But if they find it proven through other evidence that you have the decryption key, then decrypting it doesn't give any additional testimonial evidence
I'm sorry, that's complete bullshit. If an act of testimony increases your chances of being found guilty, that testimony amounts to "bearing witness against yourself".
The 5th amendment applies to all incriminating data, no matter what anyone else tells you. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are trying to deprive you of your constitutional rights. Unfortunately, that includes the SCOTUS.
If the government has knowledge of particular documents, they can force you to present them. This includes forcing you to open your safe or decrypting your hard drive.
If the government already knows something, it doesn't need me to do anything. It can use the information that it already knows. If the government doesn't know something, and that something is incriminating, then forcing me to reveal that something violates my 5th amendment protection against being forced to bear witness against myself.
That's some pretty involved mental gymnastics they came up with to work around the fifth amendment. In reality, it's much simpler. Any information a suspect provides is testimony. If that information increases the chance of the suspect being found guilty, then it is incriminating testimony. No one can justly be forced to provide incriminating testimony.
This is probably the most readable treatment of some of the weirder parts of math you'll find. Very appropriate for middle schoolers, that's when I read it first, and that's a great age to show them that math isn't all arithmatic, and how it relates to science. Topics like Cantor's diagonal proof and general relativity are all accessible to middle schoolers with this book.
That doesn't stop them from using products that are only possible because of animal testing. e.g. the PETA VP is a diabetic who used to use porcine insulin, now using recombinant insulin.
so I presume the fact that I liked the show then had a lot to do with my maturity level at the time (low. Really low.)
I'm sorry to hear this has changed.
Ditto. Since when did "mouthy douchebag who thinks he's funny" become the norm for comedians? I miss Bill Hicks...
At least we've got Louis CK. He can do it all. Sophomoric humor ("you don't have to be smart to laugh at farts, but you have to be stupid not to.") and philosophical (Everything's amazing and nobodys happy). That reminds me, I need to watch the new special.
The plot-point was "Denny Crane" couldn't even fly on his private jet because his name was an alias for a terrorist.
Private planes are exempt from TSA regulations. You don't get checked against the no-fly list, and you don't get groped. Those affluent enough to afford their own plane are above the rules the rest of us peons must obey.
1) All my noise? You were the one who asserted that no one would refuse such a search. I only mentioned that I would refuse such a search to make the point that people exist who would refuse. Would I barricade the door? No, I'd just make it clear that I don't consent to the search, then step aside and let them do what they're going to do. I'd follow up with a lawyer later. The fact that you see this as "chest thumping" says more about you than about me.
2) Oh, you think it's the imminent threat justification and not hot pursuit? Do you know what legal justification the police are claiming? I figured it was hot pursuit, as that would provide the probable cause requirement.
Remember that exigent circumstances aren't enough in themselves to justify a warrantless search. The search must also be justified by probable cause, as any warranted search must be. Exigency only saves you time, it doesn't justify searching without probable cause.
Being in hot pursuit of someone would give you probable cause to believe that he is where you saw him going. But without that element, I don't see how you can justify the searches of dozens of houses. One man in a 20 house neighborhood gives you only a 5% probability of finding him. That's pretty improbable. But we don't really know how the police justify this, and we won't know unless someone challenges this in court. I hope they do.
3) Exigent circumstances don't allow you to search for whatever you damn well please. But if you see something "in plain view", that's admissable in court. It's called the plain view doctrine, and it's specifically addressed in the ruling you linked.
The policeman's action directed to the stereo equipment was not ipso facto unreasonable simply because it was unrelated to the justification for entering the apartment
Similarly, a policemans action directed towards cannabis would not be ipso facto unreasonable simply because it was unrelated to the justification for entering the apartment.
Mincey was simply addressing the scope of the primary search itself, and was not overruling the "plain view" doctrine by implication.
The "scope of the search" meaning where you can look. Not what you can see. The objection was that the officer moved the stereo equipment to look behind it, when a man could not have hidden there. Since the warrant was for a man, he's not allowed to look in places where a man can't hide. This does not negate the plain view doctrine.
4) Probable cause.
I'm the one with vast misapprehensions and embarassing myself? You're the one who can't even properly interpret the syllabus to a legal decision.
1) So all the searches were voluntary, unless they weren't but it doesn't matter anyway because they don't have to be voluntary. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here?
2) My distinction between pursuit and hot pursuit was intended to focus on the requirement for imminance and immediacy. It's not enough to be looking for someone. They have to have be on his trail. Continuity is a requirement for hot pursuit, and it's not obvious how this pursuit fulfills that requirement.
3) Read harder: "However, the search was invalid because, as the State concedes, the policeman had only a "reasonable suspicion"â"i.e., less than probable cause to believeâ"that the stereo equipment was stolen.". This search was invalid not because discoveries incident to an exigent search aren't admissible, but because possessing stereo equipent is not incriminating in itself.
4) Nothing new happened on Friday? When was the last time door to door sweeps were considered "hot pursuit"?
1) You just asserted that it was voluntary, which is it?
2) You're right, it's not just limited to hot pursuit, but hot pursuit is what's applicable here.
2b) Good. Not being in Boston, I wasn't aware.
2c) I never said the lock down was a violation of the 5th amendment.
3) This is absolutely untrue. Anything an officer sees during a legal search can be held against you, regardless of whether it was the subject of the warrant or not.
Slashdot Mirror
But if they find it proven through other evidence that you have the decryption key, then decrypting it doesn't give any additional testimonial evidence
I'm sorry, that's complete bullshit. If an act of testimony increases your chances of being found guilty, that testimony amounts to "bearing witness against yourself".
The 5th amendment applies to all incriminating data, no matter what anyone else tells you. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are trying to deprive you of your constitutional rights. Unfortunately, that includes the SCOTUS.
