anyway because one of the officers (with no formal computer qualifications) testified he could have broken 2048-bit AES encryption without the password. And worse case he said he would unsolder the chips off the circuit board and put them onto another board and that would fix it. The judge allowed the testimony and believed it. Make sure you always use a password on your devices though. Biometrics are not protected by the 5th Amendment in the USA as the police can legally force your finger onto a touchpad or hold your face in front of a camera.

BeefySwain 5y ago
Did you appeal? Or reach out to the ACLU or EFF? I'll admit I'm somewhat skeptical of your account, but if true I would expect a post demonstrating so would be on the front page of this site quite quickly.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Where I live you can only appeal once you're found guilty at a trial. The case is over 8 years old now and I still haven't had trial. I would hope the appeal court would reverse, but I've had about a dozen cases wrongly denied by the appellate courts recently. The appellate courts are pretty much as biased as the trial courts, especially at the state level. The federal courts are a little bit smarter. I've tried talking to the ACLU and EFF in the past but received no replies.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    Wait, you are part to or accused in about 12 cases?!
    - IceWreck 5y ago
      Now I'm wondering what he does for a living. Maybe he's an activist or something/.
      - xanaxagoras 5y ago
        How do you make a living as an activist?
        kag0 5y ago
        https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
      - kingcharles 5y ago
        I made money while I was in jail by suing the jail for all their rights violations. But my day job has been web development since the 90s.
        BingoAhoy 5y ago
        Would you mind going into detail about the right violations lawsuit please? I'm very interested in how you had success and what were the specific violations. I'm very sorry to hear how your life got turned upside down for a victimless felony. Makes me sick we cage people for some fabricated rule invented by some out of touch legislators.
        kingcharles 5y ago
        I think I filed about 60 cases in total. So, off the top of my head... one that is still ongoing is that newspapers are banned inside the Cook County Jail for "security" reasons. You actually have a Constitutional right to access newspapers under the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't stop an agency from blocking this right and then making you sue them. The primary reasons given by detention facilities for blocking newspapers are fire, flooding, gang information and hidden messages in classifieds. The argument is that newspapers are easy to burn, that you can block the toilets with them, that you can find out what gang members are upto and that you can get messages from the outside (all communications are monitored in custody). These excuses used to be taken as gospel by the courts, but lately there has been a little pushback from the rare judge. Fires have been ruled out - you usually have books, magazines, legal work that you can burn instead. Flooding is ruled out - you can use clothing, towels, sheets, blankets instead, and of course, other paper goods. Messages can be hidden inside magazine ads too, and magazines are usually allowed. Gang information - well, you can get this from the TV and telephone. I don't know a single gang member who wants a newspaper to get gang information. They just call their people on the telephone. This was a similar suit won against the same jail a few years ago: http://archive.today/2021.10.23-004355/https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/jun/3/newspaper-ban-cook-county-jail-violates-first-amendment/ http://archive.today/2021.10.23-004355/https://www.prisonleg... One suit I won $1000 for was because I used a Freedom of Information law to try to get the disciplinary record of my arresting officer because the prosecutor told me he was bogus. I tried three times and the police refused to reply, so I sued and asked them to settle immediately. They gave me the records and offered me $500. I asked for $1300 and said I wanted them to bring me Five Guys cheeseburger and fries to the jail. They replied $1000 and "lunch is not part of the deal." So I got the cash at least. They were giving us 45 minutes less sleep than they should, and an hour less than they should out of our cells during the day. I won that, which was a big logistical nightmare for the jail and sent me to the Hole for the 2nd time with a fake contraband charge. I sued because they put you in the Hole without giving you a hearing to determine if you are guilty of any infraction. I lost that in