- 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
re: Judge Rules Defendant in Gruver Trial Must Give Cellphone Password to Prosecutors
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:15 pm to EA6B
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:15 pm to EA6B
quote:
Courts do not consider personal journals or diaries confidential, they can be subpoenaed, and used as evidence against you.
A phone isn’t confidential either. My point is that the purpose of a passcode is so the owner has to give permission in order to get access. If we honor that with a phone why shouldn’t we honor that with a journal that says on the front “don’t open without my permission.”
1
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:15 pm to TigersSEC2010
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:22 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
A phone isn’t confidential either. My point is that the purpose of a passcode is so the owner has to give permission in order to get access. If we honor that with a phone why shouldn’t we honor that with a journal that says on the front “don’t open without my permission.”
They will eventually just have someone else hack the phone, there is no legal protection of its contents. Its no different than me having files locked in a bank safety deposit box, or a safe in my office, and refusing to open it. I don't have to open it, but there is no protection against the court getting someone else to open it, seizing the files to use against me, happens all the time.
This post was edited on 1/28/19 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:22 pm to barry
quote:
Lots of keyboard lawyers in this thread
One has to simply look at shitshows like the 9th Circuit to conclude that a great many keyboard lawyers out there are more concerned with adherence to the law than some of these tyrants who are merely pulling things out of their asses and legislating from the bench.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:29 pm to Golfer
quote:
It's like a judge ruling that you must give the state the combination to the safe that your journal is in. Which the defendant does not have to do.
This is the best analogy brought up so far. Basically it amounts to ~ we have a warrant to access your safe, you will either give us the code or we are going to break in.
The 5th refers to you having to physically speak or produce incriminating evidence going forward... You don't retroactively utilize it. Your pre-existing documents/data/content is covered under the 4th not the 5th.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:31 pm to EA6B
quote:
there is no protection against the court getting someone else to open it,
Exactly.
But that's the point.
This kid has no legal obligation to give them the code.
You want it, get it yourself.
Personally, I hope his phone is clean but absolutely loaded with cop themed gay porn. And a picture of the judge sodomizing himself with a pine cone.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:50 pm to EA6B
quote:
They will eventually just have someone else hack the phone, there is no legal protection of its contents. Its no different than me having files locked in a bank safety deposit box, or a safe in my office, and refusing to open it. I don't have to open it, but there is no protection against the court getting someone else to open it, seizing the files to use against me, happens all the time.
But if there's an incendiary device inside that destroys the content if not opened with the right combination, can they make you give it to them? That's the same question.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 12:52 pm to TigersSEC2010
quote:
Naquin is the only person charged with negligent homicide in the death of the late LSU student.
quote:
Last fall, Gruver drank himself to death
Something’s fricky.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:02 pm to TigersSEC2010
Nobody else here sees the bigger problem? The court is trying to compel this guy to provide something, under threat of imprisonment, that they cannot prove he has.
COURT: "Give us your password that is only stored in your head."
GUY: "I don't remember it."
COURT: "Well, I find you in contempt, so sit in prison until you do."
>BANGS GAVEL<
COURT: "Give us your password that is only stored in your head."
GUY: "I don't remember it."
COURT: "Well, I find you in contempt, so sit in prison until you do."
>BANGS GAVEL<
This post was edited on 1/28/19 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:03 pm to Dam Guide
quote:
There is a good chance the prosecutors already have what is on the phone, but need a way to get it admissible in court.
If it's an Android, yup. Those can be cracked in seconds.
An iPhone 6+? Nope.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:12 pm to Jon Ham
If it is an open record found during a search, no questions about it being admissible.
If the information was heavily coded to the point where they needed his assistance to decipher it, that’s a 5th Amendment issue because they want help “unlocking” an incriminating document.
If the information was heavily coded to the point where they needed his assistance to decipher it, that’s a 5th Amendment issue because they want help “unlocking” an incriminating document.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:14 pm to TigerstuckinMS
Well frick, it has the numbers 1 2 3 and 4 in it, I think, but I can’t remember the order.
How many attempts before a permanent lockout? 10?
How many attempts before a permanent lockout? 10?
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:23 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:Pretty much everyone replying for 5 pages has said some version of this.
Nobody else here sees the bigger problem? The court is trying to compel this guy to provide something, under threat of imprisonment, that they cannot prove he has.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:31 pm to shel311
quote:
Pretty much everyone replying for 5 pages has said some version of this.
I FIND YOU IN CONTEMPT!
>BANGS GAVEL<
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:32 pm to TigerstuckinMS
I would throw him in the jail basement.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:44 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
I FIND YOU IN CONTEMPT!
>BANGS GAVEL<
Posted on 1/28/19 at 1:54 pm to Damone
quote:
It's a judge ruling that he must provide information, i.e. a statement, against himself
Say he had physical photos locked in a trunk in his closet. Police get a warrant, can he not be ordered to provide the key to unlock the trunk?
I understand that there is a difference in difficulty of access within this comparison. I'm just not sure why it would be different considering they both include locked, physically or electronically, items.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 2:16 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
Nobody else here sees the bigger problem? The court is trying to compel this guy to provide something, under threat of imprisonment, that they cannot prove he has.
They can easily prove when he last accessed the phone, and how often he accessed the phone prior to that just from his phone records, based on that it is not unreasonable for the court to believe he is still capable of opening the phone.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 2:20 pm to EA6B
quote:
it is not unreasonable for the court to believe he is still capable of opening the phone.
It's also not unreasonable that he forgot his passcode.
Posted on 1/28/19 at 2:25 pm to TigersSEC2010
Two words: Remote wipe
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News