Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[Kellhound]

Pretty easy fix - comply with court order of the search warrant and grant access to the hard drives.

- - - Updated - - -



The accused opens a door in a standard search warrant, and then sits outside while law enforcement conducts a search. The witnesses present are other law enforcement officials.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no "burden of proof" in an internet debate. Really, the burden of proof is pretty easily fulfilled when you realize the court agrees this is legal repeatedly, including at the court of appeals. Contempt of court is pretty broad, and arguably abuseable, but it is what it is.

Yeah, sending in wolves to oversee the fox in charge of the hen house.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It hasnt gone to trial.

No, but if the defense gets the warrant thrown out...then the hard drives get thrown out with the warrant...in which case there is no longer a case for holding him in contempt of court and he will be released

[Detritivores]

Or they'll find nothing and all they did was remove someone's freedom for several months without any crime being committed.

Oh, and, you know, completely tarnish their reputation to hell and back with this big PR fiasco. One or the other.

No, you don't understand! He's obviously guilty of the crime the state is accusing him! No prosecutor has ever wrongfully convicted anyone ever! The hard drive they have didn't provide anything incriminating but surely the others will! If The Law says he has child porn, it must be true! /s

Obviously, if this guy is guilty of child pornography he should rot forever in maximum security, fuck-you-in-the-ass prison. But nothing in the sources provided makes that seem likely. It's hilarious to me that indefinite detention without charges is allowed to happen in this country, with virtually no outcry. But holy shit if we even contemplate trying to keep track of guns, it's a national crisis. Some parts of the constitution are way more serious than others. And the least serious of all is any rights provided to people accused of a crime.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So planting evidence on a hard drive is easier as it only takes one person to do, with no witnesses.
Also who opens the locked room if the accused is not participating?

Actually it's harder to plant evidence on a computer since the defence can just look at the files time stamp and prove that the child porn was placed on it AFTER the hard drives were surrendered to the police.

[Drunkenvalley]

Not if they are in contempt.

Actually, even then if the basis of this contempt is "defendant had to give up constitutional right to follow the order"...

[Jaxsz]

Yeah, sending in wolves to oversee the fox in charge of the hen house.

Sure, but that's how it works. The accused isn't walking around with law enforcement while a search is conducted.

[Kellhound]

No, but if the defense gets the warrant thrown out...then the hard drives get thrown out with the warrant...in which case there is no longer a case for holding him in contempt of court and he will be released

Doesnt always work that way. But several federal warrants were just thrown out in other child porn cases.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but that's how it works. The accused isn't walking around with law enforcement while a search is conducted.

Yes because cops are never criminals themselves....

[The Stormbringer]

No, you don't understand! He's obviously guilty of the crime the state is accusing him! No prosecutor has ever wrongfully convicted anyone ever! The hard drive they have didn't provide anything incriminating but surely the others will! If The Law says he has child porn, it must be true! /s

Obviously, if this guy is guilty of child pornography he should rot forever in maximum security, fuck-you-in-the-ass prison. But nothing in the sources provided makes that seem likely. It's hilarious to me that indefinite detention without charges is allowed to happen in this country, with virtually no outcry. But holy shit if we even contemplate trying to keep track of guns, it's a national crisis. Some parts of the constitution are way more serious than others. And the least serious of all is any rights provided to people accused of a crime.

You and I are on the same wavelength with these things.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No, you don't understand! He's obviously guilty of the crime the state is accusing him! No prosecutor has ever wrongfully convicted anyone ever! The hard drive they have didn't provide anything incriminating but surely the others will! If The Law says he has child porn, it must be true! /s

Obviously, if this guy is guilty of child pornography he should rot forever in maximum security, fuck-you-in-the-ass prison. But nothing in the sources provided makes that seem likely.

There is an eye witness stating that he has had child porn at some point. And there was enough evidence to obtain the warrant. Now, this doesn't mean that he's guilty beyond any reasonable doubt...but there is enough evidence to thoroughly investigate him.

[Jaxsz]

No, you don't understand! He's obviously guilty of the crime the state is accusing him! No prosecutor has ever wrongfully convicted anyone ever! The hard drive they have didn't provide anything incriminating but surely the others will! If The Law says he has child porn, it must be true! /s

Obviously, if this guy is guilty of child pornography he should rot forever in maximum security, fuck-you-in-the-ass prison. But nothing in the sources provided makes that seem likely. It's hilarious to me that indefinite detention without charges is allowed to happen in this country, with virtually no outcry. But holy shit if we even contemplate trying to keep track of guns, it's a national crisis. Some parts of the constitution are way more serious than others. And the least serious of all is any rights provided to people accused of a crime.

Really, most of the evidence makes it seem likely. He isn't going to let them access the drives because he knows what they contain.

