Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[SodiumChloride]

Isn't this in violation of the 5th amendment?

[The Stormbringer]

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 the point he's trying to make is that Constitution > Law, and cases such as these where someone tries to flip that on its head and forces it to go through appeals all the way up to the top is generally bullshit. That said, maybe this situation will help better build a case against Contempt, in which case the guy would be doing the USA a favor.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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.

Then write your congressperson/senator about it. Again, right now Judges do have that power.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the point he's trying to make is that Constitution > Law, and cases such as these where someone tries to flip that on its head and forces it to go through appeals all the way up to the top is generally bullshit. That said, maybe this situation will help better build a case against Contempt, in which case the guy would be doing the USA a favor.

And if the Supreme Court decides "Hey, you're right, random internet person, we've been doing it wrong all this time...Contempt of Court Powers are officially removed" then that's fine. Until that happens however...it's still legal.

[Kellhound]

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.

Of course they like eye witnesses, they are so easy to mislead and mold like clay to get justification for just about anything.
I do not have enough information to discredit the witness or the warrant, nor do I have enough information to say she didnt fake it all to get revenge on him or that the information used to get the warrant was specific enough to actually justify the level of intrusion the government is conducting. I also have little reason to accept what the government is saying at face value.

[Detritivores]

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

<3

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.

Enough evidence to investigate him is not the same as enough evidence to hold him indefinitely without charging him.

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.

The good old if you have nothing to hide why are you hiding argument...

People of mmo-c, I ask you, for every one of you that has an expansive pr0n folder on one of your hard drives, are you 100% certain that no minors are in there? Can you not fathom that among the hundreds of images and videos, there might somewhere be, unbeknownst to you, an underage person? Despite you being, by all accounts, not a pedophile. Are you so incredibly certain that there isn't a minor somewhere in your porn folder, that you would spring at the chance to hand it over to law enforcement and test your hypothesis?

Again, I don't know the particulars of this case. He may be a child porn loving scumbag. But he (and the rest of you sickos) have constitutional protections against this sort of thing for exactly these reasons. That you are all excited to forfeit them just in case the guy in the OP turns out to be a child pornographer is alarming to me.

[Kellhound]

Then write your congressperson/senator about it. Again, right now Judges do have that power.

- - - Updated - - -



And if the Supreme Court decides "Hey, you're right, random internet person, we've been doing it wrong all this time...Contempt of Court Powers are officially removed" then that's fine. Until that happens however...it's still legal.

Yeah right, a bunch of lawyers turned politicians are going to strip power from fellow politicians (judges).

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I also have little reason to accept what the government is saying at face value.

And, as you have just said, no reason to believe they are conducting this investigation in a dirty fashion.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah right, a bunch of lawyers turned politicians are going to strip power from fellow politicians (judges).

So, the way to change it is to whine about it on the internet then?

- - - Updated - - -

<3

Enough evidence to investigate him is not the same as enough evidence to hold him indefinitely without charging him.

Two separate matters. He's being held for being in contempt of court. Whether or not he is charged or found guilty of child pornography is separate from his willful disobedience of a court order.

[Kellhound]

And, as you have just said, no reason to believe they are conducting this investigation in a dirty fashion.

- - - Updated - - -



So, the way to change it is to whine about it on the internet then?

I have no reason to believe they are NOT conducting the investigation in a dirty fashion. Benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen, not the government.

No, the only way to change it is another revolution, but it isnt quite bad enough for that yet.

[SodiumChloride]

Two separate matters. He's being held for being in contempt of court. Whether or not he is charged or found guilty of child pornography is separate from his willful disobedience of a court order.

But is the court order legal?

Isn't forcing him to reveal the password against the 5th amendment?

What if he has forgotten the passwords?

[Detritivores]

Two separate matters. He's being in held for being in contempt of court. Whether or not he is charged or found guilty of child pornography is separate from his willful disobedience of a court order.

That is indeed the issue. I would argue that holding someone in contempt for exercising their 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves is... if not unconstitutional, certainly against the spirit of the constitutional protections against people accused of crimes and should be examined further. Any one of us could have something incriminating on a hard drive, unbeknownst to us. I am by all accounts a boring, law abiding citizen, but I would never under any circumstances want to hand over every piece of data I have for scrutiny by law enforcement. The chances that something bad is in there is astronomical, for any person, never mind child pornographers.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I have no reason to believe they are NOT conducting the investigation in a dirty fashion. Benefit of the doubt goes to the citizen, not the government.

So, whenever anyone is being investigated...you think it's just as likely "the government" is conducting a dirty investigation as it is that the suspect might be guilty?

- - - Updated - - -

That is indeed the issue. I would argue that holding someone in contempt for exercising their 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves is... if not unconstitutional, certainly against the spirit of the constitutional protections against people accused of crimes and should be examined further. Any one of us could have something incriminating on a hard drive, unbeknownst to us. I am by all accounts a boring, law abiding citizen, but I would never under any circumstances want to hand over every piece of data I have for scrutiny by law enforcement. The chances that something bad is in there is astronomical, for any person, never mind child pornographers.

Which, again, is a matter for the Supreme Court to settle because, as it stands right now, certain judges lean one way on the issue and others lean the opposite direction.

[Kellhound]

So, whenever anyone is being investigated...you think it's just as likely "the government" is conducting a dirty investigation as it is that the suspect might be guilty?

- - - Updated - - -



Which, again, is a matter for the Supreme Court to settle because, as it stands right now, certain judges lean one way on the issue and others lean the opposite direction.

No, it is just as likely the individuals involved on the government's side are underhanded as the person being investigated is guilty, if not more so.

