That might be accurate in some places, but it VERY misleading for the US in particular.
In the US, the courts are currently divided on whether encryption has 5A protection. But more cases than not, have ruled they DO enjoy 5A protection against self incrimination. For example, US v. John Doe, 2012. VA vs David Baust, 2014. SEC vs Bonan Huang, 2015. US vs Mitchell, 2017. There are lots of other individual cases, where courts ruled a defendant does NOT have to unlock an encrypted device. The warrant gives the gov the right to the device, but the defendant did not have to help them access it.
One prob with compelling a pw, is it’s impossible to know if the suspect is refusing, or legit forgot. Esp when there is a long time interval. Ex, Voigt and Victor, it was 10 months before the gov requested the pw, and
A judge declined to hold Hencha Voigt in contempt of court after she gave incorrect pass codes to police investigating a ‘sextortion’ case.
There have been cases that went the other way, and a suspect was held in contempt for failing to produce a pw. Hence why it is a chaotic legal situation, until a higher court sorts it out. But your odds are pretty good, at the mo, in the USA.
It is likely, SCOTUS will eventually rule that just like a GPS track enjoys 5A protection, so does the device contents. Not certain, ofc! But that would align with recent court rulings, ex, Chatrie v. United States.
this is going to play out like the others that have used encryption on their computers; with them in jail for years on end for contempt of court.
Wouldn’t it be great to see contempt of court charges for the wealthy and powerful, instead of just a random citizen erasing his phone?
That might be accurate in some places, but it VERY misleading for the US in particular.
In the US, the courts are currently divided on whether encryption has 5A protection. But more cases than not, have ruled they DO enjoy 5A protection against self incrimination. For example, US v. John Doe, 2012. VA vs David Baust, 2014. SEC vs Bonan Huang, 2015. US vs Mitchell, 2017. There are lots of other individual cases, where courts ruled a defendant does NOT have to unlock an encrypted device. The warrant gives the gov the right to the device, but the defendant did not have to help them access it.
One prob with compelling a pw, is it’s impossible to know if the suspect is refusing, or legit forgot. Esp when there is a long time interval. Ex, Voigt and Victor, it was 10 months before the gov requested the pw, and
There have been cases that went the other way, and a suspect was held in contempt for failing to produce a pw. Hence why it is a chaotic legal situation, until a higher court sorts it out. But your odds are pretty good, at the mo, in the USA.
It is likely, SCOTUS will eventually rule that just like a GPS track enjoys 5A protection, so does the device contents. Not certain, ofc! But that would align with recent court rulings, ex, Chatrie v. United States.