the trial court and appeal court. They ruled that pretrial detainees can be punished for any reason without any justification. I sued because county sheriffs in Illinois aren't bound by any limits on punishment. I'll explain. Crimes are regulated by statutes which tell you exactly what you should not do, in detail, and the punishment expected if you commit them. These statutes are written by democratically-elected lawmakers. In county jails the sheriffs make up all the "crimes" and the punishment. Anything they say is a crime. And they can assign any punishment. Therefore if you "cause a disturbance" (one stated crime which is so vague it can mean anything) they can punish you by sending you to the Hole. But they could also just get out a knife and chop your hand off. Or they could just shoot you dead on the spot. There is nothing to protect you right now. I sued to limit this, but the courts said the constitutional protections on proportional punishments (punishment must fit the crime) under the Illinois and federal constitutions do not apply to pretrial detainees in Illinois. I tried to get workers comp for the people in the kitchen who had lost their fingers in the meatball-making machine, but the statute requires that you must be a "person performing a service for the Sheriff" to get workers comp and the Attorney General basically ruled that detainees do not fit the legal definition of a "person". I could go on all night LOL
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Sounds like a nightmare, but also unsurprising based on my limited experiences. I hope you are outside the statue of limitations or speedy trial window by now.
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      Statute of limitations only applies to charging someone, not after they've been charged. Speedy trial doesn't apply in almost any situation you can think of. It's almost impossible to beat a case on speedy trial grounds. All my speedy trial motions have been denied so far, most recently because of COVID. I'm still working this angle though.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I wasn't sure if they formally charged you. My state says they have 5 years to complete the trial (or maybe initiate after charging). Good luck!
        kingcharles 5y ago
        Thank you!
andrei_says_ 5y ago
> Biometrics are not protected by the 5th Amendment in the USA as the police can legally force your finger onto a touchpad or hold your face in front of a camera. Where can I read about this distinction?
- kingcharles 5y ago
  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/compelled-biometric-access-legal-under-4th-5th-amendments https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/compelled-biometri...
bleachedsleet 5y ago
Also, if you do use biometrics and ever find yourself in a sticky situation most modern operating systems have built in features to quickly disable them on demand. iOS, for example, allows you to quickly disable Face/Touch ID by holding the side+any volume button for two seconds and then quickly tap the side button again when the shutdown slide appears.
- zizee 5y ago
  If you are ever expecting to be in a situation where a) you have incriminating evidence on you phone, and b) have reason to believe the police will likely try and get access to it at some unpredictable time in the future, I think you'd just be wise to not use biometrics at all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Probably won't have time. I had a loaded gun pointed at my head and told not to touch my phone. Had every reason to believe they would have fired.
  - HeavyStorm 5y ago
    Nobody else is going to ask the parent what was that?
  - DantesKite 5y ago
    Why did the police point a gun at your head?
    - atatatat 5y ago
      United States
  - boppo1 5y ago
    You have to tell this story.
q1w2 5y ago
> he said he would unsolder the chips off the circuit board and put them onto another board ... The judge allowed the testimony and believed it. I've experienced similar issues with judges. When evidence hinges on something very technical - they generally allow it and place the burden of arguing it on the defense. ...which often allows any other evidence gotten by that means. ...and even if/when it's struck out - the prosecutor uses some parallel construction argument to say they could have gotten the evidence through another means. ...and the judge usually accepts that too. The prosecutor also then takes things like hearsay, circumstantial evidence, and literal misrepresentations to build a seemingly huge case against the defendant. It's a form of intimidation to accept a plea deal. I've seen TONS of defendants admit to crimes they didn't commit in plea deals, just because it's such a huge and long uphill battle to fight every single bogus charge. These