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

[xindralol]

Well it's his right. Guess the police have 3 shots at getting it right haha.

[cuafpr]

meh if there is a court order search warrant to unlock phone he should be required to do so, no different than getting a warrant to search his house/confiscate the PC and get it to a DFIR team.

[kail]

meh if there is a court order search warrant to unlock phone he should be required to do so, no different than getting a warrant to search his house/confiscate the PC and get it to a DFIR team.

When they have a warrant, the suspect can still deny entry which usually leads to forcible means. They have the phone (which would require a warrant), now it's on prosecutors to force their access.

[Kraddark]

I don't think I would share the password to my phone either. I don't have any scandalous secrets myself but I do have information that my friends shared with me in confidence.

[cuafpr]

When they have a warrant, the suspect can still deny entry which usually leads to forcible means. They have the phone (which would require a warrant), now it's on prosecutors to force their access.

which is just stupid imo... its not like the phones are gonna self-erase to the level needed to prevent data recovery (in most cases), and text messages and stuff can be obtained via other means.

[BananaHandsB]

It's times like this I'm really dumbfounded about how incompetent police IT staff / hackers are. You could literally sodder off the memory chip, copy the whole thing onto a PC and bruteforce the password. 3 days work.

What dumbfounds me is why you think they would go through that process and risk damaging the chip, when they could simply ask the judge to force the defendant to give up the pass-code first. They have a warrant to search the phone, warrants allow law enforcement to bypass certain rights of an individual. Almost surely the judge will rule, due to the search warrant, not giving up the password is considered obstruction of an ongoing investigation, and will force the defendant to give it up. If the judge somehow rules differently, they will resort to measures such as what you listed.

- - - Updated - - -

When they have a warrant, the suspect can still deny entry which usually leads to forcible means. They have the phone (which would require a warrant), now it's on prosecutors to force their access.

Sure you can, not legally though. If you deny entry to law enforcement and they have a warrant, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.

[McFuu]

Deeming the passcode protected under the 5th Amendment would lead to absurd consequences — criminals would know not to use face recognition or fingerprints to lock their phones and instead always use passcodes to avoid access to law enforcement," the district attorney also said Wednesday in an email.

Why is this lawyer pretending he doesn't know that multiple cases have gone through other states and been knocked down by their Supreme courts.

A lot of people already know that you can't be compelled to give a password but other physical methods of device security fall under physical evidence such as fingerprints.

And no this would set a dangerous precedent, the precedent has already been set, and we are all still here.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The reason why you can't be compelled to give your password is slightly more nuanced then "self incrimination" although that's the overall term.

The concept is similar to a person being in trial for murder and the judge ordering them to show the court where the body is buried. They aren't found guilty yet...

The key here is that a password is kept in memory. I believe the courts have similar issues with safe codes.

[triplesdsu]

Make sure you remember you said that if someone ever murders one of your loved ones

This probably the part about cellphone companies going out of their way to make access as difficult as possible that annoys me most. Oftentimes getting into a victim's phone is an important step in the early part of a homicide investigation. Threatening messages, screenshots about beefs they have with people, who they were going to meet prior to being murdered, etc, can all give insight into who killed them, but if we cant get in, solving the case can be more difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is this lawyer pretending he doesn't know that multiple cases have gone through other states and been knocked down by their Supreme courts.

A lot of people already know that you can't be compelled to give a password but other physical methods of device security fall under physical evidence such as fingerprints.

And no this would set a dangerous precedent, the precedent has already been set, and we are all still here.

- - - Updated - - -



The reason why you can't be compelled to give your password is slightly more nuanced then "self incrimination" although that's the overall term.

The concept is similar to a person being in trial for murder and the judge ordering them to show the court where the body is buried. They aren't found guilty yet...

The key here is that a password is kept in memory. I believe the courts have similar issues with safe codes.

I dont know if i necessary agree with the "body is buried" analogy, but I get your point. I was just arguing the different ways you could theoretically look at it. Depending on how this is ruled, I could see this potentially being determined at SC level and then only their opinion would matter (just like the SC had to ultimately say a warrant was needed for cell's phone in the first place). They probably should have tried to get into the phone before they decided to charge the guy and his phone was in custody. I've done a warrant to unlock with a finger before when i arrested a guy and he just gave up his passcode at that point. But once the phone has been off for a while you nowadays need a code to unlock, fingers no longer work.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

These things pop up all the time it seems. Technology advancing beyond our current laws and all that. There's a ton of precedent though to say it doesn't behoove law enforcement to pursue this goal though especially from that high profile case a few years back which brought Apple in to the fray.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Actually, it's about the same as him refusing to make a confession.

No, it's not.

It's sad that people like you don't even know what you're defending. What you're defending is his right not to give a password (or say anything else at all). The phone isn't protected by "privacy" laws. It's not self-incrimination for them to unlock it. It's just straight-up, 100%, legal evidence. If they can obtain the password another way (say, finding it written down somewhere) or legally crack it (with a warrant), that's also straight-up, 100% legal, as is using everything on it to prosecute him.

