5th Amendment spit on by Colorado "judge"

[Denny Crane]

If the ruling quoted in the defendant's argument is valid--that "a defendant may be compelled to produce the key to a lockbox, but not the combinationto a safe"--then I have to agree with Maris here.

She's not being asked for her password, but to produce an unencrypted version of the files.

 

[jlprk]

This amendment has only been law for about 225 years, a quarter of a millennium. You'd think they would have worked out every last detail about how much cooperation it requires. Give the lawyers another millennium or two. At $250 per hour, hmm, my calculator only goes up to 64 digits, I can't figure it out.

Meanwhile, she should tell the judge to stick it. She has nothing to lose.

 

[MARIS61]

She's not being asked for her password, but to produce an unencrypted version of the files.

That's not correct, but anyway she only had an encrypted version and she already turned it over. She has nothing in her possession left to turn over other than a password in her mind.

 

[Denny Crane]

This amendment has only been law for about 225 years, a quarter of a millennium. You'd think they would have worked out every last detail about how much cooperation it requires. Give the lawyers another millennium or two. At $250 per hour, hmm, my calculator only goes up to 64 digits, I can't figure it out.

Meanwhile, she should tell the judge to stick it. She has nothing to lose.

Encryption (code, secret writing forms) has been around a lot longer than 225 years. They wrote about warrants in the 4th amendment.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not correct, but anyway she only had an encrypted version and she already turned it over. She has nothing in her possession left to turn over other than a password in her mind.

Not true. She can type in her password out of sight of the govt. employees.

They are not on a fishing expedition. They know exactly what they're looking for because SHE TOLD THEM ALREADY.

 

[jlprk]

Encryption (code, secret writing forms) has been around a lot longer than 225 years. They wrote about warrants in the 4th amendment.

That's my point, it should be settled law by now. I'm sure that sometime in 225 years, prosecutors have seized a document whose secret code was known only to the defendant. Probably, they simply didn't use it as evidence, rather than require self-incrimination, i.e. disclosure of the code.

 

[Denny Crane]

They could produce some fraudulent but incriminating document, claiming they broke the encryption. What's the defendant going to do?

The law is settled. The step by step reasoning process laid out by the judge is the check list. Capiche?

 

[jlprk]

Not true. She can type in her password out of sight of the govt. employees.

They are not on a fishing expedition. They know exactly what they're looking for because SHE TOLD THEM ALREADY.

Then they can require a murderer to produce the body. After all, he can dig it up out of their sight while they stand 50 feet away.

They can require almost all self-incrimination, according to you. What exactly can't they require? That list will be much shorter than the list of what they can require, if you're right.

 

[MARIS61]

Not true. She can type in her password out of sight of the govt. employees.

Only from memory.

Quit pretending to be stupid, you have no arguement

 

[Denny Crane]

Then they can require a murderer to produce the body. After all, he can dig it up out of their sight while they stand 50 feet away.

They can require almost all self-incrimination, according to you. What exactly can't they require? That list will be much shorter than the list of what they can require, if you're right.

Not at all. That's not even close.

She is not being compelled to testify against herself because she already told the prosecution what's on the hard drive. It's a foregone conclusion. The warrant is reasonable, specifies the thing, place, and time explicitly. It is not a fishing expedition where they may find something unspecified that is incriminating.

If she wants to keep her password private, which is reasonable, the govt. is making that possible.

Don't believe me? It's in the finding and it cites several precedents. Or google for "5th amendment foregone conclusion" and gain a clue.

 

[MARIS61]

Not at all. That's not even close.

She is not being compelled to testify against herself because she already told the prosecution what's on the hard drive. It's a foregone conclusion. The warrant is reasonable, specifies the thing, place, and time explicitly. It is not a fishing expedition where they may find something unspecified that is incriminating.

If she wants to keep her password private, which is reasonable, the govt. is making that possible.

Don't believe me? It's in the finding and it cites several precedents. Or google for "5th amendment foregone conclusion" and gain a clue.

It cites no applicable precedents and will be overturned.

Citing a flawed ruling as support of the same flawed ruling is weak as you can get.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

She's not being asked for her password, but to produce an unencrypted version of the files.

Semantics. Are you contending that a defendant can't be compelled to produce the combination to a safe, but can be compelled to open a safe to which he/she knows the combination? That seems like a line too fine for even the government to draw.

 

[PapaG]

My question is this.

If she already admitted what is on the hard drive during questioning, why is it so important to see what's on the hard drive? Seems like she already gave a confession, didn't she?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

if i hide some evidence up my butt, would i be forced to remove it myself, or would a big muscular doctor be subpoenaed to forcefully tie me down and remove it with a pair of large forceps or a possibly theoretical wood welding plastic magnet?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

slypokerdog, you are a fucking idiot?

 

[Denny Crane]

if i hide some evidence up my butt, would i be forced to remove it myself, or would a big muscular doctor be subpoenaed to forcefully tie me down and remove it with a pair of large forceps or a possibly theoretical wood welding plastic magnet?

They'd use explosives, just like opening a safe.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

They'd use explosives, just like opening a safe.

im the gatekeeper, are you the keymaster?

 

[Ed O]

Meanwhile, she should tell the judge to stick it. She has nothing to lose.

The only person, it seems to me, who should tell the judge to stick it is someone who has nothing to lose. The only person who has nothing to lose is a guilty person.

Therefore, anyone who tells the judge to stick it should be found guilty of the crime of which that person has been accused, with the "stick it" being a de facto confession.

Ed O.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

"hey we think you did this but cant prove it, can you help us prove it?"

"stick it", as a response, seems perfectly logical, whether you are guilty or not

and nothing to lose? anyone on trial has their FREEDOM to lose, right?

and you think that at that point they should just skip the trial and go straight to guilty? why not just execute her instead?