He didn’t give police his iPhone pass code, so he got 180 days in jail Read mor

[Linda]

He didn’t give police his iPhone pass code, so he got 180 days in jail

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article153373524.html#storylink=cpy

I don't know or care about the people involved with this case.

My question to you guys is...

Wouldn't this guys 5th amendment rights kick in to keep him from providing evidence against himself?

Or is it legal for the judges to force him to give up his password for his phone?

[SVPete]

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a block of salt.

The 5th Amendment does not shield against valid search warrants. Nor does it shield against a subpoena. Giving up one's PW, IMO, would be part of one's duty to submit to a search warrant, just as unlocking and opening one's front door would be. In the case of a subpoena, giving one's phone PW is not testifying against oneself.

[Linda]

OK That makes sense. I  hadn't thought of it in that way.

[DumbAss Tanker]

SVPete is basically right, if they had a warrant and he refused to comply.  It wouldn't come out the same necessarily in every State, some of them have much more protective interpretations than others on self-incrimination.  Also if for some reason the actual passcode itself was actually incriminating, such as in a hacking or digital crime case in some way, he might get a different answer from even the same court.

[thundley4]

I had read or seen something, where giving the password is protected under the 5th, even with a warrant, but that if you use a fingerprint to unlock your phone, then your fingerprint would be valid for them to use with a warrant.

Something to do with surrendering your password being an action, but your fingerprint being a thing.

[Linda]

With new technology things seem to change from day to day.

It is kinda hard for laymen to keep up sometimes.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Something to do with surrendering your password being an action, but your fingerprint being a thing.

There's a lot of very complicated law about what is a 'Verbal act' protected by the Fifth, but really the vast majority of these search and seizure vs self-incrimination cases are decided in State courts where they either apply their own State Constitutional law first, or their own unique takes on Federal Fourth and Fifth Amendment interaction law, it's only when you get into Federal District Court that you get a decision that is actually an authoritative ruling on Federal law alone (For instance via a Habeus Corpus collateral appeal), and even then the District Court result may well  get appealed to its Circuit Court of Appeals, and then as we all know the Circuits frequently disagree, putting resolution into the US Supreme Court. Only at that point is the there really a final, nationwide interpretation, but evven then any States that have more-restrictive interpretations or law of their own are still free to follow their own path, as long as it is the prosecution that is disadvantaged by the difference rather than defendant. 

[FunkyZero]

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a block of salt.

The 5th Amendment does not shield against valid search warrants. Nor does it shield against a subpoena. Giving up one's PW, IMO, would be part of one's duty to submit to a search warrant, just as unlocking and opening one's front door would be. In the case of a subpoena, giving one's phone PW is not testifying against oneself.

That's pretty much where I think this should fall.
Warrants shouldn't be handed out to go fishing, but if there is a crime and they believe there is data to support it on the device, then yea... you must surrender the keys.
I don't agree with it as part of regular infractions, traffic stops, etc... just like any other search.
If you are a criminal though, it may be worth 6 months in the stony lonesome to refuse...
I'm all for police powers such as investigative decryption, etc. as a basic idea... But I parted ways supporting it years ago. They can't do it without abusing it.
It doesn't matter to me that 95% of the time it's done right, it's done honestly and it's done for the right reasons. It's that 5% that makes it unacceptable.