Child porn suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives

[TITAN308]

Yes, let's jail people with a mental illness who haven't caused harm and are not likely to cause harm to anyone based purely on your illogical emotional appeal.

We should also jail action movie fans for promoting assault and murder. Have to be comprehensive with this kind of stupid bullshit. Don't want to be a hypocrite!

I at least like the fact that you deem people who are lolicon fans as mentally ill. We can agree on that much.

[Linkedblade]

Then they should start dropping those lawsuits. As is, all he has to do to get out of jail is to unlock his hard drives.

Fifth amendment right to not self incriminate.

[Noradin]

But aren't you required to unlock doors, etc, for a warrant?
The only difference is that they can physically break down a door if you refuse, so they don't have to keep you locked up.

You aren't required if it is code protected, but if they have to break it down the damages are on you. (Be aware that this is no legal counsel.)

- - - Updated - - -

Cop stops driver due to tail light being out.
Cop hears a small child in the boot, crying.
Cop orders driver to open boot so he can investigate the sound.
Driver refuses, under the defence that opening the boot would incriminate himself.
Cop agrees, apologises and forgets all about small child locked in boot.

Yeah...no, it doesn't work like that.

At the end of the day a court order has been produced stating that this guy must make the data available to authorities. He's refusing, so he's been placed in prison due to contempt of court. Guy is an asshole. An apparently very guilty asshole.

What you are describing falls under exigent circumstances.

[Deleted]

Yes, let's jail people with a mental illness who haven't caused harm and are not likely to cause harm to anyone based purely on your illogical emotional appeal.

We should also jail action movie fans for promoting assault and murder. Have to be comprehensive with this kind of stupid bullshit. Don't want to be a hypocrite!

I'm well aware that paedophilia is a psychological illness and that people should not be singled out for a condition they cannot prevent suffering from.
However, "I'm a paedophile." is, and never will be an excuse for acting on those desires.
You can't help being a paedophile, but you can sure as help acting on the desires you might have as a paedophile. In that respect, viewing sexual imagery of children, regardless of the medium is pretty fucked up.
If you're going to fantasise about pre-pubescent children, leave it to the realms of your imagination. Nobody needs that shit out there in the public domain.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Again, I don't feel like it makes a difference. Burden is on them to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the default position is that the accusation is wrong and they have to prove otherwise. Why it's wrong is not important.

Its a rather large difference between making a case that the police were wrong and making a case that the police are incompetent and/or corrupt. Try establishing reasonable doubt with only the implication that the police mishandled the investigation and never provide a shred of evidence to support that theory. See how far it gets you.

[Hiricine]

Drawing or not. People who collect sexually explicit Loli drawings deserve jail just as much as people with photos and videos.
I don't give two shits whether it's 'real' or not. If you get enjoyment out of looking at that kind of shit you're as fucking sick as your standard garden variety paedophile.

And assuming there are no victims who is anyone to correct this behavior? There is no ethical standard for stopping someone who is creating no victims outside of possibly themselves. I'd like to see you storm into someone's house to stop them by force for downloading pictures of imaginary girls.

[Jotaux]

Is there no way for the police to decrypt the hard drives without the assistance of the suspect?

[Xada]

How does the forensic examiner count as a witness? Did he witness his crime or not? Right now, it's just his sisters word. It would be hilarious if there wasn't cp on those drives, just something embarrassing like mlp or some other shit.

[Torgent]

How does the forensic examiner count as a witness? Did he witness his crime or not? Right now, it's just his sisters word. It would be hilarious if there wasn't cp on those drives, just something embarrassing like mlp or some other shit.

The best part is the FE has no evidence but is using his "best guess".

[Kujako]

The best part is the FE has no evidence but is using his "best guess".

And in many places the Medical/Forensic Examiner is an elected position with no requirements.

[McFuu]

But aren't you required to unlock doors, etc, for a warrant?
The only difference is that they can physically break down a door if you refuse, so they don't have to keep you locked up.

The way it works with the 5th is you have the right to not incriminate yourself, you don't have to give anything that would, unless it's physical. So if you have a key to a lock you have to give that. If the lock is a password, you do not have to give that.

[Mehrunes]

No, what it comes down to is people thinking some BoR-nonsense applies.
I don't see his advocate trying to claim that, I don't see that preventing the judge from giving him this punishment.

But on the internet everyone is a lawyer!

No, that's why there is a ruling and apparently no intention to take this any higher.

And yes, courts mostly say otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_..._and_passwords

[IIamaKing]

My first reaction is, shouldnt this kinda fall under pledging the 5th?

They are basically trying to get the guy to convict himself though action.

[The Casualty]

The way it works with the 5th is you have the right to not incriminate yourself, you don't have to give anything that would, unless it's physical. So if you have a key to a lock you have to give that. If the lock is a password, you do not have to give that.

Exactly.

Looking at two previous cases, Joseph CURCIO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America
John DOE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES
It seems that the consensus is that "However, forcing the custodian to testify orally as to the whereabouts of nonproduced records requires him to disclose the contents of his own mind. He might be compelled to convict himself out of his own mouth. That is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Fifth Amendment".

In effect, the accused would have to produce the hard drives when served with a warrant, however, is under no such requirement for passwords or codes that he has stored in his memory.

Not doing so does not make him guilty of the crime that they haven't charged him with yet - which is similar to the consensus of the Doe case where, "The District Court also noted that Doe had not been indicted, and that his signing of the forms might provide the Government with the incriminating link necessary to obtain an indictment, the kind of "fishing expedition" that the Fifth Amendment was designed to prevent. Id., at 21a."

[IIamaKing]

If he's held in contempt of court he essentially holds the keys to his cell...as soon as he is willing to comply with the court order he will be released.

