Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules
Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules
Phone-unlocking case law is "total mess," may be ripe for Supreme Court review.
Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules::Phone-unlocking case law is "total mess," may be ripe for Supreme Court review.
You're viewing a single thread.
Thought this was already established precedent.
Nope, each state is doing its own thing and the 5th ammendment is being trampled in a few of them. Biometrics and passwords are being forced and this is an amazing ruling for 5A advocates like myself.
SC needs to rule on it, but preferably not THIS supreme court
But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don't use biometrics.
Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.
IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A
Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.
How come there are never 3A advocates? What if I'm really against allowing soldiers to quarter in private homes?
Edit: I probably subconsciously stole this joke from someone/somewhere in case anyone thinks I'm trying to claim it as my own.
Sorry, but can somebody explain the ending to me?
Are you aware of https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/496:_Secretary:_Part_3
I'm sure if the government was doing it's damnedest to house soldiers in our apartments, there'd be more people against it. Unfortunately they're just doing their best to jail anyone they don't like.
I dunno, how many Jan. 6'ers got convicted by the contents of their phones? :)
"well, this possible violation of the 5th could have similar results as this other time when i liked the results so.....????? should we????"
My understanding was that most of them got got because their cell companies knew where they were, not because of the contents of their phones
But also, I'd rather let every Jan Sixer go free than imprison one innocent person because they looked up textiles.com two years ago and found out how to make meth
Not in a post Trump supreme court era it isnt
I'll keep saying it; The Supreme Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe Trump nothing and have had a few surprising decisions lately.
I don't trust them a bit, but neither do I trust they'll always make the wrong call.
I don’t think that’s right. A group that very strongly believes in the Republican Party and its agenda and values would still be definitively partisan. Partisan has always been used in the context of following party lines, not necessarily one person.
But you can trust they will make the wrong call after geting a very expensive vacation and a few dufflebags of money.
Hey, thanks, that's a useful (and probably fairly accurate) distinction and I'm happy to find that a positive shift in my viewpoint, if minor. The corruption might be a really big problem or it might be one guy who's an aberration for being wildly outside the court's norms, really unclear on that part. But I needed a solid reminder that it's not quite yet another ruined and hypocritical institution we once held dear.
If you believe this, I'm not sure you've been paying attention.
The Federalist Society is 100% in bed with the Republican party, and they have chosen essentially every SCOTUS pick by a Republican President since (at least) George W. Bush.
They also stacked our federal courts during Trump's tenure.
To suggest it's not partisan is naive.