student in hazing death case won't give up phone password

[Machismo]

I figure it's because of how reluctant he is to prove he's innocent? I mean he's already killed someone through negligence, it's not a leap to assume he's also a pedophile rapist with pictures of minors on his phone.

I don't protect criminals. Figures a corrupt regime with a corrupt president might have a different opinion though

It's not about protecting criminals, it's about protecting everyone. Even a criminal should have rights. You can assume all you like about him, but he should be under no obligation to incriminate himself.

[Koriani]

Considering that anything you say can and will be used against you in court of justice, you, of course, have right to remain silent.



A 40 minute lecture by a lawyer and a policeman explaining why giving away ANY information is a bad idea.

Ah - Yea I do already get all that.

I guess I misunderstood the discussion. I have no problem with NEVER VOLUNTEERING the information.

Doesn't mean I don't also then agree (and understand) that by refusing to cooperate the law will then do whatever they can legally do to get the information, outside of what I am or am not volunteering.

So while I couldn't care less that this guy isn't volunteering his password, because most people wouldn't - ESPECIALLY if there's direct evidence of the murder there - I also fully believe and support the police getting a warrant and force-breaking (or whatever they do) the phone to get the information. While also still protecting the accused with sealing any and all information (on that phone) that is NOT directly to do with the charges, behind confidentiality and 5th amendment rights. So that only his lawyer, or the two lawyers, or the two lawyers and the judge designated professional (whatever) see the contents of the phone and only what is relevant gets to court. The rest (information) is destroyed.

There are other laws in place that have to do with "fishing" expeditions for evidence for a charge that doesn't exist yet (saying if he had evidence of another crime on his phone besides the one he is accused of it doesn't necessarily mean they can charge him), etc.

But yes, that phone is evidence and the courts should make every effort to get that information. First voluntarily, and then if that's not happening, by warrant and "force" (on the phone...not the person...lol).

Sorry - guess I misunderstood the discussion!

[Protean]

I'm baffled why so many people here are opposed to freedom and right to privacy. "Just don't be a criminal" is a pretty dangerous slippery slope of a reason to lose your right to privacy. In EU we have fought extremely hard against directives that violate our digital privacy, while Americans in this thread seem to willingly just bend over simply because they aren't criminals. Authoritarianism affects more than just criminals.

He has and uses his freedom to privacy. It just has consequences, like any other choice. Either he has nothing on his phone, and he's an idiot for not proving it, or he has something, and our treatment of him is fair.

This worked for witch hunts and it works now.

[Eosia]

Except the password is obstructing justice and suppressing the only possible evidence to the crime.

Except that a suspect cannot be compelled to speak. Google "Miranda Rights".

Also, we've already established the fact that the Fifth Amendment precludes self-incrimination. So Obstruction of Justice.

[Machismo]

He has and uses his freedom to privacy. It just has consequences, like any other choice. Either he has nothing on his phone, and he's an idiot for not proving it, or he has something, and our treatment of him is fair.

This worked for witch hunts and it works now.

If the government arrests him for maintaining privacy, then he's not actually free to do it, is he? That's like saying you have the freedom of speech, even if the government is arresting you for speech. You would objectively not actually have that freedom.

[Contego]

He has and uses his freedom to privacy. It just has consequences, like any other choice. Either he has nothing on his phone, and he's an idiot for not proving it, or he has something, and our treatment of him is fair.

This worked for witch hunts and it works now.

If you were accused for being a witch, you were dead regardless. You floated and survived, you were burned for being a witch. You sunk and drowned, you were innocent. Some of us protect our privacy due to principles, not because we cover something up. I understand this is hard to take in if you don't value your freedom, so I won't spend much more time saying it.

Also, being detained for practicing your right to privacy, isn't really right to privacy now is it? What is the point of privacy, if the police can just say "you have the right to keep your privacy to yourself, but we will just keep you here until you share it with us"?

[Cracked]

Ah - Yea I do already get all that.

I guess I misunderstood the discussion. I have no problem with NEVER VOLUNTEERING the information.

Doesn't mean I don't also then agree (and understand) that by refusing to cooperate the law will then do whatever they can legally do to get the information, outside of what I am or am not volunteering.

