Court Rules In 'Sextortion' Case That Phone PINs Are Not Protected By Fifth Amendment (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Can authorities access potentially incriminating information on your phone by compelling you to reveal your passcode? Or is access to your phone's secrets protected under the Constitution? The answer, at least in an extortion case involving bikini-clad models, social media celebrities and racy images, is that phone passcodes are not protected, a judge ruled Wednesday. The case stems from the arrest of Hencha Voigt, 29, and her then-boyfriend, Wesley Victor, 34, last July on charges of extortion. Voigt and Victor threatened to release sexually explicit videos and photos of social media star "YesJulz," whose real name is Julienna Goddard, unless she paid them off, according to a Miami Police Department report. Both Voigt and "YesJulz" are big names on social media. Voigt is a fitness model and Instagram celebrity who starred last fall on "WAGS Miami," an E! reality TV show about the wives and girlfriends of sports figures in South Beach. As part of the ongoing investigation into the case, prosecutors have sought to search Voigt's and Victor's phones and asked a judge to order the two to give up their phone passcodes. Prosecutors have obtained the text messages sent to Goddard, but they have been unable to bypass the passcodes on the suspects' phones -- Voigt's iPhone and Victor's BlackBerry -- to search for more evidence. As such, prosecutors filed a motion asking a circuit court judge to compel the defendants to give their passwords to authorities. A judge on Wednesday ruled on behalf of prosecutors and ordered Voigt and Victor to give up their phone passwords, according to Bozanic, Victor's attorney.

Comments

I fear they are right.

[rickb928]

This is discovery. The defendants threatened to distribute photos etc, from unspecified devices and sources. The prosecution wishes to confirm that such photos etc. exist, for without them there is no case. Defendants refuse to permit discovery.

If this were paper files in a locked box, the prosecution would be permitted top saw the boxes in half. The media should not change the law. That a document exists is generally not a Fifth Amendment issue. That the document is purely electronic need not matter.

I've changed my mind on this. On a fishing expedition, prosecutors should be denied secured material they cannot specify. In this case they seem to know just what they are looking for, and where it is. The defense cannot reasonably claim innocence based on the lack of evidence when it is plainly able to prove the lack.

But that's too easy.

Re:As much as I can't stand

[Falos]

I'm not wasting time discussing rights or origin of freedom. There's no need for semantics, because I'm going to discuss raw logistics. The reality, in any words, is that the owner of a password has 100% control and everyone can only "ask" (even with a blowtorch) for it.

This imbalance will (sooner than later if so pressured) manifest itself, no matter how hard the law stomps its feet and yells.

Off the cuff example of manifestation: A password (digital key etc) can send itself off to a random acquaintance, with instructions not to contact you because "an unexpected duress has occurred" and to wait until it passes. The trigger can be a deadman switch or what you will. Obviously the password is now the new unknown.

You can't demand something I don't have. Even with a $5 wrench. Go fuck yourself with the piece of paper you thought was magic. It doesn't matter what you think of Shoulds or Who Grants What or anything because the password is GONE, words will change nothing, discussing it will change nothing, torture will change nothing, you could use a brain slug and it's still G-O-N-E.

They can probably stomp their feet about destroying evidence or something, if they're in a punitive mood. The lawyers can argue about unconfirmed allegations constituting evidence, or measures that were benign when placed, or whatever. Still gooo~oooone.

This is the same stupidity that led to warrant canaries.

Re:Hoof Arted

[silentcoder]

Is it speech ? Or is it "Here's a search warrant, unlock the damn door".

If you really want to get finicky then the order can be changed to force him to enter the passcode himself and, under supervision by an oficer of the court, disable it - and he never has to reveal it.

It's not speech, it's a key - a judge has every right to compel you to hand over the key to private property when a duly justified search warrant is issued pursuant to probable cause.