Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Jails Defendent For Failing To Unlock Phones (fox13news.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the open-sesame dept.

devoid42 writes: In a Tampa courtroom, Judge Gregory Holder held William Montanez in contempt of court for failure to unlock a mobile device. What led to this was a frightening slippery slope that threatens our Fourth Amendment rights to the core. Montanez was stopped for failing to yield properly. After being pulled over, the officer asked to search his car; Montanez refused, so the officer held him until a drug dog was brought in to give the officer enough probable cause to search the vehicle. They found a misdemeanor amount of marijuana, which they used to arrest Montenez, but they asked to search his two cellphones, which he also refused. They were able to secure a warrant for those as well, but Montenez claimed he had forgotten his password. The result: Montanez is being held in contempt of court and is serving a six-month jail sentence.

11 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. "misdemeanor amount of marijuana" yielded this? by OffTheLip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Outrageous overreach based on the circumstances. It's not like this guywas a threat to national security. Sounds like butthurt cops not getting their way backed by a judge.

    1. Re:"misdemeanor amount of marijuana" yielded this? by umghhh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This reminds me of this quote :"what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak" Somehow it fits here.

    2. Re:"misdemeanor amount of marijuana" yielded this? by blindseer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This judge is betting that the defendant doesn't have the resources to take the case to those higher levels where Constitutional arguments are taken seriously.

      Chances are if some civil liberties organization decides to provide free legal counsel to see a precedent set by a higher court then they just drop the demand to unlock the phone and the ability to prevent future abuse is denied.

      I'm thinking we need a new standard on what grants standing for taking bad law to court.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:"misdemeanor amount of marijuana" yielded this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In any country with a proper rule of law, there has a be a remedy for willful non-compliance with a lawfully issued court order. Contempt of court is refusing to comply with a court order, and a judge can order a person to be jailed until they comply. Any country with a functioning court system must have a mechanism for enforcing court orders.

      The judge ordered the defendant to be jailed until he complies with the court order to provide the passwords. Determining whether non-compliance is willful is not something that can be determined with 100% certainty, so it is applied at the discretion of the judge.

      More alarming is what might be described as the defendant being held in "contempt of cop" (not a legal term). That refers to someone who is detained by law enforcement being further detained and subject to searches on the basis that they refused to waive their rights or perhaps just disrespected the cop. The act of refusing to waive rights leads to dubious claims of probable cause and a fishing expedition by law enforcement. That seems to be the bigger problem.

    4. Re:"misdemeanor amount of marijuana" yielded this? by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At low levels, the JUDGE is the law, unless the defendant has the resources to run the judge up the flagpole. In this case, the guy is probably going to serve his time and the tell the story of how he was f*ed by the system for the rest of his life, further degrading faith in the system and further diminishing the likelihood that anyone will bother to invest time and resources in fixing it.

    5. Re:"misdemeanor amount of marijuana" yielded this? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The judge is supposed to put aside their opinion, and rule based on the law, which requires proof beyond doubt for a guilty verdict.

      Two things.

      First, "reasonable doubt". The "reasonable" is important.

      Second, he's in jail for Contempt of Court. It's pretty clear that he was guilty of that. He should have taken the Fifth instead. But "I forgot" is so clearly telling the Judge "yuck fou" that Contempt of Court was a slam-dunk.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:"misdemeanor amount of marijuana" yielded this? by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, it may not be unreasonable search and seizure. The article is written a bit one sided. If the cop smelled marijuana in the car, he/she was well within their rights to search the vehicle.

      Bullcrap. Cops use the "I smell marijuana" excuse to violate citizen rights on a daily basis. I once refused to have my car searched, the cop says in a sarcastic tone "oh, I smell marijuana!" and proceeded to start searching. I said "why did you even ask?" Which nearly got the shit kicked out of me for. 5 cop cars and 2 hours later and they found nothing because there was nothing and never had been. I guess I'm lucky they forgot to bring thier own drugs and plant them on me, or give me 10 conflicting commands then summarily execute me with thier firearms when it's impossible to comply.

  2. Re:Akin to a warrant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But you would not expect your home to be served a search warrent for a misdemeanor amount of weed in your car for a traffic stop either.

  3. Holder by mentil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously Judge Holder wanted to show he held the power in that situation, so he held the defendant in contempt, leading to him being held in a cell for six months and beholding being beheld to the law despite holding onto his passwords, leading to a holding pattern to see if the appeals hold up, holding America in a state of held breath until the man's constitutional rights are upheld.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  4. Re:Akin to a warrant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    K9 units are referred to as probable cause on four legs. Since an officer can easily indicate to the dog that they want the dog to perform an alert (and can do so in a way that isn't obvious to normal people) the probable cause they grant is largely bullshit just like the polygraph.

  5. Re:Not clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is considered equivalent to requiring somebody to give the key to a safe in a physical search.

    Which is a real shame, because it is nothing like that at all. It is closer to being forced to reveal the combination to a safe, when the combination only exists in your head. The difference is, that if you exercise your right to remain silent, the cops can still crack open the safe.

    "Then we need an exception!" you say? No we do not. Another analogy I like to use is to equate an encrypted file system to a physical paper notebook that was written in using a fictional language that only I know. And I cannot be forced to teach the cops that fictional language.