So while I couldn't care less that this guy isn't volunteering his password, because most people wouldn't - ESPECIALLY if there's direct evidence of the murder there - I also fully believe and support the police getting a warrant and force-breaking (or whatever they do) the phone to get the information. While also still protecting the accused with sealing any and all information (on that phone) that is NOT directly to do with the charges, behind confidentiality and 5th amendment rights. So that only his lawyer, or the two lawyers, or the two lawyers and the judge designated professional (whatever) see the contents of the phone and only what is relevant gets to court. The rest (information) is destroyed.

There are other laws in place that have to do with "fishing" expeditions for evidence for a charge that doesn't exist yet (saying if he had evidence of another crime on his phone besides the one he is accused of it doesn't necessarily mean they can charge him), etc.

But yes, that phone is evidence and the courts should make every effort to get that information. First voluntarily, and then if that's not happening, by warrant and "force" (on the phone...not the person...lol).

Sorry - guess I misunderstood the discussion!

Sure, they are able to get a warrant to get the information. But who do they issue the warrant to? They tried going to Apple before, well that didn't go so well. They can't subpoena the suspect, because he cannot be forced to incriminate himself. All they could do is force the information out of the phone on their own, and if that went wrong, they would go down for tampering with evidence. Hence, they can't really do anything.

[Cracked]

You're an idiot if you give the police any information when they suspect you. Shut your mouth unless your lawyer tells you to open it.

You're an idiot if you give the police any information even if they don't suspect you. Shut your mouth unless subpoenaed or you are a voluntary witness.

[PACOX]

It's that gray area.

On one side, fuck the organization for its hazing ritual and even having the arrogance to record it. They used their power and influence, and often the victim goes from a willing to unwilling participant, to contribute to one's death. That punishable.

On the other hand, the rights surrounding proper seizure of property and evidence is bigger than this case.

The phone should be treated like any locked box/room. If the investigators can get in then it's fair game. If not then you can't force someone to 'potentially' incriminate themself. Not cooperating can't be held against them.

There's was to get into the phone. We've seen it before. The investors don't have the resources to do so or they are holding off for optics, often what federal agencies do to try to introduce a legal precedent. Usually they come back later and some how, miraculously, cracked the phone.

[Mistame]

When people don't give something like this, you can't help but imagine there's something really horrible they're protecting.

Of course you can't. Resistance is futile, eh?

Its obvious hes guilty and trying to suppress evidence. There is no other reason to withhold the password. He is likely guilty of other things too of which there is evidence of on the phone.

This is literally the reason the 5th Amendment exists. The mindset that you and others have that his refusal to give his password is evidence of something illegal on his phone is fucking retarded. Even if I'd just set up a new phone, I'd still tell them to fuck off. It's their responsibility to get the information, not mine (or his, in this case). If they can't, that's their problem.

He has and uses his freedom to privacy. It just has consequences, like any other choice. Either he has nothing on his phone, and he's an idiot for not proving it, or he has something, and our treatment of him is fair.

Yeah, that's not at all how "rights" or "freedoms" work. They're literally protections from consequences imposed by government.

[Koriani]

Sure, they are able to get a warrant to get the information. But who do they issue the warrant to? They tried going to Apple before, well that didn't go so well. They can't subpoena the suspect, because he cannot be forced to incriminate himself. All they could do is force the information out of the phone on their own, and if that went wrong, they would go down for tampering with evidence. Hence, they can't really do anything.

As the poster below me said - this should be falling under property seizure rights.

I actually felt Apple was wrong in what it did (if there was a warrant for that information, I honestly don't remember).

Once there is a warrant - give up the information.

Every other situation allows for it - and even professions (medical, psychology) that are normally confidential and protected under upteen privacy laws have to give up information when ordered to by the court/warrant.

No reason someone's phone should be the special something that rules don't apply to. That's bullshit.

Just legal precedent hasn't caught up to technology. A forever problem, of course, that we won't solve anytime soon - obviously.

But that's the direction it /should/ go in. Whether that comes from a backdoor from Apple or your cell phone carrier or a licensed professional who works for the police - whatever. If this was a journal in someone's room they wrote the information in - it would be seized and there would be no questions as to its submissibility (assuming warrant here). Just because its a phone with a password doesn't make it the most specialist piece of property in existence that current laws "can't" apply to. That's bullshit.