aren't straight up innocent or perfect people. They're usually guilty of something minor - like small-time possession / solicitation / parole violation / DUI / etc... But what happens is that when you're guilty of anything, the judge treats you like you're guilty of EVERYTHING, and the prosecutor loads up the charges with anything they can think of to take advantage of that. Most defense attorneys hate these cases because clients can't pay, so they encourage them to settle for a plea deal - even if it includes admitting to stuff they didn't do. ...and most defendants accept it so they can move on with their lives and avoid prison time. So yeah, people with money hire $700/hr attorneys, and they absolutely make things go away. Even prosecutors drastically change demeanor when they see a defendant with a high-priced lawyer, because the prosecutor doesn't want to invest a lot of time on any specific case - and doesn't want his office or the police/investigators to be held up to scrutiny with various subpoenas - so charges drop off much more easily, and/or defendants get off with misdemeanor in a good plea deals. The point of this story is to help shed some naiveté that you might have about the system ultimately being fair - even through the long and expensive appeals process. It isn't. ...and most defendants don't have the time or money to pursue appeals. And moreover, when tech is involved, it is markedly even less fair because the judge doesn't understand the tech, and so will believe whatever BS the prosecutor makes up.
- gknoy 5y ago
  > $700/hr attorneys How many hours of attorney-work should one expect to budget for?
efleurine 5y ago
Good to know. I'm am getting rid of biometrics asap
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Yeah, it's a pain-in-the-ass to always have to enter a code to open your phone, but I'd rather suffer that than have the cops hold my face in front of the phone to open it up.
  - subhro 5y ago
    You can keep your eyes closed or not look at the phone. I believe iOS needs your attention to allow biometrics. And a few times it fails, it will require the password.
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      I guess the police would just force your eyes open. They would be allowed to drug you in this situation too. The police most often use this kind of power in DUI cases where they extract your blood forceably. In the terms and conditions of your driver's licences in the USA most of them say that you agree to allow the police to do this.
novok 5y ago
Im guessing you were not allowed to produce your own expert witness then? Or couldn’t afford it?
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Right. Could not afford it. And the court is supposed to appoint one for you. The reality was that my lawyer and I were caught off-guard because the police shouldn't have been able to testify like that. My lawyer objected, but the judge overruled.
twirlock 5y ago
Thank you for sharing your story. It provides yet more evidence that no one should interact with police under any circumstance if it is at all avoidable.
KronisLV 5y ago
> Make sure you always use a password on your devices though. Biometrics are not protected by the 5th Amendment in the USA as the police can legally force your finger onto a touchpad or hold your face in front of a camera. This seems kind of crazy to me. If passwords being private are okay, why should the powers that be allowed to treat biometrics any differently, at least in the context of unlocking devices? Otherwise, what's to prevent them from intimidating, threatening or torturing you until you give up your passwords as well? To me, that's just a blatant abuse of power either way and it feels like there should be another amendment to your constitution concerning data privacy.
- jobigoud 5y ago
  Using biometrics as password is kind of crazy. Biometrics are login. They say who you are, not some secret you know.
  - KronisLV 5y ago
    And yet it happens, because it's easy. Is it not the wisest decision ever? Sure. However, since it's already being done, we might as well create laws around protecting this use case. For example, from what i know, people in the USA use their SSNs both as identifiers and sometimes as something like a pseudo-password, which seems like a really bad approach, but at the same time should be regarded as the objective and sub-optimal reality, with which we need to cope until a better solution is implemented (if ever). Saying that the method is bad and shouldn't be considered when it's already in widespread usage is something that we just can't do.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  They say the difference is that you have to use your mind to give up your passwords. The 5th Amend. only protects them extracting things from your mind.

