- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Man can't remember his iPhone password; gets 6 months in jail
Posted on 5/31/17 at 3:56 am
Posted on 5/31/17 at 3:56 am
#1234...or was it *1234?
* Guy is suspected of punching and scratching his child
* Only evidence is that police believe images of the injuries are on his phone
* Password he gave them doesn't work;
* Judge sentences him to 180 days in jail
Apparently, there was no copy of the Bill of Rights available for the judge to consult during the hearing. Perhaps someone should provide such important documents to our judiciary for such complex cases.
* Guy is suspected of punching and scratching his child
* Only evidence is that police believe images of the injuries are on his phone
* Password he gave them doesn't work;
* Judge sentences him to 180 days in jail
Apparently, there was no copy of the Bill of Rights available for the judge to consult during the hearing. Perhaps someone should provide such important documents to our judiciary for such complex cases.
5
Posted on 5/31/17 at 4:05 am to No Colors
did he get 10 chances before he was reported? because I forget my password all the time
Posted on 5/31/17 at 4:14 am to No Colors
In Florida there is established precedent that providing a passcode is no different than giving up fingerprints in an investigation.
Because the passcode itself isn't incriminating, it can't be protected by the 5th.
fricking Florida.
Because the passcode itself isn't incriminating, it can't be protected by the 5th.
fricking Florida.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 4:16 am to RocketPower13
quote:
because I forget my password all the time
According to this judge, you just need Bubbah pounding your prison pussy for a couple of months to jar your memory.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 4:20 am to Volvagia
quote:
Because the passcode itself isn't incriminating, it can't be protected by the 5th.
Then by extension, I would willingly give up my passcode with the assurance that the material in my phone was under 5th amendment protection. Thus, you can have my passcode. You just can't use anything you find with it against me.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 7:13 am to No Colors
Well played counselor
Posted on 5/31/17 at 8:31 am to No Colors
How is this different than refusing to consent to a police search of your house? You refuse to consent, the police go get a warrant and come back and do whatever they need to get access to the house if its locked. Seems to me like the same should apply to a phone. If I don't want to voluntarily give cops access, then they need to get a warrant and figure out how to unlock it themselves.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 8:36 am to Tiger Prawn
The police already have a warrant for the content of the phone. This is essentially the police asking for the keys to the house to execute that warrant.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 8:37 am to Tiger Prawn
Didn't the FBI spend millions of dollars to unlock a mass murderers iphone a couple years ago?
Posted on 5/31/17 at 8:43 am to SiloamHog
quote:
Didn't the FBI spend millions of dollars to unlock a mass murderers iphone a couple years ago?
Yeah, San Bernardino terrorist I believe. And how they unlocked it and whether or not Apple assisted them was kept a secret.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 8:43 am to tLSU
quote:
The police already have a warrant for the content of the phone. This is essentially the police asking for the keys to the house to execute that warrant.
Bingo
Posted on 5/31/17 at 8:47 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
how they unlocked it and whether or not Apple assisted them was kept a secret.
And some people doubt the security of Apple devices.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 9:08 am to No Colors
quote:It's just that easy. Just tell the judge that, I'm sure he'll say, "sure thing, buddy"
Then by extension, I would willingly give up my passcode with the assurance that the material in my phone was under 5th amendment protection. Thus, you can have my passcode. You just can't use anything you find with it against me.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 9:19 am to No Colors
quote:
Both Wheeler and Victor were ordered to give up their pass codes under a Florida appeals court decision out of Sarasota that allowed for police to compel a pass code for a suspected video voyeur. The Florida Supreme Court has yet to take up the issue.
Wheeler was found in contempt, Victor was not. Interdasting.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 9:29 am to Volvagia
I can understand a biometric pass being required to be provided to law enforcement given that a fingerprint isn't a protected thing but forcing passwords to be given is horseshite.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 9:34 am to teke184
quote:Why? I agree with the poster who said it's like having a warrant to search your house and requiring you to give them the key, I don't see the issue.
but forcing passwords to be given is horse shite.
Reading the article though, the dude was in jail for 10 months. It is entirely plausible that he simply didn't remember the password. That being said, is there really not an easy way for a phone owner to recover a lost password? So, if I forgot my phone's password, I just can't ever use it again?
Posted on 5/31/17 at 9:40 am to shel311
A key is a physical possession and can be bypassed if the cops want to. You basically have the choice of letting them in or having them break their way in.
An intellectual property like a passcode or a specific touch sequence is different because you are forced to give up access to a personal device which is effectively your entire personal life. If the cops can circumvent the password, let them do it and put the costs of doing so on the defendant IF they find the evidence they were looking for. No fishing expeditions to look for X only to find Y which leads to different charges.
An intellectual property like a passcode or a specific touch sequence is different because you are forced to give up access to a personal device which is effectively your entire personal life. If the cops can circumvent the password, let them do it and put the costs of doing so on the defendant IF they find the evidence they were looking for. No fishing expeditions to look for X only to find Y which leads to different charges.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 9:48 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Yeah, San Bernardino terrorist I believe. And how they unlocked it and whether or not Apple assisted them was kept a secret.
Supposedly it was an Isreali company called Cellebrite. That is not confirmed however.
This post was edited on 5/31/17 at 9:50 am
Posted on 5/31/17 at 9:58 am to teke184
quote:So going back to the warrant to search a house, are you not forced to give up access to your physical property? I just don't see the difference.
An intellectual property like a passcode or a specific touch sequence is different because you are forced to give up access to a personal device which is effectively your entire personal life
quote:That's not relevant to this case, they're looking for something specific they've apparently been told that is on the phone.
No fishing expeditions to look for X only to find Y which leads to different charges.
Posted on 5/31/17 at 10:05 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
The Florida ruling that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the suspect deviates from earlier rulings in similar cases, including Pennsylvania and Colorado. Cases in those states have concluded a passcode or password is something the person knows and therefore would be considered self-incrimination if it were surrendered to law enforcement.
All three cases turned on an argument of "foregone conclusion," meaning law enforcement had already "determined" the contents of the phone before actually confirming what was there. Only the Florida court did not reject the notion of forgone conclusion.
Judge Anthony Black, who issued the ruling for the three-judge panel of the Florida Court of Appeal's Second District , said, "providing the passcode does not 'betray any knowledge [the defendant] may have about the circumstances of the offenses' for which he is charged. Thus, 'compelling a suspect to make a nonfactual statement that facilitates the production of evidence' for which the state has otherwise obtained a warrant based upon evidence independent of the accused's statements linking the accused to the crime does not offend the privilege."
A 1998 decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in Doe v. U.S. included the now familiar explanation that an accused person may be "forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents," but cannot "be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe."
LINK
Analysis of the prior Sarasota case in Florida.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News