2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on December 30, 2023, 10:58:27 AM
-
State Sup. Crt. Rules You Do Not Have to
Give Your Passcode to the Police
https://youtu.be/lLGoav3WyZU
-
State Sup. Crt. Rules You Do Not Have to
Give Your Passcode to the Police
https://youtu.be/lLGoav3WyZU
No ethical person will ask for your Password or passcode.
:geekdanc:
-
But face ID....
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
But face ID....
The only biometric lock i use is my fingerprint. If they want to compel me to use it on the phone's lock screen, they need a warrant -- unlike facial recognition that can be unlocked without touching you.
-
The only biometric lock i use is my fingerprint. If they want to compel me to use it on the phone's lock screen, they need a warrant -- unlike facial recognition that can be unlocked without touching you.
Cops says
"Idk, the guy tripped and knocked himself out. His phone was already unlocked".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Cops says
"Idk, the guy tripped and knocked himself out. His phone was already unlocked".
if the phone was unlocked already, there would have been no need to ask me to unlock it, and for me to ask for a warrant.
This is why you never talk to the cops without your lawyer present. Corroboration of your story that the phone was not unlocked.
-
The only biometric lock i use is my fingerprint. If they want to compel me to use it on the phone's lock screen, they need a warrant -- unlike facial recognition that can be unlocked without touching you.
Or alter your fingerprint. keep rubbing your finger on the wall until it wears out.
-
if the phone was unlocked already, there would have been no need to ask me to unlock it, and for me to ask for a warrant.
This is why you never talk to the cops without your lawyer present. Corroboration of your story that the phone was not unlocked.
I was impying the cop used ur fingerprint without u knowing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I was impying the cop used ur fingerprint without u knowing.
I got it the first time.
i'm Swoosh-proof. Sarcasm is my first language! :popcorn:
-
I got it the first time.
i'm Swoosh-proof. Sarcasm is my first language! :popcorn:
Damn sarcasm-woosh on me.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
No ethical person will ask for your Password or passcode.
:geekdanc:
Not always the case but I still wouldn't provide it as a general rule.
-
Surprised it had to make it that far, seems like an obvious decision.
-
Surprised it had to make it that far, seems like an obvious decision.
Some things are not obvious to some people.
-
Some things are not obvious to some people.
The issue is not whether the "decision" to surrender the code is "obvious" or not.
The issue is whether or not the state can compel you to -- or be subject to contempt of court or obstruction charges.
The underlying issue is whether or not it's required that a suspect assist the police in their investigation. Constitutionally, the right against self incrimination is normally straight forward. In the case of having the only information needed to unlock a device, it's not as straight forward. Hence the need for a SCOTUS interpretation.
When the Constitution was created, and again when the 5th Amendment was added, the only way of having information to assist police in finding evidence was if you knew where it was physically hidden -- e.g. the murder weapon was thrown over a bridge or hidden in a barn.
Today it's much more complicated. The things contained on a phone could implicate you in other crimes -- e.g. We didn't find the emails we wanted, but there are photos placing him at the scene of another murder. There may also be evidence on the device which, if access to it is given to the police, creates a question of chain of custody. E.g. If the police used excessive force and it was caught on video on the suspect's phone, why would the Cops not erase it? Better yet, if the phone shows a text message that proves the suspect's story was true, a Cop could delete that text as it might prove to be exculpatory.
Bad Cops in the past have planted evidence and ignored exculpatory witness accounts or alibis when the suspect is a known criminal who the Cop just wants to get off the streets. If he didn't do that crime, he's gotten away with things at least as bad is their rationale. Never mind they are leaving the real perp on the street.
So, while most Cops are honest, presenting any of them with the opportunity to delete something they don't like is too great a temptation to risk one's freedom on.
-
it depends if you are looking at it subjectively or objectively
Surprised it had to make it that far, seems like an obvious decision.
-
it depends if you are looking at it subjectively or objectively
Also depends on whether you want an actual decision, or are okay applying the law inconsistently -- case by case --based on nuance.
-
The issue is whether or not the state can compel you to -- or be subject to contempt of court or obstruction charges.
Yes, that is what I was referring to.
The underlying issue is whether or not it's required that a suspect assist the police in their investigation. Constitutionally, the right against self incrimination is normally straight forward. In the case of having the only information needed to unlock a device, it's not as straight forward. Hence the need for a SCOTUS interpretation.
When the Constitution was created, and again when the 5th Amendment was added, the only way of having information to assist police in finding evidence was if you knew where it was physically hidden -- e.g. the murder weapon was thrown over a bridge or hidden in a barn.
Today it's much more complicated. The things contained on a phone could implicate you in other crimes -- e.g. We didn't find the emails we wanted, but there are photos placing him at the scene of another murder. There may also be evidence on the device which, if access to it is given to the police, creates a question of chain of custody. E.g. If the police used excessive force and it was caught on video on the suspect's phone, why would the Cops not erase it? Better yet, if the phone shows a text message that proves the suspect's story was true, a Cop could delete that text as it might prove to be exculpatory.
Bad Cops in the past have planted evidence and ignored exculpatory witness accounts or alibis when the suspect is a known criminal who the Cop just wants to get off the streets. If he didn't do that crime, he's gotten away with things at least as bad is their rationale. Never mind they are leaving the real perp on the street.
So, while most Cops are honest, presenting any of them with the opportunity to delete something they don't like is too great a temptation to risk one's freedom on.
I think your analysis is spot on.