The Electronic Frontier Foundation claims that 'not giving the police a smartphone passcode' is a constitutional right
In a district court in Utah, the United States, a prosecutor pointed out that 'the defendant did not give the police a passcode for his smartphone during interrogation,' and for this reason he was presumed guilty. Regarding this criminal trial, the
Cell phone passcodes are protected, Utah court rules
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/cell-phone-passcodes-are-protected-utah-court-rules
Court says suspect's refusal to give police a cell phone unlock code is protected by 5th Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs --Standard-Examiner
https://www.standard.net/police-fire/courts/2021/feb/16/court-says-suspects-refusal-to-give-police-a-cell-phone-unlock-code-is-protected- by-th-amendment /
Police Can't Demand You Reveal Your Phone Passcode and Then Tell a Jury You Refused | Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/10/police-cant-demand-you-reveal-your-phone-passcode-and-then-tell-jury-you-refused
The criminal defendant in question is Alfonso Margo Valdes, a 55-year-old man. Valdes was accused of kidnapping, robbery and aggravated assault after threatening his ex-girlfriend with a gun, pushing him into a car, hitting him with a gun, cutting his face with a knife and stealing his wallet and cell phone. rice field.
Valdes told the interrogation that he was not in a hostile situation with his ex-girlfriend, but had a friendly text message to discuss the settlement before the incident. The ex-wife also testified that she had seen the text, but refused to give the passcode to show the message in her smartphone to the detective, who could not confirm the existence of the message.
In a district court trial, the prosecutor took up Valdes' refusal to teach his passcode and allowed the judge to testify to the interrogating detective. In addition, the prosecutor insisted that 'because I did not give the passcode, I should infer that there is no message in the smartphone that Valdes claims,' and the element supporting Valdes' guilt I complained that I would be one.
In the end, the district court convicted Valdes, but Valdes said, 'A constitution that grants the
Judge Joseph Bean of the District Court argues that Article 5 of the Amendment does not apply to 'whether to teach a smartphone passcode', but the Court of Appeals 'teach law enforcement agencies a smartphone passcode'. This is an act of 'testimony' protected by Article 5 of the Amendment. ' In other words, it was decided that the judge's admission of the criminal testimony and the inference that he was guilty based on not giving the passcode violated the rights of Valdes, which is protected by the Constitution. is.
As a result, the Court of Appeals revoked Valdes' conviction in the district court. At the time of writing, the trial has been carried over to the Utah Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union sent a written opinion to the Supreme Court insisting that 'the rights granted in Article 5 of the Defendant's Constitutional Amendment should be protected' (PDF file). ..
In his opinion, 'The state cannot force us to remember and share information that exists only in the suspect's mind. The reality of the digital age amplifies concerns and energizes the protection of the revised Article 5. In accordance with these principles, the Court of Appeals is a testimony to convey the memorized passcode, and the state's use in court of Valdes' refusal to notify the passcode violates the privilege of refusing self-incrimination. I decided. '
Related Posts:
in Note, Posted by log1h_ik