They'll get access soon enough, and we'll all giggle at these posts.

Search warrant is issued. You can't refuse entry because you did nothing wrong and there is no evidence! You are legally forced to allow entry, police search, if they find nothing you aren't prosecuted.

In this case the law says he has to grant access to the drives to confirm that there is no evidence against him. He refuses. Contempt of court. The end.

SCOTUS may rule differently. For now, he sits in jail, and I can't really find any fault with anything here. Just grant them access and walk home free, since you're super innocent and stuff.

[Glnger]

Conspiracy Theories are not allowed.

It was actually a hypothetical, no where did I suggest that this is what I believed actually happened.

[Jaxsz]

Doesnt always work that way. But several federal warrants were just thrown out in other child porn cases.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes because cops are never criminals themselves....

Cops might be criminals sometimes, but that isn't the point. I'm not arguing whether the procedures of a search are good or bad. I'm discussing with an individual who seems to think that the accused gets to be present during a warrant search, and it just isn't remotely true. I've been in law enforcement for years. It's not how it works.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Doesnt always work that way. But several federal warrants were just thrown out in other child porn cases.

.

And in a lot of other cases the warrants haven't been. Hypotheticals don't solve anything. The warrant in this case has not been thrown out.

You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that his own sister has stated that he has had child porn in the house.

- - - Updated - - -

It was actually a hypothetical, no where did I suggest that this is what I believed actually happened.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't change its status of being a conspiracy theory.

[Elim Garak]

Sure, but that's how it works. The accused isn't walking around with law enforcement while a search is conducted.

That's not true. The owner of the place has a right to walk around and even film the whole thing as long as they do not obstruct.
It's their home, they don't suddenly lose all the rights, it's just cops get the temporary right to enter and do the search.
Also accused is not required to help opening locked doors.

[Glnger]

Whether you believe it or not doesn't change its status of being a conspiracy theory.

no, again I was talking about an abstract situation.

[Greelix]

The whole thing with this is stupid. Contempt of court in situations as this is an abuse of authority. It could be possible that he forgot the password. What then? Should he then be held because he wants to comply but can't? I really want to know because This is wrong. I mean judges hold too much power. I remember watching a video of a guy that gets almost out the door of the court room and exasperatedly says that his situation was crap in not such a censored manner and the judge orders the bailiffs to return him to the stand and clarify what he said. He refused and held him in contempt. He still refused and the cycle continued until the judge mentions that he is giving the maximum length of 1 year. The guy then starts blurting out obcenities and the judge orders the bailiffs to remove him from court. He served the full sentence because the appeal didn't get looked at in time. Clearly a 5th amendment violation protected by judicial proceedings.

They are not the same. When police enters a locked room along with the accused - it's quite different from the police looking thru the contents of a hard drive back at the police station, they can easily plant ANYTHING on it.

...that is so wrong. The NSA doesn't have the man power to watch every citizen AND police the police.

The evidence they had was sufficient to get a warrant.

That is not what is supposed to be refuted at this point, but it is. Is it Legal to force some one to come up with knowledge to incriminate themselves? Is it legal to hold someone in contempt if they don't know where a key to a safe is?

Fifth amendment says:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This is clearly deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Period. A Judge holding in contempt is acting as a judge, jury, and "executioner."

[Kellhound]

Cops might be criminals sometimes, but that isn't the point. I'm not arguing whether the procedures of a search are good or bad. I'm discussing with an individual who seems to think that the accused gets to be present during a warrant search, and it just isn't remotely true. I've been in law enforcement for years. It's not how it works.

That explains everything. No point discussing this further with you, no means to get a conviction is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

And in a lot of other cases the warrants haven't been. Hypotheticals don't solve anything. The warrant in this case has not been thrown out.

You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that his own sister has stated that he has had child porn in the house.

- - - Updated - - -



Whether you believe it or not doesn't change its status of being a conspiracy theory.

I really dont care who the witness is, at least not without knowing why they turned states witness.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Fifth amendment says:

This is clearly deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Period. A Judge holding in contempt is acting as a judge, jury, and "executioner."

And yet...Judges still have the power to do so. Now, you might disagree with that and want to get Contempt of Court thrown out of the legal system entirely...but as it stands right now...it is legal.

[Kellhound]

And yet...Judges still have the power to do so. Now, you might disagree with that and want to get Contempt of Court thrown out of the legal system entirely...but as it stands right now...it is legal.

I think most people short of those who envy Stalin's police state agree Contempt of Court is greatly abused in the US these days.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I really dont care who the witness is, at least not without knowing why they turned states witness.

Why they decide to become a witness is not your concern unless you somehow find yourself on the jury. The courts deem eye-witness testimony very important...especially when that testimony either corroborates or is corroborated by other evidence.

You can't discredit the warrant and you can't discredit the witness.