BeefySwain 5y ago

Did you appeal? Or reach out to the ACLU or EFF? I'll admit I'm somewhat skeptical of your account, but if true I would expect a post demonstrating so would be on the front page of this site quite quickly.

kingcharles 5y ago
Where I live you can only appeal once you're found guilty at a trial. The case is over 8 years old now and I still haven't had trial. I would hope the appeal court would reverse, but I've had about a dozen cases wrongly denied by the appellate courts recently. The appellate courts are pretty much as biased as the trial courts, especially at the state level. The federal courts are a little bit smarter. I've tried talking to the ACLU and EFF in the past but received no replies.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Wait, you are part to or accused in about 12 cases?!
  - IceWreck 5y ago
    Now I'm wondering what he does for a living. Maybe he's an activist or something/.
    - xanaxagoras 5y ago
      How do you make a living as an activist?
      - kag0 5y ago
        https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      I made money while I was in jail by suing the jail for all their rights violations. But my day job has been web development since the 90s.
      - BingoAhoy 5y ago
        Would you mind going into detail about the right violations lawsuit please? I'm very interested in how you had success and what were the specific violations. I'm very sorry to hear how your life got turned upside down for a victimless felony. Makes me sick we cage people for some fabricated rule invented by some out of touch legislators.
        kingcharles 5y ago
        I think I filed about 60 cases in total. So, off the top of my head... one that is still ongoing is that newspapers are banned inside the Cook County Jail for "security" reasons. You actually have a Constitutional right to access newspapers under the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't stop an agency from blocking this right and then making you sue them. The primary reasons given by detention facilities for blocking newspapers are fire, flooding, gang information and hidden messages in classifieds. The argument is that newspapers are easy to burn, that you can block the toilets with them, that you can find out what gang members are upto and that you can get messages from the outside (all communications are monitored in custody). These excuses used to be taken as gospel by the courts, but lately there has been a little pushback from the rare judge. Fires have been ruled out - you usually have books, magazines, legal work that you can burn instead. Flooding is ruled out - you can use clothing, towels, sheets, blankets instead, and of course, other paper goods. Messages can be hidden inside magazine ads too, and magazines are usually allowed. Gang information - well, you can get this from the TV and telephone. I don't know a single gang member who wants a newspaper to get gang information. They just call their people on the telephone. This was a similar suit won against the same jail a few years ago: http://archive.today/2021.10.23-004355/https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/jun/3/newspaper-ban-cook-county-jail-violates-first-amendment/ http://archive.today/2021.10.23-004355/https://www.prisonleg... One suit I won $1000 for was because I used a Freedom of Information law to try to get the disciplinary record of my arresting officer because the prosecutor told me he was bogus. I tried three times and the police refused to reply, so I sued and asked them to settle immediately. They gave me the records and offered me $500. I asked for $1300 and said I wanted them to bring me Five Guys cheeseburger and fries to the jail. They replied $1000 and "lunch is not part of the deal." So I got the cash at least. They were giving us 45 minutes less sleep than they should, and an hour less than they should out of our cells during the day. I won that, which was a big logistical nightmare for the jail and sent me to the Hole for the 2nd time with a fake contraband charge. I sued because they put you in the Hole without giving you a hearing to determine if you are guilty of any infraction. I lost that in the trial court and appeal court. They ruled that pretrial detainees can be punished for any reason without any justification. I sued because county sheriffs in Illinois aren't bound by any limits on punishment. I'll explain. Crimes are regulated by statutes which tell you exactly what you should not do, in detail, and the punishment expected if you commit them. These statutes are written by democratically-elected lawmakers. In county jails the sheriffs make up all the "crimes" and the punishment. Anything they say is a crime. And they can assign any punishment. Therefore if you "cause a disturbance" (one stated crime which is so vague it can mean anything) they can punish you by sending you to the Hole. But they could also just get out a knife and chop your hand off. Or they could just shoot you dead on the spot. There is nothing to protect you right now. I sued to limit this, but the courts said the constitutional protections on proportional punishments (punishment must fit the crime) under the Illinois and federal constitutions do not apply to pretrial detainees in Illinois. I tried to get workers comp for the people in the kitchen who had lost their fingers in the meatball-making machine, but the statute requires that you must be a "person performing a service for the Sheriff" to get workers comp and the Attorney General basically ruled that detainees do not fit the legal definition of a "person". I could go on all night LOL
- giantg2 5y ago
  Sounds like a nightmare, but also unsurprising based on my limited experiences. I hope you are outside the statue of limitations or speedy trial window by now.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    Statute of limitations only applies to charging someone, not after they've been charged. Speedy trial doesn't apply in almost any situation you can think of. It's almost impossible to beat a case on speedy trial grounds. All my speedy trial motions have been denied so far, most recently because of COVID. I'm still working this angle though.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I wasn't sure if they formally charged you. My state says they have 5 years to complete the trial (or maybe initiate after charging). Good luck!
      - kingcharles 5y ago
        Thank you!

andrei_says_ 5y ago

> Biometrics are not protected by the 5th Amendment in the USA as the police can legally force your finger onto a touchpad or hold your face in front of a camera. Where can I read about this distinction?

kingcharles 5y ago
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/compelled-biometric-access-legal-under-4th-5th-amendments https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/compelled-biometri...

bleachedsleet 5y ago

Also, if you do use biometrics and ever find yourself in a sticky situation most modern operating systems have built in features to quickly disable them on demand. iOS, for example, allows you to quickly disable Face/Touch ID by holding the side+any volume button for two seconds and then quickly tap the side button again when the shutdown slide appears.

zizee 5y ago
If you are ever expecting to be in a situation where a) you have incriminating evidence on you phone, and b) have reason to believe the police will likely try and get access to it at some unpredictable time in the future, I think you'd just be wise to not use biometrics at all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kingcharles 5y ago
Probably won't have time. I had a loaded gun pointed at my head and told not to touch my phone. Had every reason to believe they would have fired.
- HeavyStorm 5y ago
  Nobody else is going to ask the parent what was that?
- DantesKite 5y ago
  Why did the police point a gun at your head?
  - atatatat 5y ago
    United States
- boppo1 5y ago
  You have to tell this story.