Thats a fun loop hole, isnt it. Testify against yourself or we will jail your indefinitely for contempt.....if only there were protections in the constitution for this sort of shit.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not related to the 5th amendment. No one ask him to testify against himself. He just has not to obstruct the legal search of his property.

The password is testimony, that testimony "may" lead to the discovery of incriminated evidence. IE they are trying to get him to possibly incriminate himself.

- - - Updated - - -

you don't just wake up one day wanting to have sex with small children or any sort of fetish really

it grows over time...... you feed it
like serial killers starting by killing small animals
like being a drug user and moving onto something like meth

violent alcoholics may only be violent when they drink but the act of drinking is not illegal maybe it should be for that kind of person

dont defend pedofiles k... its a choice to break the law... its a choice for them to move in that direction

its easy to avoid having a mental illness if you listen to the warning signs
in the case of pedofiles the warning signs have been made illegal to protect the innocent

Ahh so because one day THEY MIGHT break a law, they should be jailed now......thats wrong. For a host of reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

The best part is the FE has no evidence but is using his "best guess".

I can see it, he walks into a room with a table with 2 hard drives on resting on it. Walks over, picks em up, "yeh these could have kiddie porn on em" walks out.

[Sesshou]

Its not self incrimination. If it has gone this far its safe to assume they have had a warrant. In which case he is refusing access. Which is a crime.

Claiming the 5th is not refusing a warrant of search, its denying answering questions that would incriminate yourself with a crime by directly using your questions.

Except you can't issue a search warrant for information inside someone's head. And he is denying answering questions that would incriminate himself.

The only way the court can 'force' someone to give out self incriminating evidence is to give them immunity since then it wouldn't be incriminating. At that point it would be contempt for refusing to answer.

[anon5123]

so you know all the details? are you making a informed comment or a feelings comment

Regardless of whether or not he's guilty, imprisoning him on a suspicion and demanding that he let the police search his belongings, is a violation of both the 4th and 5th amendment.

Police cannot search him without a warrant, so forcing him to let them search him without a warrant would be violating the 4th amendment.

He also has a right to not do or say anything that would incriminate himself, so holding him in prison "indefinitely" until he decides to do something, is violating the 5th amendment.

It's not about the case itself, it's about the guy's rights.

[Deleted]

Except that they clearly have reason to suspect this guy of being guilty. What's he proving by refusing to give the police access? Do you genuinely think he's protesting against infringement of his civil liberties, or do agree that he's probably guilty? Or both?
Seriously, this isn't some Orwellian 1984 scenario.

Let's assume for a moment that it's you in this guy's situation.
Are you honestly telling me that if some asshole led the police to believe that you were harbouring child pornography, you wouldn't assist the police in clearing your name as quickly and efficiently as possible? Of course you would.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes. If you genuinely have videos/images of minors on your computer, irrelevant of whether it was someone you slept with at the time, you're a fucking weirdo.

- - - Updated - - -



As long as they promise to tidy up after themselves. I have genuinely nothing to hide. Apart from a semen-encrusted wank sock in my laundry basket, but hey, everyone masturbates and that's a pretty small price to pay for clearing my name.

of course you would say that. You would fine anything to insult me. I'm quite flattered you have such resent against me.
Oh btw I did say I was a kid, never said that they were. Funny how you always assume things to make me look bad.
Bob you've got to let it go. I know it's hard to think that women like "scums" like me and would never bother to look at you twice, but it's not like it's my fault.

call me weirdo if you want, but it's the only protection against false rape accusation. And I've been there before.
I don't know in what world do you live, but calling people weirdo for protecting themselves.... wow that place must be fucked up

[The Stormbringer]

I'm well aware that paedophilia is a psychological illness and that people should not be singled out for a condition they cannot prevent suffering from.
However, "I'm a paedophile." is, and never will be an excuse for acting on those desires.
You can't help being a paedophile, but you can sure as help acting on the desires you might have as a paedophile. In that respect, viewing sexual imagery of children, regardless of the medium is pretty fucked up.
If you're going to fantasise about pre-pubescent children, leave it to the realms of your imagination. Nobody needs that shit out there in the public domain.

Kind of off-topic, but what are your feelings towards people who are just like, attracted to post-puberty teens? Like, that 15-ish+ range where they can look older than they are, and clearly have their adult sexual characteristics. I know the age of consent is 16 in Scotland, but in the States for the most part it's 18.

[Deleted]

the guy lost his rights when he broke the law

i dont think you have the ability to make a informed decision on this
people need to stop letting emotions decide what is right and wrong

nobody is asking him to incriminate himself they are asking for access to evidence
the court getting access to that evidence could almost instantly get him released from jail if no crimes have been committed

in Australia if you refuse to give a breath sample or blood sample to check your alcohol level if you have been driving
refusal gets you the same charge as you driving with a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit

i dont know if you Americans do the same thing

given what appears to be happening. there is no proof he broke the law. they think he did, and want him to incriminate himself by unlocking his hard drives. this isn't as simple as refusing a breath sample or a blood check as there are plenty of reasons as to why you would legitimately refuse. (they also cannot force a blood test without a legal court order).

The two issues here are that they are trying to force him to (potentially) incriminate himself. which he doesn't have to and can act under the 5th
they dont want to do it themselves because they might damage evidence.

so instead, they are locking him up until he (potentially) incriminates himself. Its all kinds of fucked up and the justice system is in this case 100% wrong. they are treating him as guilty of a crime without any evidence. even the court order he is in contempt of is bullshit as it goes directly against the guys rights under the 5th making it invalid.

"we think your a pedo... so give us the evidence so we can charge you"

this is not how the legal system is supposed to work, but exactly what they are trying to do here