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.

10 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Well, jeez folks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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!

  2. Re:Confusing by sabri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These judges should go back to law school and read about the 5th, and why it exists. It's not just about the right to remain silent. It is about the absolute right of a suspect in a criminal case to refrain from any actions which would help the prosecution to convict. A modern day criminal trial is already very uneven with the prosecutor having massive amounts of resources, where a suspect has very limited resources.

    These "judges" are criminals themselves and should be thrown in jail for violating this man's human rights.

    History will judge these fools the same way as the inquisitors who tortured heretics to extract a confession. This is basically the same. Putting an innocent man (until proven guilty) in jail because he refuses to cooperate with the inquisition. And of course they create a precedent like this with a case involving children, so the public backlash would be limited. Where are alt-right patriots when you need them?

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  3. Re: Confusing by Sparowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The issue then becomes, what do you do when you actually do not remember the passcode?

    How do I prove my innocence in "refusing" to provide the code?

    The issue now becomes an unattainable burden of proof on the defendant, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, no?

  4. Re: Confusing by shitzu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As we know from the San Bernardino case, it is not an "unbreakable lock". The government just finds it cheaper to throw a man in jail than pay someone to open the iphone.

  5. Re:Two cases in neighboring Florida counties by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ya it isn't completely clear since the article and summary are mixing cases but I can see a contempt ruling if you agreed you had a password, supposedly provided it, it didn't work, and then you tried to play dumb. While you aren't required to testify against yourself, that doesn't mean you can actively work to try and screw the court over.

    So what to do if you are in a situation where the police demand you hand over a password? Keep your mouth shut. Same advice as defense attorneys will give for all things involving law enforcement. Tell them you want a lawyer and you aren't answering any questions. Your lawyer can then advise you on how to proceed. That is the whole thrust of the Miranda warning: You can keep your mouth shut and not answer any questions and wait to talk to a lawyer. You have that right, and they have to let you know you do. So use it.

    But for sure don't do something stupid like say "Sure here's the code," and give them a fake code. There is no way that can help you, and multiple ways it can hurt you.

  6. Re: Confusing by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is it any different than a defendant refusing to reveal where he hid the tools of his crime? The police suspect that he killed Colonel Mustard in the LIbrary with a lead pipe, but without the pipe, they are unable to prove it. The police could spend millions of dollars combing through many square miles of land looking for the weapon (just like they could spend millions of dollars trying to hack into the device), but can they compel the defendant to reveal exactly where he buried it, even if the defendant claims he forgot?

    I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion it isn't any different. My understanding of the fifth amendment is that for police absolutely cannot compel a suspect to reveal the location of a murder weapon (or incriminate themselves in any way). If investigators can demonstrate probable cause, they can obtain a search warrant to locate said weapon (and other things can be compelled, such as DNA or fingerprints). However, compelling a suspect (who is innocent until proven guilty) to reveal the location of a murder weapon would be a textbook case of self-incrimination, and a violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

    --

    -Turkey

  7. New way for the spooks to lock you up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Confusing by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its as simple as this. The court cannot make a judgement on the contents of your brain. If you say you forgot your passcode, by the 5th Amendment, the court is absolutely bound to accept that as the end of it. They dont have to believe you, it doesnt matter, the law forbids them from punishing you for it. The express intent of the 5th is to prevent the court from pretending to be mind readers and then acting on it.

    --
    Good-bye
  9. Nice way to frame somebody! by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re: Confusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference between the two being that US Federal and State governments are supposed to be bound by Constitutional rights. That said, coercing someone to confess to a crime actually IS a violation of their human rights. You might work on bringing your government up to speed on that. We did, once, and apparently need to again.