> 1) A passcode is probably not covered by Fifth Amendment protections. Thus a phone owner who refuses to lock their phone could be punished by the court anyway

> 1) A passcode is probably not covered by Fifth Amendment protections. Thus a phone owner who refuses to lock their phone could be punished by the court anyway. No, Kerr either doesn't know the case law or is completely ignoring a huge chunk of it to make his point. I prefer the latter, but regardless, his point about the 5th Amendment is completely wrong as this is far from a settled issue and other courts have ruled differently: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-appeals-court-fifth-amendment-protects-suspect-from-having-to-decrypt-hard-drive/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-appeals-court-fifth...