Search Warrants and the Fifth Amendment.

[SavannahMann]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

 

[Ringel05]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

 

[SavannahMann]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

 

[Ringel05]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

If you say so...... Sovereign Citizen type?

 

[Moonglow]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

They talked about cell phones in the Constitution?

 

[Ringel05]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

They talked about cell phones in the Constitution?

Obviously........ Laptops and iPads also........

 

[Moonglow]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

They talked about cell phones in the Constitution?

Obviously........ Laptops and iPads also........

I see that pee is still admissible evidence...

 

[Ringel05]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

They talked about cell phones in the Constitution?

Obviously........ Laptops and iPads also........

I see that pee is still admissible evidence...

Not MY pee!!! It's private!!!!

 

[SavannahMann]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

If you say so...... Sovereign Citizen type?

No. Former Paratrooper of the 82nd Airborne. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Even Obama understood this. The Constitution says what the Government can’t do. That is the whole point of it.

 

[SavannahMann]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

They talked about cell phones in the Constitution?

It says that you are safe in your person and papers without a warrant. Documents are digital papers. So yes. It does.

 

[SavannahMann]

I love this board. The left attacks me when I defend the Second Amendment, and the right attacks when I defend any other Amendment.

 

[Ringel05]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

If you say so...... Sovereign Citizen type?

No. Former Paratrooper of the 82nd Airborne. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Even Obama understood this. The Constitution says what the Government can’t do. That is the whole point of it.

So did I, US Navy, but I don't interpret it to suit my paradigm.......

 

[Moonglow]

I love this board. The left attacks me when I defend the Second Amendment, and the right attacks when I defend any other Amendment.

I have yet to see an attack against you or the second.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

If you're not defending that case law, then you're not defending the Constitution.

 

[SavannahMann]

For some time now I have believed that requiring someone to unlock their phone, or decrypt a hard drive, as part of a Search Warrant, is wrong. It is in violation of the Constitution.

The Analogy I have used is something written in a private code, or a hidden stash of documents in a residence. The Court could not require you to decrypt your private code as part of a Search Warrant. And if you are served with a warrant, at your residence, it does not mean you have to walk the Police to the stash and hand the documents to the police. It merely means you can not interfere with their search. You must grant them access to the entire residence. Locating the documents is strictly up to them. Figuring out what is written in the private code, is their problem.

Yet with Electronic Devices, the argument seems to be that a warrant is a perfectly acceptable, and reasonable means of forcing the individual to waive their 5th Amendment Rights. You have to unlock the phone, or decrypt the hard drive, because the Judge said so. If the phone is in the possession of the police, getting in and figuring out what is on it, is their problem. Not mine.

The U.S. Government Can’t Force You To Unlock Your Phone With Your Fingerprint, Another Judge Rules

It seems that my view is starting to spread, as more people are taking a second look and arguing that it is improper. You can get a warrant for the phone, and you can get a warrant to unlock the phone, if you are able, and examine the contents. That is all perfectly fine in my mind, and perfectly constitutional. What you should not be allowed to do is require the individual to unlock the phone with either a fingerprint, Face ID, or passcode. That is a violation of the 5th Amendment and now two Judges have agreed. The Federal Authorities are in a predictable tizzy of course, demanding that these decisions be overturned by higher courts.

Let’s say that I happen across a crime scene. I call the police. I report the facts diligently, and exactingly. I have just done my duty as a citizen in this nation. As I walk away, I have an opinion, a surmise, of who committed the crime. I do not share this with the police. Am I obstructing Justice? The authorities are in possession of the facts, and my opinions, or thoughts, are not factual. They are surmises, personal ideals. The Police have no right to demand, nor expect those from me. If I do not share my thoughts, it is not obstruction.

If the police can not get into the phone, that is not my problem. That is their problem, and I may have in fact done what I could to make it as difficult as possible for police to gain access to my phone. Or it may be a side effect of making it as difficult as possible for my spouse to get access to my phone.

Kudos to the Judges who are starting to think. We can only hope that this trend continues. Although if history is any indication, it won’t be continuing.

You must be a habitual offender........

Indeed. Are only Gun violence survivors allowed to have an opinion of the 2nd Amendment? The protections contained in the Constitution are sacred to me. I will always argue in favor of defending them. To my last breath.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

If you're not defending that case law, then you're not defending the Constitution.

Indeed. I suppose that is why the First Amendment says this. “The Supreme Court shall rule as invalid any law which passed by a majority of Congress, and signed by the President, infringes upon the understood limits of Free Speech, Religion, Right to assemble....”

The Bill of rights is not written as a law was, or is. It was written like the Ten Commandments. You shall not do this, or that, or the other. Congress shall pass no law. There is no mechanism in place to counter Congress if they do. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court authority over such things. No amendment has given the Supreme Court authority to decide such matters. It is left to the good judgement of the people elected. Wrongly in my opinion.

Article 3 of the Constitution lists the duties of the Supreme Court, but determining Constitutionality is not one of those duties listed. Ruling on cases based upon the laws derived from the Constitution is listed.

But let’s take your Case Law. Every bit of it was based on someone arguing that this was wrong, and violated the Constitution. Were those cases all started by some upstart who didn’t care a whit about the Constitution? Was Marbury V. Madison unconstitutional, until the Supreme Court Ruled?

Miranda argued that people should be advised of their rights under the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a right and proper thing to expect. Now, was it unconstitutional to advise a suspect before, or not? Was it unconstitutional for someone who was questioned by the police to refuse to answer questions before Miranda?

Wrong is wrong. It is always wrong no matter what the court says. And if you lose the case, you keep fighting to make it right. Not based upon the opinions of a handful of judges, but based upon the text that should be just short of sacred.

Congress shall pass no law. No punishment is listed if they do. No abolishment of their positions. No penalties of any sort. It is a guide, like the scripts listing the thou shall never do in the Bible. In religious texts, your penalty for violating the prohibitions may be your soul. In Congress, and law, the penalty should be equally severe.