Compulsory Password Disclosure at the Supreme Court
Courts have long been divided over the ability of judges and warrants to compel an individual to disclose the password or passcode to their cell phone, and other hand-held devices.
The power of search which can convert thoughts as expressed through online exploration and queries plus financial, personal, social, location history, and all other aspects of someone’s life can reside in the memory of a device whose access is protected by a password or passcode.
One argument believes that access to that content is equivalent to a key opening a file cabinet to one’s mind and full life experiences. Those are the things to which an individual would have an expectation of privacy in a criminal proceeding. The counter argument is that a court will eventually win the argument to bust through the password or passcode, so let’s get on with it and provide the disclosure now.
Courts have been so divided the Congressional Research Service wrote a paper describing the unsettled nature of this issue suggesting congressional action.
Florida contributes to the confusion with seminal cases in two different appeals districts (G.A.C.L. v State of Florida and State of Florida v Stahl) establishing opposing positions dividing one’s outcome based on their address.
This issue is often central to court cases involving illicit pornography, voyeurism, child sex abuse material, or others that involve hand held technology. Different outcomes in similar court cases undermines the perception of justice if your address matters more than the law underpinning the ruling. Seeing Sneed v Illinois at the US Supreme Court could provide the definition this issue needs.
I don’t have any illegal anything on my phone. That said, in 2004 my mom tried to get my computer returned from the F.B.I. and was told that there may not be anything illegal on it now but there could be tomorrow. This was recorded and presented to the judge who reportedly shook his finger at the agent and told him not to let the judge ever hear about this kind of thing again.
So yeah I’m very concerned about planting evidence just as I’m concerned about street cops planting evidence in my car during a stop.
What part of secure in our possessions do the consortium of they not understand?
It is always a bad idea to tell a cop anything let alone give them access to your electronic equipment of any kind.
Nope
Not
No
They all start with No.
A few months ago, my PO told me I had to install software on my computer that monitored my computer. I use my computer for work so I told them no and they backed off. was not going to do it anyway. It was some third party software company. They could remote into my computer and place stuff there and then say they found it. They have a vested interest in doing that. I told my PO that software was no different than then sending there neighbor to my house to search. That was not going to happen, anyone else have that problem.
The first PO I had tried the same, and I had to install the stupid tracker app. Told her first, the tracker wasn’t going to happen – it wasn’t in my terms and she couldn’t add it “just because.” Second, even if I was willing to install her monitoring app – which I wasn’t – it wasn’t compatible with Chrome, which runs my phone and laptop. She then claimed I wasn’t allowed to use either and would lock me up if she caught me.
I then took my phone out and sent a text to my daughter to meet me at the county jail that night if she didn’t hear otherwise within an hour. After that I put my hands out in front of me for the cuffs and said, “Let’s go. I want to hear you explain to the judge how you can add to my terms and how the monitor app is so critical when you can already search my devices whenever you want.”
After that, she kept telling me to calm down (even though I hadn’t moved or raised my voice) and that she’d call the court to “clarify.” “Clarify what? The disposition and terms are right there in front of you.” “Uh, uh, uh, it might be outdated.” “No problem, we’ll call the judge now. We’ll use my phone and put it on speaker.” “We don’t have time for that. I’ll be right back.” She told another PO to watch me sitting in her office and went somewhere, leaving me openly chuckling and the other PO struggling not to.
It would be a cold day in Lucifer Land before I would ever comply with just such an order. I’ve nothing to hide, but I’m damn sure not giving them access just because they say so. Best that I can tell them, is you got 15 shots at getting it right. After that, it wipes itself clean. Have at it. Anyone in such a situation would be wise to do the same, because it’s in their own best interest when facing such charges. The 5th amendment was created for a reason, and I suggest you use it.
“Please help us expedite our investigation along with fast-tracking your conviction and sentencing.”
I just had a flashback of the old “sex offender treatment” horror story where the provider would force groups to write down every single wrong thing they’ve ever done in a journal and then turn the journals over to LE to have more charges pressed. Anyone that refused was kicked out and returned to prison.
This is the exact no-win situation that LE likes to pursue.
Eventually everyone will be on the registry. This case that was closed is now being “RE”-Reviewed for prosecution.
Famous record cover of naked baby getting a 2nd look at prosecuting over child pornograpy.
https://www.aol.com/news/court-revives-nirvana-child-pornography-202047045.html
Shouldn’t the author of the story be arrested for distributing CP for including a picture of the album cover?
This suit is nothing more than a guy trying to get royalties from the album. He lost the first time around because the statute of limitations had passed. and he’s bringing it again because of the re-release. Nothing wrong with that, but at least be honest about it.
If he was :”harmed” (which I seriously doubt), then why isn’t he suing his parents as well? They would have had to agree to the taking of the picture. In fact, is he seeking to have them arrested for child sex trafficking? Or the rest of the defendants? Why not? He was “harmed” and there’s no statute of limitations on that any more, correct?
The funny thing is, this guy thinks anyone cares or even recognizes him as the baby on that album cover. Someone should break his poor little heart and clue him in; No. One. Cares.
There are a lot of people who are now mid-life age who receive monetary awards from our federal courts because their child age nude images are still shared on the web. The so called “Vicky series ” is an example.
It just occurred to me that the picture of him as a baby swimming after a dollar on a fishhook was rather prophetic.