Slashdot Mirror
Man Sentenced To 180 Days In Jail For Refusing To Give Police His iPhone Passcode (miamiherald.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from Miami Herald: A Hollywood man must serve 180 days in jail for refusing to give up his iPhone password to police, a Broward judge ruled Tuesday -- the latest salvo in intensifying legal battles over law-enforcement access to smartphones. Christopher Wheeler, 41, was taken into custody in a Broward Circuit Court, insisting he had already provided the pass code to police investigating him for child abuse, although the number did not work. "I swear, under oath, I've given them the password," a distraught Wheeler, his hands handcuffed behind his back, told Circuit Judge Michael Rothschild, who earlier in May found the man guilty of contempt of court. As Wheeler was jailed Tuesday, the same issue was unfolding in Miami-Dade for a man accused of extorting a social-media celebrity over stolen sex videos. That man, Wesley Victor, and his girlfriend had been ordered by a judge to produce a passcode to phones suspected of containing text messages showing their collusion in an extortion plot. Victor claimed he didn't remember the number. He prevailed. On Tuesday, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Charles Johnson ruled that there was no way to prove that Victor actually remembered his passcode, more than 10 months after his initial arrest. Johnson declined to hold the man in contempt of court. Wheeler will eventually be allowed to post bond pending an appeal. If he gives up a working pass code, he'll be allowed out of jail, Judge Rothschild told him.
The snippet above doesn't make clear that the article discussed two different cases. In one case, the guy got 180 days. In the other case, the court let the guy off because the police couldn't prove that he remembered the code 10 months later.
This is two different stories.
Wesley Victor, as it says, is not in jail. Christopher Wheeler, in a completely separate and unrelated case, is.
This has been a public service announcement.
It can't make up his mind about whether he prevailed or failed. And that's because it fails to explain that 'A Hollywood man' from sentence one is not the same person as 'Wesley Victor' from sentence two.
Wesley prevailed. Christopher Wheeler failed.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
I know people are already talking about how confusing that summary is, but I though it was so terrible it was worth repeating.... again... for the 2nd time.
...you people seem to think you have a right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures or something!
The summary doesn't make it clear that these are two separate cases, both in Florida.
Christopher Wheeler is in Broward County and was sentenced to 180 days in jail for refusing to give police his password. He claims he already gave it to them, but the one he gave them doesn't work, hence the contempt of court ruling. Meanwhile, in an entirely separate case, Wesley Victor in neighboring Miami-Dade County claimed he didn't remember the password when he was ordered to provide it 10 months after his arrest, and the judge did not hold him in contempt.
From what I understand (as an Internet armchair lawyer, i.e. IANAL), both of these actually make sense. Wheeler, from the sounds of things, had indicated through his previous actions and testimony that it was his phone and that he knew the password, so supplying the password would not be considered testimonial in nature at that point, which is why passwords typically can't be compelled from people. As such, it makes sense to hold him in contempt of court if he refuses to hand over a password that they've already established he has. As for Victor, it had been 10 months since they had confiscated his phone, and he never claimed to remember the password at that point, so it makes sense (at least to me) that they wouldn't hold him in contempt of court.
What might be more interesting is Victor's girlfriend, who's in the same situation he is, but who provided the wrong password for her phone. If she's NOT held in contempt of court after doing so, it would be interesting to hear what the court's rationale is.
... edit? Oh wait, this is Slashdot. No editing required...
Christopher Wheeler, 41, is in Hollywood, currently facing child abuse charges. The password he gave to the police did not work. His argument is that compelling him to give the police the password is moot because he already gave it. The fact that it is wrong is not his fault for not remembering it correctly. The Judge was not moved and sentenced him to 180 days. The police are giving the explanation for needing the phone because they "suspect he has more abuse pictures on there" -- sounds pretty thin. We don't know. In Florida , A man was jailed for 10 months, on some charge. His lawyer successfully argued that his client cannot give the password because after 10 months away from his phone he cannot remember it. These cases show that the law has no idea how to handle encryption. There is an assumption on the part of law enforcement and those in power that the right to privacy is not something to be protected just an obstacle to be overcome, usually by breaking the rules first and justifying it later. You are supposed to be able to keep your mouth shut. This includes not being forced to reveal documents, recordings, hidden personal belongings, etc. Apparently many prosecutors feel this is a gray area. It is not. But in this Trumpian world we have today, it seems you can escape the law if it makes some people feel better, or it boosts your popularity. The politics of it are "If we can show that by violating this person;s rights, we can convict him, then society will turn a blind eye to the violation." This is the plot of every action movie, every TV cop show, every "hero save the day by breaking the rules" plot. But they never get to the point after where after the rule is broken by the hero, it no longer exists. Once we let these guys jail us for not giving the keys, it then happens to everyone not powerful enough to stop it. We caught a "Child Abuser" so called. So who needs rights? The false equivalency of violating accused persons rights is alright depending on what they are accused of is a Soviet-Era ploy old as time. Old as the story of Robin Hood, which never actually happened, and was a political/religious propaganda story from its origin. State Power vs Citizen rights is always tested, and the argument is always the same -- the people in power claim moral necessity to initially break the right, then just do it as normal proctice afterwards. Until they are stopped by the people.
