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

[Chaelexi]

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. Maybe taking pictures of blacked out from heavy drinking naked women, self made porn with non-consenting people, pictures of underage naked people, incriminating texts etc... He is a scumbag and is obstructing justice. The phone is evidence and shouldnt be covered under the 5th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, be a scumbag and break the law and then suppress all the evidence

It's ok it is likely backed up to the cloud. They would just have to restore it.

[petej0]

Bad idea if you're a selfish prick ya. But if you wan't to help society, sometimes it's a good idea to talk to the police, fbi, detectives, etc. If I saw someone get murdered and the police question me about it I'm going to talk to them because I'm not a piece of shit.

Providing testimony as a witness is much different than providing testimony as a suspect.

[Lochton]

The only issue is with how to prove it.

Kid is being disruptive by not working with them.

[Cracked]

Bad idea if you're a selfish prick ya. But if you wan't to help society, sometimes it's a good idea to talk to the police, fbi, detectives, etc. If I saw someone get murdered and the police question me about it I'm going to talk to them because I'm not a piece of shit.

Providing a testimony against someone, sure. Providing information in an ongoing investigation, fuck no.

[Bumbasta]

This is absolutely tragic and should never have happened. I have organized hazings in a Dutch student association for the past 5 years now. I still fully support it and see the added value that such activities can have. However, they should be well organized. Please don't let this tragic accident be a reason to bash on hazing.

[barrsftw]

Providing a testimony against someone, sure. Providing information in an ongoing investigation, fuck no.

Yeah I should have clarified. I wasn't thinking about it from that point of view. Good point.

[ranzino]

the vid above was a bit funny for germans, as police is not entitled to lie here and suspects ARE entitled to lie 24/7. it may be frustrating for police, but that's life.

[Jonnusthegreat]

The password isn't incriminating himself. This is like saying "He didn't sign off on the warrant to have his house searched." If you have a warrant, you have to oblige. Now, he can, and should, say he doesn't remember it because it's been out of his possession for so long.

[petej0]

It's less about privacy honestly and more about your 5th amendment rights against self incrimination. It's no different than pleading the 5th since giving them that information could lead to incrimination.

The funny part though is that if he had a fingerprint, eye scan or facial recognition lock, then they could order him to unlock it because they are allowed to use bioinformatics in an investigation.

This is the part that gets me. Say it was back in the 80's and cell phones and texting didnt exist and instead he and his friends were writing letters about it and knew they were stored in his house. Would the police be just as hamstrung if they found the door of his house locked?

[Hekazi]

How about, this is why you don't leave incriminating evidence on your phone, or anything you would be embarrassed about if someone saw it.

Freakin amateurs.

nudes
do i expect people to see my dudes?

[Chromeshellking]

So a lot of you seem to not understand here what the fifth amendment entails and how it can and cannot be used.

Based on the reading of the article is that the police have the evidence supporting the claim that the named defendant in the case of negligent homicide was the main actor and was in communication with others. The frame work is there we have witness accounts and records showing it and therefore a compelling interest to verify whether the phone itself does contain the metaphorical smoking gun.

The fifth amendment is in reality a legal defense when officers don't have a shred of evidence and just simply try to get to you to either lay it bare for them or confess to it.

I won't deny he could have things not relevant to the case at hand. And it may be embarrassing but he is already a very reasonable suspect in a case with someone dying and at that moment I don't care what his rights to privacy are.

[Xecks]

even as much as a scumbag the guy is for the homicide , i have to say he should be covered under the 5th amendment for his phone password.

people picking and choosing that being applied is crap. it should apply .

[triplesdsu]

He has the right to remain silent.

Outside the context of lawful detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of the police.

If judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person can still invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to testify if answers to questions posed are potentially self-incriminating.

Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him or her, can a person be compelled to answer over an assertion of this right.

If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him or her that he or she has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. (This is known as the Miranda warning.)

..........
That being said, I think you can remove the internal storage chip and access it. It is much much less protected if you don't boot from it! (unless the hard disk is encrypted)

Most chips on cell phones are now encrypted so removing the chip and imaging its content isnt a viable alternative anymore. Im guessing if he had a cheap/old cell phone they would have gotten into it by now.

[wrynil]

Because a password is something you know, its not a material object, like items in a house.

Then YOU can go unlock it just like you would your door?

[petej0]

If they have a warrant then no they aren't hamstrung. They can bust the door down. That has nothing to do with the person themselves telling them any information at that point. They have a warrant to his phone. If they can hack into it, that's legal. It doesn't mean he has to help them just like he doesn't have to help them bust his door down.

if they are after the conversations I am not sure why they dont go to his provider.

[ManiaCCC]

if they are after the conversations I am not sure why they dont go to his provider.

As far as I know, most texting protocols are crypted..

[siskokid21]

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. Maybe taking pictures of blacked out from heavy drinking naked women, self made porn with non-consenting people, pictures of underage naked people, incriminating texts etc... He is a scumbag and is obstructing justice. The phone is evidence and shouldnt be covered under the 5th amendment.

I like how you say he's guilty and use him having evidence of non-related crimes. These non-related crime are the exact reason why they shouldn't be allowed to access his phone. Guy might be innocent, get his phone broken into, and now he's being charged with rape instead of murder.

[Uncle]

You dont have the freedom to be a criminal

In fact, you have. This is exactly the essence of freedom: you can do anything you want, even being a criminal; of course, you will face consequences, but EVERY single thing you will do in your life will have consequences, that's how freedom works: freedom of choice = bearing the responsibilities of your choices, good or bad.

On the topic, i'm sure they don't need the password to open his phone, you simply can't trust Apple or any giant firm about privacy, especially in America where privacy has so little value.

[Mistame]

The password isn't incriminating himself. This is like saying "He didn't sign off on the warrant to have his house searched." If you have a warrant, you have to oblige. Now, he can, and should, say he doesn't remember it because it's been out of his possession for so long.

That's not at all how that works. If the police have a warrant, they can search. You are not obligated to assist them in their search. If you have a safe, they can cut it open, but they can't force you to give them the combination.

[Jonnusthegreat]

That's not at all how that works. If the police have a warrant, they can search. You are not obligated to assist them in their search. If you have a safe, they can cut it open, but they can't force you to give them the combination.

Have people refused to give combinations of locks from the 5th amendment?