If the government has knowledge of particular documents, they can force you to present them. This includes forcing you to open your safe or decrypting your hard drive.
If the government already knows something, it doesn't need me to do anything. It can use the information that it already knows. If the government doesn't know something, and that something is incriminating, then forcing me to reveal that something violates my 5th amendment protection against being forced to bear witness against myself.
That's some pretty involved mental gymnastics they came up with to work around the fifth amendment. In reality, it's much simpler. Any information a suspect provides is testimony. If that information increases the chance of the suspect being found guilty, then it is incriminating testimony. No one can justly be forced to provide incriminating testimony.
It has hard core devoted fans, but there have never been enough of them.
How many is enough? If they're meeting payroll, that's enough.
If the government already knows about the evidence, they don't need me to provide it.
I guess you're right. If you're wearing a suit, you're probably a complete tool.
Judging people based on their appearance is an indication of immaturity.
My understanding is that familial status is only a protected class for housing discrimination. At least federally.
Why is Louie not on this list?
Only ZUUUULLLL.
Practically all of modern medicine would not be possible if not for animal testing.
Raspberry Pi has hardware accelerated drivers. They just don't have open source hardware accelerated drivers.
This is probably the most readable treatment of some of the weirder parts of math you'll find. Very appropriate for middle schoolers, that's when I read it first, and that's a great age to show them that math isn't all arithmatic, and how it relates to science. Topics like Cantor's diagonal proof and general relativity are all accessible to middle schoolers with this book.
They believe that animal testing is morally wrong
That doesn't stop them from using products that are only possible because of animal testing. e.g. the PETA VP is a diabetic who used to use porcine insulin, now using recombinant insulin.
Either try them or release them. Those are your two civilized options.
so I presume the fact that I liked the show then had a lot to do with my maturity level at the time (low. Really low.)
I'm sorry to hear this has changed.
Ditto. Since when did "mouthy douchebag who thinks he's funny" become the norm for comedians? I miss Bill Hicks...
At least we've got Louis CK. He can do it all. Sophomoric humor ("you don't have to be smart to laugh at farts, but you have to be stupid not to.") and philosophical (Everything's amazing and nobodys happy). That reminds me, I need to watch the new special.
Did you like B&B in the 90s? It's the same damn show. And FWIW, I hate Tosh.
then the cell phone can control your brain
Judging by most cell phone users, we're already there.
None of that includes the no-fly list, or passenger groping.
Spoken like a true authoritarian.
The plot-point was "Denny Crane" couldn't even fly on his private jet because his name was an alias for a terrorist.
Private planes are exempt from TSA regulations. You don't get checked against the no-fly list, and you don't get groped. Those affluent enough to afford their own plane are above the rules the rest of us peons must obey.
1) All my noise? You were the one who asserted that no one would refuse such a search. I only mentioned that I would refuse such a search to make the point that people exist who would refuse. Would I barricade the door? No, I'd just make it clear that I don't consent to the search, then step aside and let them do what they're going to do. I'd follow up with a lawyer later. The fact that you see this as "chest thumping" says more about you than about me.
2) Oh, you think it's the imminent threat justification and not hot pursuit? Do you know what legal justification the police are claiming? I figured it was hot pursuit, as that would provide the probable cause requirement.
Remember that exigent circumstances aren't enough in themselves to justify a warrantless search. The search must also be justified by probable cause, as any warranted search must be. Exigency only saves you time, it doesn't justify searching without probable cause.
Being in hot pursuit of someone would give you probable cause to believe that he is where you saw him going. But without that element, I don't see how you can justify the searches of dozens of houses. One man in a 20 house neighborhood gives you only a 5% probability of finding him. That's pretty improbable. But we don't really know how the police justify this, and we won't know unless someone challenges this in court. I hope they do.
3) Exigent circumstances don't allow you to search for whatever you damn well please. But if you see something "in plain view", that's admissable in court. It's called the plain view doctrine, and it's specifically addressed in the ruling you linked.
Similarly, a policemans action directed towards cannabis would not be ipso facto unreasonable simply because it was unrelated to the justification for entering the apartment.
The "scope of the search" meaning where you can look. Not what you can see. The objection was that the officer moved the stereo equipment to look behind it, when a man could not have hidden there. Since the warrant was for a man, he's not allowed to look in places where a man can't hide. This does not negate the plain view doctrine.
4) Probable cause.
I'm the one with vast misapprehensions and embarassing myself? You're the one who can't even properly interpret the syllabus to a legal decision.
1) So all the searches were voluntary, unless they weren't but it doesn't matter anyway because they don't have to be voluntary. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here?
2) My distinction between pursuit and hot pursuit was intended to focus on the requirement for imminance and immediacy. It's not enough to be looking for someone. They have to have be on his trail. Continuity is a requirement for hot pursuit, and it's not obvious how this pursuit fulfills that requirement.
3) Read harder: "However, the search was invalid because, as the State concedes, the policeman had only a "reasonable suspicion"â"i.e., less than probable cause to believeâ"that the stereo equipment was stolen.". This search was invalid not because discoveries incident to an exigent search aren't admissible, but because possessing stereo equipent is not incriminating in itself.
4) Nothing new happened on Friday? When was the last time door to door sweeps were considered "hot pursuit"?
1) You just asserted that it was voluntary, which is it?
2) You're right, it's not just limited to hot pursuit, but hot pursuit is what's applicable here.
2b) Good. Not being in Boston, I wasn't aware.
2c) I never said the lock down was a violation of the 5th amendment.
3) This is absolutely untrue. Anything an officer sees during a legal search can be held against you, regardless of whether it was the subject of the warrant or not.
4) What shouting?