Ex student won't give cops phone password

The whole headline.

"Ex-LSU student in hazing death case won't give up phone password so prosecutors can't go 'rummaging'"

Apparently police are investigating a death of a student that was killed during a hazing ritual.
The student in question refused to give investigators his phone password citing the 5th amendment.
He feels he is being asked to incriminate himself.

I'm torn on this one.
His phone is basically an electronic file cabinet and he would definitely be required to unlock that in an investigation. But the phone is also subject to private communications.


www.theadvocate.com...

Something else I found interesting in this article was his assertion that cell phone makers didn't intend for their phones to be snooped on.
Will the courts recognize the phone makers intentions of use?
If so this could be a huge legal decision.
Gun manufacturers could claim that their products are not intended for crimes therefore they are not liable for there products misuse.


"I don't think many citizens want the government rummaging through their phone," McLindon said in an email. "I believe the manufacturers of smartphones believe in privacy as well; otherwise, the phones would be made in a way that they could be accessed easily."

a reply to: Bluntone22

i have had similar discucions IRL

and my honest opinion is :

such matters should be turned over to :

the office of relevant disclosure

an independant agency - which would do exactly

in such cases the ORD

would ONLY pass information that DIRECTLY pertained to the case

ie - they would withold the fact that the suspect :

bought 2 grams of coke 1 month previouis

was involved in a hit and run 12 days ago

etc etc etc

ONLY - pertinant files relating to the death of the hazing victim - could be turned over to law enforment - under a writ demanding access to info on the death

"I believe the manufacturers of smartphones believe in privacy as well; otherwise, the phones would be made in a way that they could be accessed easily."

Is this supposed to be a joke?

At this point, it looks like the gov owns all cellphone mfgrs.

If not, they sure aren't protecting us from privacy intrusion.

Police use cracking hardware already.

They don't need a password.

This is fake news by evil people imo.

Throw no-root firewall on your phone and log traffic, then come back and tell me the ENTIRE gd purpose of "smart" phones isn't spying.

They are infested.

Jesus

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I agree to a point but what do they do if his phone is full of child porn?

Another attack on the constitution for our safety.

Get a gd warrant.

Wait you mean this technology could potential come back and bite oneself in ones ass?

HMMMPHHHHFFT

They should put a warning on the side ya know cuz how else we idiots going to know that?



If they broke into the iphone a while back then I dont see why this one wont be broken into.

Hey idiots, if you doing bad #, don't bring your phone.


Rule 1.

No self snitching.


Rule 2.

There are no other rules.

Being that I have no where near a level of criminal law understanding required I can only offer my thought,

Your home requires a search warrant if you are a suspect, why is the contents of your phone any different, get a warrant and then it must be unlocked, all data then which is incriminating can be charged against the suspect, even evidence unrelated to the case

If the suspect was to have a video of a murder/assault etc on their phone but were being investigated for a driving offence, it dont matter, if you are stupid enough to commit a crime and record it for prosperity then you deserve all you get.

Criminal investigations should not resemble this

I don't think law enforcement should have access to anyone's phones


If he gets a liberal judge:

He should claim that he is phone sexual and then claim Spousal privilege. Anyone bigot who says it's not a thing is phoneaphobic.

www.urbandictionary.com...

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 01:15 PM

link    quote   reply

a reply to: ignorant_ape 

I agree to a point but what do they do if his phone is full of child porn?

Then by the grace of Karma....
Prosecute! Otherwise the student should have nothing to worry about.
If I were Law Enforcement, I would let some mind minor infractions go. Focus on the case at hand.

P.S. I don't think we're dealing with CP here. Just a case of Snobby A$$Whips with parents with more to protect.

PSS.. thanks for making mention of this as I will read more into this. As it's already come up in conversation here.

Well the cops could always dismantle it remove the internal storage and SD card flash and use a computer to view the contents....there's ways to flash the data from the internal storage on phones.

Shouldn't it follow the laws that pertain to search warrants. At least at the minimum.

It's up to the court to decide if he "self-incriminates" himself.

He should give up his password. How many people would cite his "human rights" are being infringed if this was child porn, or something deeply disturbing, rather than the tragic death of a fellow human being.

There should be controls here and these can be applied by a judge as part of a judicial process, like a search warrant. Not sure how it works in the States, but in the UK a judge or magistrate gives authorisation for the search of someone's home, for example.

a reply to: Bluntone22

People today should just assume someone knows what is on your phone/computer/electronic device.


Let me just put it this way. It was my job to look at certain things. Employees knew upfront that devices could be monitored. They either didn't care or didn't believe it.

We used to read text messages. Tons of office affairs.
We could see phone calls in and out, text messages. We could tell who was streaming netflix. There were people
that were on their phones in excess of 10 hours a day, EVERY Day.

Now that was a company device, but you better believe that carriers and middlemen can see that too.

originally posted by: dug88
Well the cops could always dismantle it remove the internal storage and SD card flash and use a computer to view the contents....there's ways to flash the data from the internal storage on phones.

No they can't. The second you flash, you lose all information on the storage device. A flash is equivalent to formatting the drive.

If it were this easy, then they wouldn't need to brute force try to crack smart phones, which is exactly the only way they have successfully done it previously, which can take YEARS to do.

originally posted by: paraphi
It's up to the court to decide if he "self-incriminates" himself.

He should give up his password. How many people would cite his "human rights" are being infringed if this was child porn, or something deeply disturbing, rather than the tragic death of a fellow human being.

There should be controls here and these can be applied by a judge as part of a judicial process, like a search warrant. Not sure how it works in the States, but in the UK a judge or magistrate gives authorisation for the search of someone's home, for example.

No it's not up to the court to decide. This is the United States, we have the 5th for this, which is protection against self incrimination. They cannot force him to give the password, no matter what, a warrant cannot force a person to give you intelligence. A warrant can force you to surrender the phone, but if they cannot access the contents inside it, they cannot force the key out of you.

FOR ANY REASON.

5th.

You never have to help to courts win a case against you, in fact -- they cannot force cooperation. They can get search warrants, which side step you. I'd assume that since they have his phone, it was taken on a warrant, but being as that it's locked and they cannot get into it -- in no way does the person in question have to help them open it.

If I had a house that they couldn't penetrate, they could get a search warrant, but if they couldn't get inside -- I'm under no obligation to open it for them.

-

a reply to: SRPrime

If they get a warrant I'm not to sure his phone would be covered by the 5th.
They can search any other piece of property so the phone would probably be kosher.

And yes you do have to open your house if they have a warrant. Unless you prefer jail.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I am by no means a lawyer of a judge. My expertise (or lack there of) comes from listening to true crime podcasts.

What I can offer is that I have heard multiple different rulings that a phone can be treated like a filing cabinet. I have heard warrants issued and based on that. Similarly to 'real warrants' the prosecution has to outline what they are looking for - they can't just go on a fishing expedition.

Now, while I know this has worked several times, I have no idea how many times it has not worked.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I agree to a point but what do they do if his phone is full of child porn?

He goes to jail!
But.............having now obstructed the cops, doubtless pissing them off, what's to stop them from cracking the code and then planting child porn onto the phone?
Same result.

a reply to: Bluntone22


Whelp, the phone was turned over to the prosecutor by court order. If that doesn't constitute a warrant, then they should get one. But, I don't think one can refuse a search warrant on the basis of what the police find might incriminate the person in question.