This is the reason you should never use the fingerprint scanner of you phone. Deniability.
I'm an idiot about the law. Can someone explain why a person can be compelled to give up their password? Doesn't that fall under testifying against oneself, and so protected under the fifth amendment?
After a search warrant is issued if it were for a physical premises you could refuse and it is easier to just blow the locks off and enter with minimal damage as can be done, and do the search anyways. There was never any need to go back and coercively "ask" for the key... but I would suspect that if it were impenetrable we might have had the same situation.
The act of giving a password etc. is not actually incriminating in itself. The only possibility would be that it as an act is proof of ownership of that device. If they have independent proof that that is your device and they have a warrant for "your" device - then they have a right to search it. If you refuse - the judge probably has the power to hold you in contempt of court if he found it unbelievable that you do not know that password. (different standard of proof - perjury would be higher).
There are differing opinions and it will eventually get up to the Supreme Court, so they should probably just "hold" him in contempt but allow him to remain free until the cases reach the Supreme Court for final rulings.
They demand your password, and you hand it over, not wanting to go to jail for half a year. They open your phone, change the password to something random, and lock it. See you in prison.
But when under stressful situations I have difficulty remembering numbers. Ask my my social security number, I won't remember that either.
This is getting way too intense, and I am feel very stressed. can I please go now? No? That seems cruel, and unusual.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Ask for passcode
2. Unlock phone, find no incriminating evidence, change passcode and lock phone again
3. Claim wrong code was provided
Voila, guilty until proven innocent. Which the accused cannot do.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
He wasn't jailed for refusing to give police his passcode, he was jailed for refusing a court order from a judge. That is vastly different than a police officer on the street demanding access to your phone, which the headline makes it sound like.
"This mission is too important to allow you to jeopardize it." -- HAL
Everyone needs a GI phone so that we can spy on everyone without involving the courts. All this privacy is UnAmerican.
"I swear, under oath, I've given them the password," a distraught Wheeler, his hands handcuffed behind his back, told Circuit Judge Michael Rothschild
He had explained that his password was "fourwordsalluppercase"; one word, all lowercase.
that I will buy a cheap feature phone with T9 texting and just use that. I dislike having strange men perusing my tech whilst I travel. No, thank you. Hand them an unlocked feature phone with no programmed numbers and no apps.
The judge should be tried in an international court of law since this is thinly veiled torture. The key point here is that apparently he will be released if/once he gives up the password. It is of course not physical torture, but it is psychological torture.
The SCROTUSES on the SCOTUS that interpret the COTUS for the POTUS need to reverse this decision. But they need the ROTUSES and SOTUSES on the HOTUS, and the GOTUSES to support the SCOTUS in this ruling for the POTUS.
Write to your SCROTUS, ROTUS, and SOTUS and GOTUS to uphold the COTUS for the POTUS!
over their bad economic conditions. It's never had and never will have anything to do with freedom. Give them good jobs, a family and paid vacations like their parents had and they'll dissipate into the wind.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The correct example is a locked safe at home. Cops get warrant to search home... Do u have to give them the safe access code?
...is likely one of these:
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
for (int i=0; i10000; i++) {
printf ("%04d\n", i);
}
}
Can I go free now?
Could someone please please please explain to me why is it not covered under the protection against self-incrimination in the 5th amendment?
My password is "I don't remember".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
So if a judge refuses to take your I forgot the PIN defence and jails you for contempt, excluding a 5th amendment defence what are you to do.
Well this guy now has 180 days to start from 00000 & work to 99999, handing the completed list to the cops with the honest statement, the code is one of the items on this list, now let me out.
But their situations (being required to provide a passcode to access their phones) are the same.