q1w2 5y ago

> he said he would unsolder the chips off the circuit board and put them onto another board ... The judge allowed the testimony and believed it. I've experienced similar issues with judges. When evidence hinges on something very technical - they generally allow it and place the burden of arguing it on the defense. ...which often allows any other evidence gotten by that means. ...and even if/when it's struck out - the prosecutor uses some parallel construction argument to say they could have gotten the evidence through another means. ...and the judge usually accepts that too. The prosecutor also then takes things like hearsay, circumstantial evidence, and literal misrepresentations to build a seemingly huge case against the defendant. It's a form of intimidation to accept a plea deal. I've seen TONS of defendants admit to crimes they didn't commit in plea deals, just because it's such a huge and long uphill battle to fight every single bogus charge. These aren't straight up innocent or perfect people. They're usually guilty of something minor - like small-time possession / solicitation / parole violation / DUI / etc... But what happens is that when you're guilty of anything, the judge treats you like you're guilty of EVERYTHING, and the prosecutor loads up the charges with anything they can think of to take advantage of that. Most defense attorneys hate these cases because clients can't pay, so they encourage them to settle for a plea deal - even if it includes admitting to stuff they didn't do. ...and most defendants accept it so they can move on with their lives and avoid prison time. So yeah, people with money hire $700/hr attorneys, and they absolutely make things go away. Even prosecutors drastically change demeanor when they see a defendant with a high-priced lawyer, because the prosecutor doesn't want to invest a lot of time on any specific case - and doesn't want his office or the police/investigators to be held up to scrutiny with various subpoenas - so charges drop off much more easily, and/or defendants get off with misdemeanor in a good plea deals. The point of this story is to help shed some naiveté that you might have about the system ultimately being fair - even through the long and expensive appeals process. It isn't. ...and most defendants don't have the time or money to pursue appeals. And moreover, when tech is involved, it is markedly even less fair because the judge doesn't understand the tech, and so will believe whatever BS the prosecutor makes up.

gknoy 5y ago
> $700/hr attorneys How many hours of attorney-work should one expect to budget for?

efleurine 5y ago

Good to know. I'm am getting rid of biometrics asap

kingcharles 5y ago
Yeah, it's a pain-in-the-ass to always have to enter a code to open your phone, but I'd rather suffer that than have the cops hold my face in front of the phone to open it up.
- subhro 5y ago
  You can keep your eyes closed or not look at the phone. I believe iOS needs your attention to allow biometrics. And a few times it fails, it will require the password.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    I guess the police would just force your eyes open. They would be allowed to drug you in this situation too. The police most often use this kind of power in DUI cases where they extract your blood forceably. In the terms and conditions of your driver's licences in the USA most of them say that you agree to allow the police to do this.

novok 5y ago

Im guessing you were not allowed to produce your own expert witness then? Or couldn’t afford it?

kingcharles 5y ago
Right. Could not afford it. And the court is supposed to appoint one for you. The reality was that my lawyer and I were caught off-guard because the police shouldn't have been able to testify like that. My lawyer objected, but the judge overruled.

twirlock 5y ago

Thank you for sharing your story. It provides yet more evidence that no one should interact with police under any circumstance if it is at all avoidable.

KronisLV 5y ago

> Make sure you always use a password on your devices though. Biometrics are not protected by the 5th Amendment in the USA as the police can legally force your finger onto a touchpad or hold your face in front of a camera. This seems kind of crazy to me. If passwords being private are okay, why should the powers that be allowed to treat biometrics any differently, at least in the context of unlocking devices? Otherwise, what's to prevent them from intimidating, threatening or torturing you until you give up your passwords as well? To me, that's just a blatant abuse of power either way and it feels like there should be another amendment to your constitution concerning data privacy.

jobigoud 5y ago
Using biometrics as password is kind of crazy. Biometrics are login. They say who you are, not some secret you know.
- KronisLV 5y ago
  And yet it happens, because it's easy. Is it not the wisest decision ever? Sure. However, since it's already being done, we might as well create laws around protecting this use case. For example, from what i know, people in the USA use their SSNs both as identifiers and sometimes as something like a pseudo-password, which seems like a really bad approach, but at the same time should be regarded as the objective and sub-optimal reality, with which we need to cope until a better solution is implemented (if ever). Saying that the method is bad and shouldn't be considered when it's already in widespread usage is something that we just can't do.
kingcharles 5y ago
They say the difference is that you have to use your mind to give up your passwords. The 5th Amend. only protects them extracting things from your mind.