Anyone thinking it's anything other than him just not being forced to say something is a fucking moron.

"Privacy." LOL.

[h4rr0d]

Moore contends that if Naquin is not compelled to provide his passcode, "it would indeed set a harmful and dangerous precedent for Louisiana and the nation."

Fixed that statement. Having to provide the passcode is basically the same thing as having to tell the cops where I buried the corpse. Or names of people who could help convict me.

The phone might be evidence, but the information on it is a different piece of evidence, one the police doesn't have yet. And him giving them access to it would be self incrimination

[McFuu]

This probably the part about cellphone companies going out of their way to make access as difficult as possible that annoys me most. Oftentimes getting into a victim's phone is an important step in the early part of a homicide investigation. Threatening messages, screenshots about beefs they have with people, who they were going to meet prior to being murdered, etc, can all give insight into who killed them, but if we cant get in, solving the case can be more difficult.

- - - Updated - - -



I dont know if i necessary agree with the "body is buried" analogy, but I get your point. I was just arguing the different ways you could theoretically look at it. Depending on how this is ruled, I could see this potentially being determined at SC level and then only their opinion would matter (just like the SC had to ultimately say a warrant was needed for cell's phone in the first place). They probably should have tried to get into the phone before they decided to charge the guy and his phone was in custody. I've done a warrant to unlock with a finger before when i arrested a guy and he just gave up his passcode at that point. But once the phone has been off for a while you nowadays need a code to unlock, fingers no longer work.

This has gone through other courts, and other states supreme courts, not sure about the nation's SC. I honestly don't even think it would meet the requirements to be heard. I think the only way for this case to make the Supreme Court would be if the lower courts did order the password to be compelled, and the string of appeals that would come after that. But... That would be extremely unlikely, because 99% chance the court will not compel the defendant to unlock his phone. Burden of proof falls on the state, and the defendant isn't required to help the state.

[Barnabas]

Courts have upheld that passwords on phones are protected under the 5th amendment. There really isn't much that can be done. If the witnesses give up their phone to show conspiracy then they can do that but good luck.

[The Stormbringer]

Except it isnt self incrimination any more than the police seizing notebooks from his home with a warrant. Only his words can be self incrimination. contents of a phone are evidence. Contents of his brain arent. Withholding the password is no different than him saying they cant take a DNA sample because it would incriminate him. The whole purpose of evidence is to incriminate a person.

Imagine if everything in the notebook was written in code so that only he could understand it. They demand that he gives them the cipher to translate it. Doing so would be self-incrimination and the same as asking him for the password to his phone.

[triplesdsu]

This has gone through other courts, and other states supreme courts, not sure about the nation's SC. I honestly don't even think it would meet the requirements to be heard. I think the only way for this case to make the Supreme Court would be if the lower courts did order the password to be compelled, and the string of appeals that would come after that. But... That would be extremely unlikely, because 99% chance the court will not compel the defendant to unlock his phone. Burden of proof falls on the state, and the defendant isn't required to help the state.

Maybe it wouldnt. Stories like this seem to be coming up more often in regards to the Govt trying to compel compliance with search warrants from either citizens or companies so it wouldnt shock me at some point if the high court decided we needed a final answer but you very well might be right. Ive been under the assumption that we couldnt compel but was intrigued that the issue is being revisited.

[wrynil]

How is it different from police getting a warrent to check out someones home? Thats their privacy aswell?

[Drakain]

The police can compel you to open a phone with a fingerprint or with your face, but they can’t force you to give them a code. I wonder if he can be charged with tampering.

[Deleted]

Obstruction of investigation.

[Drakain]

How is it different from police getting a warrent to check out someones home? Thats their privacy aswell?

It’s different because it involves a different right. Police can conduct basically any reasonable search if it’s suppprted by a warrant and probable cause. They can’t, however, force you to waive your right to remain silent.

[McFuu]

Maybe it wouldnt. Stories like this seem to be coming up more often in regards to the Govt trying to compel compliance with search warrants from either citizens or companies so it wouldnt shock me at some point if the high court decided we needed a final answer but you very well might be right. Ive been under the assumption that we couldnt compel but was intrigued that the issue is being revisited.

That's not exactly what I meant. The SC hears cases that get appealed through the court systems, which is a long long path. But the main issue is "the case" the case that the SC would hear would be the Hazing case, as a whole. It wouldn't be presented with just are passwords protected by the 5th. In order for them to hear specifically a case about the 5th Admendment, it would basically have to be put on trial. Which the 5th isn't on trial here, and passwords as established have been protected for a fair time. There are multiple cases protecting defendants from having to compel passwords.

Actually I lied, Supreme Court has already upheld the 5th Admendment applying to passwords.