On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Steven Morrey <[email protected]>wrote:
> As far as the 5th amendment goes this has already been decided in a court > case. I will try to find a reference but in a nutshell it was determined > that the 5th does not apply to password or certificate based encryption. Is there more to this story than meets the eye? Compelling a suspect to open a safe is no different, in principle, from compelling said suspect to reveal the safe's combination. If a suspect can be compelled to open a safe, then one must conclude that said suspect similarly has no right to silence. Given Miranda, this doesn't sound right to me. If we're talking about a third-party rather than a suspect, then I could see how rights against self-incrimination might not apply, and contempt charges could arise. I just can't imagine any circumstance wherein suspects can be compelled to take any action, verbal or otherwise, that would help the state make a criminal case against them. What am I missing? /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