[Hilhen7]

Obviously they can't force someone to give up evidence that would incriminate themselves...

[Felaris Stormrage]

In addition to evidence of the hazing, he's probably got nude pics of an underaged girlfriend on the phone or something. He knows that if the police see if they'll throw a child pornography charge at him, the consequences of which are even worse than the other charges.

Lmfao. How long did it take you to come up with that bullshit?

[Queen of Hamsters]

He has the right to keep his privacy in accordance with the fifth amendment.

Is is a dirtbag? Yes. Is he guilty? Probably. Does he have incriminating shit on his phone? Most likely.

But in the end, he has his rights as a human.

[Coldfrostzero]

This sounds awfully familiar to the case in California a few years ago where the husband shot up co-workers or something and the FBI was trying to force Apple to create a hacking device to get evidence off it. They refused and then the FBI came up with its own solution anyway. Obviously, police don't exactly have the resources for this, but I am pretty sure they can turn it over to the FBI anyway.

[triplesdsu]

Im curious how this turns out. Im sure in the past that its been ruled self-incrimination in that by providing access, because you're incriminating yourself by admitting ownership/control of the device by providing access. Im not sure i completely buy that argument if that point isnt being contention and the simple remedy would be that the DA couldnt mention you provided the code in court. In contrast,You cant plead the 5th to preventt execution of a warrant, ie. if the cops have a warrant to search your house you cant say no. We just kick down the door. Same with DNA/blood, if we have a warrant we get it. In the past we could "kick" our way in digitally but particularly Apple has made it their lifes work to cock block law enforcement.

[Hilhen7]

Im curious how this turns out. Im sure in the past that its been ruled self-incrimination in that by providing access, because you're incriminating yourself by admitting ownership/control of the device by providing access. Im not sure i completely buy that argument if that point isnt being contention and the simple remedy would be that the DA couldnt mention you provided the code in court. In contrast,You cant plead the 5th to preventt execution of a warrant, ie. if the cops have a warrant to search your house you cant say no. We just kick down the door. Same with DNA/blood, if we have a warrant we get it. In the past we could "kick" our way in digitally but particularly Apple has made it their lifes work to cock block law enforcement.

They can't force you to hand over the keys to your door, just like they can't force you to give up the passcode to your phone.

[Deleted]

Isn't that a bit of a catch 22?

Potential Evidence on phone.
Right to Privacy
Claim Impeding Investigation
Need proof
Potentially Proof on the phone.
Right to Privacy.

This goes no where.

Except they have other evidence that he may be involved and thus he is impending an investigation ?
I guess it was not obvious enough to some.

- - - Updated - - -

They can't force you to hand over the keys to your door, just like they can't force you to give up the passcode to your phone.

That's not the issue since his password can just be changed the minute the police is done searching. The search warrant analogy in perfectly valid and I think you are grasping at straws.

[Endus]

They can't force you to hand over the keys to your door, just like they can't force you to give up the passcode to your phone.

This is actually wrong.

The keys are a physical object. You absolutely can be forced to hand over the keys. What you can't be forced to hand over is a password or combination; that's when self-incrimination defenses come in, because you're being asked to give testimony (your password) that will be used to incriminate you (by whatever that password unlocks). A physical key isn't "testimony", so you can be obliged to turn that over. Same for biometric locks; a thumbprint unlock on your phone can be required of you, and officers can hold you down while they swipe your phone if you won't cooperate.

The kid's within his rights. And since he's been charged, he has absolutely no reason to cooperate with the officers. It's against his interests. At best, he could ask for immunity or reduced sentencing for cooperation, but on the general principles, he shouldn't cooperate unless he's getting something for it.

That said, the kid's a dirtbag and I hope they can crack his phone (which they have every right to, if they have a warrant) and nail him anyway. I'm taking the above stances on principle, not because I support this particular shithead.

[Kathandira]

Except they have other evidence that he may be involved and thus he is impending an investigation ?
I guess it was not obvious enough to some.

The other evidence doesn't give allow them to breach his right to privacy to get on his phone to investigate any potential evidence it may have stored on it though.