Categories
Right Angle

Would You Do 44 Days in Jail for Refusing to Unlock Your Phone?

William Montanez maybe an unlikely hero for civil libertarians, but the Florida man — arrested on drug and weapons charges — did 44 days in jail for refusing to unlock his phone for police. Would you endure that to guard your liberties, or perhaps just racy pics of your partner? Should the law prevent police from cracking phones to solve crimes?

William Montanez maybe an unlikely hero for civil libertarians, but the Florida man — arrested on drug and weapons charges — did 44 days in jail for refusing to unlock his phone for police. Would you endure that to guard your liberties, or perhaps just racy pics of your partner? Should the law prevent police from cracking phones to solve crimes?

12 replies on “Would You Do 44 Days in Jail for Refusing to Unlock Your Phone?”

I wouldn’t open my safe for them just like I wouldn’t open my phone. Now……. If they wanna bring power tools and bust open my safe, more power to ’em. I am just not going to give it to them. and they better have a warrant to seize my safe and it’s contents. before I even show them where it’s at. And I would fight the warrant if it’s flimsy.

This was to Steve by the way. I still haven’t figured out how to post a comment without replying to someone else.

At the top of the comment section, you should see a line that says “You are logged in as William White.” Directly under that, a box that says “Join the discussion.” Type your comment in that box, and then click the “Post Comment” button under it on the right. Let me know if you have any questions using the Contact button on the menu at the top of this page. Thanks, William.

From this discussion I see two separate issues being raised, but treated as one. The first is your right to informational privacy under the 4th Amendment. The second is protection from self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment. Regarding the former, nobody is forcing you to use a cell phone or place embarrassing and potentially damning information on it. The Constitution only allows you a degree of privacy until a warrant is issued by the court. When a judge grants a search of your residence or place of work, the warrant can allow for seizure of computers and related media, so your cell phone should be no exception. It is no different than the authorities finding your personal diary or files in your desk during the lawful search, then reading them. Regarding the latter issue, forcing someone to provide their password is a clear 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, therefore jailing the defendant for contempt in this case was wrong.

As others have noted, a court may issue a warrant allowing the police to search the contents of your safe. What the court may not do is compel you to open it. So, the police hire safecrackers, or have someone on staff trained to do the job.

I don’t see how a digital lock is any different, legally, from a physical lock.

I said what Steve said (or at least I tried) on another video (maybe the backstage where they raised this). I think one of the drawbacks for biometric security is that if I point Steve’s iPhone at his face and push the button and it unlocks, he hasn’t incriminated himself. The same for a fingerprint. However he cannot be forced (or, I think his wife cannot be forced) to provide the PIN or passcode or password for any of his accounts, lock screens and etc. and the police have to break in.

I would potentially be ok with a change that lets the police have your phone pass code if, and only if, everyone that obtains info from your phone, whether part of the warrant to search or not, are subject to some extensive time in jail and corporeal punishment while imprisoned, if any information not named in the warrant is shared in any way or any warrant covered information is shared with anyone not part of the case or part of a court convened to judge the owner of the phone.

In the case mentioned, the police officers that actually saw the text notification could be granted to read other texts from that sender, only that sender, and not retain or copy any messages not directly related to the “it” that may or may not have been found. Any other info they share or anyone else who shares any info from the phone would be subject to 20 lashes a day for the next 5 weeks. If the police have no duty to protect and have qualified immunity from the results of their mistakes, they don’t get any special help or treatment abridging my rights.

If a crime is committed, there should be enough evidence outside of my “person/papers and effects” to convict me.

First off, let’s get to the most important business here in the comments section:
Steve, congrats to your Blues for bringing home The Stanley Cup! As a Canadiens fan my two favorite teams are The Habs and whoever is playing the Bruins, and it’s great to see some old Norris Division glory!

I’m still giddy from last night, and I blasted “Gloria” on repeat during my shower this morning.

Exit Quote: “Boston, I think we got your number.”

Heh – the wife reacted to your comment exactly as I did. We both read the first sentence thinking “WTF?” Then after reading the second sentence we both got a good laugh! I’ll have to share that with my Patriots fan coworker – I’m a die hard Eagles fan who is still gloating about SB 52

Leave a Reply