SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,820
- 365
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.
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.