4 ms·

> the source says they do share it once ordered to. I’m no lawyer, but doesn’t _everybody_ have to share information once met with a court order?

nradov 5y ago
A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information. Thus if prosecutors want a piece of information for other purposes (like to prosecute a bigger criminal) they will often grant criminal immunity on that point. Then the person being questioned has no 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  I’m not sure where you’re sourcing this, but courts can totally force you to share incriminating information. They cannot compel you to testify against yourself. As a more mundane example, a court can grant a search warrant compelling you to turn over your computer so that police can look for proof of suspected criminal activity. Likewise, they can get a court order compelling the IRS to hand over your tax returns.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Within the current interpretation of the 5th Amendment, ordering someone to turn over physical property like a computer or safe key isn't legally considered as compelling someone "to be a witness against himself". If you want the source then there are many Supreme Court opinions on this issue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      I feel like we’ve looped. You wrote “A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information”. I gave an example where the court could force you to share incriminating information. Did you perhaps mean that a court order can’t force someone to answer questions that may incriminate them?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information. It can't force someone to give potentially self-incriminating testimony (not all “information” is “testimony”, and not all incrimination is self-incrimination.)
  - nradov 5y ago
    If we're being pedantic, the specific legal phrase is "witness against himself". The courts have interpreted that more broadly than just testimony.
georgyo 5y ago
Also not a lawyer, but my understanding: Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (also technically doctors) do not need to share and cannot be forced. They cannot be forced to share privileged information they may have. However, this does not protect the class of information as a whole. IE if you share your medical or legal information to a third party, they can be forced to share it.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Possibly also journalists, although this is less respected in practice.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Journalists have no such protection under US federal law. Some states do have journalist shield laws but those are irrelevant in federal cases.
    - garmaine 5y ago
      Journalists have a limited First Amendment right not to be forced to reveal information or confidential news sources in court. There’s a lot of caveats related to this though. It’s called “reporter’s privilege.”
      - nradov 5y ago
        There is no such thing as reporter's privilege in the US Constitution or federal law. You're just making things up.
- belltaco 5y ago
  Spouses too.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (also technically doctors) do not need to share and cannot be forced. This is not quite correct. Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (who very often technically are not doctors of any kind), spouses, and clergy have various privileges which limit the scope and circumstances in which they can be compelled, which limits what court orders should be issued and may be raised on motions to quash such orders after they are issued.

nradov 5y ago

A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information. Thus if prosecutors want a piece of information for other purposes (like to prosecute a bigger criminal) they will often grant criminal immunity on that point. Then the person being questioned has no 5th Amendment right to remain silent.

akerl_ 5y ago
I’m not sure where you’re sourcing this, but courts can totally force you to share incriminating information. They cannot compel you to testify against yourself. As a more mundane example, a court can grant a search warrant compelling you to turn over your computer so that police can look for proof of suspected criminal activity. Likewise, they can get a court order compelling the IRS to hand over your tax returns.
- nradov 5y ago
  Within the current interpretation of the 5th Amendment, ordering someone to turn over physical property like a computer or safe key isn't legally considered as compelling someone "to be a witness against himself". If you want the source then there are many Supreme Court opinions on this issue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    I feel like we’ve looped. You wrote “A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information”. I gave an example where the court could force you to share incriminating information. Did you perhaps mean that a court order can’t force someone to answer questions that may incriminate them?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> A court order can't legally force someone to share incriminating information. It can't force someone to give potentially self-incriminating testimony (not all “information” is “testimony”, and not all incrimination is self-incrimination.)
- nradov 5y ago
  If we're being pedantic, the specific legal phrase is "witness against himself". The courts have interpreted that more broadly than just testimony.

georgyo 5y ago

Also not a lawyer, but my understanding: Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (also technically doctors) do not need to share and cannot be forced. They cannot be forced to share privileged information they may have. However, this does not protect the class of information as a whole. IE if you share your medical or legal information to a third party, they can be forced to share it.

garmaine 5y ago
Possibly also journalists, although this is less respected in practice.
- nradov 5y ago
  Journalists have no such protection under US federal law. Some states do have journalist shield laws but those are irrelevant in federal cases.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    Journalists have a limited First Amendment right not to be forced to reveal information or confidential news sources in court. There’s a lot of caveats related to this though. It’s called “reporter’s privilege.”
    - nradov 5y ago
      There is no such thing as reporter's privilege in the US Constitution or federal law. You're just making things up.
belltaco 5y ago
Spouses too.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (also technically doctors) do not need to share and cannot be forced. This is not quite correct. Lawyers, doctors, and therapists (who very often technically are not doctors of any kind), spouses, and clergy have various privileges which limit the scope and circumstances in which they can be compelled, which limits what court orders should be issued and may be raised on motions to quash such orders after they are issued.