[Detritivores]

So, whenever anyone is being investigated...you think it's just as likely "the government" is conducting a dirty investigation as it is that the suspect might be guilty?

The entire premise of justice in the US is "innocent until proven guilty." We 100% believe that the suspect is not guilty unless "the government" can provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. This is basic stuff. These are instructions given to every criminal jury ever in this country. Isn't it similar in Canada? Or anywhere else in the free world?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

But is the court order legal?

Isn't forcing him to reveal the password against the 5th amendment?

What if he has forgotten the passwords?

That is the debate. Right now, the decision rests in the hands of the judges. At some point it really should go up before the Supreme Court so it can be settled.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire premise of justice in the US is "innocent until proven guilty." We 100% believe that the suspect is not guilty unless "the government" can provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. This is basic stuff. These are instructions given to every criminal jury ever in this country. Isn't it similar in Canada? Or anywhere else in the free world?

Im not talking about "innocent until proven guilty" im talking about the the assumption that "the government" conducts dirty investigations to frame innocents. Should not the criminal investigators have the same presumption of innocence as the accused?

[Detritivores]

Which, again, is a matter for the Supreme Court to settle because, as it stands right now, certain judges lean one way on the issue and others lean the opposite direction.

Absolutely. But in the absence of that, I would argue that the 5th amendment takes precedent over a bullshit interpretation of a 1789 law that was obviously not written to apply to electronic devices and digital storage.

All that aside, contempt rules seem to be increasingly abused to enable indefinite detention, which is again, not constitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Im not talking about "innocent until proven guilty" im talking about the the assumption that "the government" conducts dirty investigations to frame innocents. Should not the criminal investigators have the same presumption of innocence as the accused?

No they shouldn't. That's what innocent until proven guilty means. We assume the prosecution is wrong unless they prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have to apply malicious intent to them. But the default position is that they're wrong. It doesn't matter if it's because they're "dirty" or "misguided." That isn't important. What is important is that one way or another, the burden of proof is on them. We would never just say, "oh, the prosecution means well. They're trying to catch child pornographers, so fuck this guy they're accusing." Of course they mean well and are trying to do their jobs. But the shit people are accused of is serious and life ruining. SO the people prosecuting them are wrong by default unless they can prove otherwise. Again, not because they're dirty. Just because they're human.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Absolutely. But in the absence of that, I would argue that the 5th amendment takes precedent over a bullshit interpretation of a 1789 law that was obviously not written to apply to electronic devices and digital storage.

All that aside, contempt rules seem to be increasingly abused to enable indefinite detention, which is again, not constitutional.

Except, contempt charges come with the caveat that you can leave the jail as soon as you are willing to comply with the court order. That is why they can be "indefinite". Essentially, you have the keys to your own cell.

[Kellhound]

That is the debate. Right now, the decision rests in the hands of the judges. At some point it really should go up before the Supreme Court so it can be settled.

- - - Updated - - -



Im not talking about "innocent until proven guilty" im talking about the the assumption that "the government" conducts dirty investigations to frame innocents. Should not the criminal investigators have the same presumption of innocence as the accused?

No, the accuser should ALWAYS be assumed to have conducted everything improperly and should be forced show that is was done correctly and legally. The accused on the other hand need only show reasonable doubt to get off scott free.

[Deleted]

Child porn or not, no justice system can demand you to help them to solve the crime you have committed, for them. Forced self-incrimination only leads to dangerous waters.

Not to mention he is only suspected for a crime...Yet we have, as always, people screaming for blood and vengeance.

he hasnt been charged, nor has he been found guilty of ANY crime so far. thats the point.

can it be legal to hold someone imprisoned for no other reason than beeing suspect of sth?

in europe most countries agree, that there is a timelimit for investigations, also i find it highly problematic to imprison someone for not opening private data, and just therefore be help imprisoned.

that means hes treated like guilty unless he proves (or help to disprove) those suspicions beeing wrong. thats basically undergoing "innocent until proven guilty" premise of law in western societies, isnt it?

those are still suspicions you know. i mean, all they have is a guess from some guy, and one women saying they together had looked at childporn. which i highly doubt someone admitting at all o0


i think this may really be just a try to get rid of someone that maybe got into sth he wasnt supposed to see. maybe corruption in his police department or sth.

on the other hand, having 2 crypted harddrives is strange and supports the idea of him having sth to hide. - so basically.



but in the end, if the state cannot get prove of a crime by mechanics allowed by the law, he should be safe.

imprisoning someone to abide to give out private information, seems not to be "legal" or at least shouldnt.


if it was legal, that would mean you would just have to randomly suspect someone of anything to have him open all private data by force, or beeing imprisoned otherwise? that seems very dangerous.


on the other hand, the data on the discs could contain adresses, so that many many childabusers could be found, maybe in this case it would be worth searching those.

i dont know. seems like a borderline case.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Absolutely. But in the absence of that, I would argue that the 5th amendment takes precedent over a bullshit interpretation of a 1789 law that was obviously not written to apply to electronic devices and digital storage.

All that aside, contempt rules seem to be increasingly abused to enable indefinite detention, which is again, not constitutional.

- - - Updated - - -



No they shouldn't. That's what innocent until proven guilty means. We assume the prosecution is wrong unless they prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have to apply malicious intent to them. But the default position is that they're wrong. It doesn't matter if it's because they're "dirty" or "misguided." that isn't important.

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution has to prove that the investigation was not conducted dirty. The defense would have to make a case that the investigation was handled improperly in order to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

[paralleluniverse]

The court order that he disclose the password is likely a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_..._and_passwords