As case law continues to be developed, it continues to look as though the best way to hold onto your Fifth Amendment rights is to secure your devices with a passcode. There’s no solid consens…
Best description of this I have seen is: the 5th Amendment protects compelled production what you know. It does not protect what you are (fingerprints, hair, etc).
Yep. Passcode unlocks are legally protected, unlike fingerprint unlocks. If you have any desire to keep the police out of your phone, you should not have fingerprint unlock enabled.
Also breathalyzers. You can be compelled to give blood/breath/etc in the course of a criminal investigation and there are no constitutional protections covering you.
still crazy. the person is being held down to have their skin pierced by metal to make it bleed. why the heck is this just casually allowed?! Heck even breathalyzers should have to function without touching you to be legit to me.
It’s not casually allowed. The courts have determined there can be minor intrusions into your body under strictly limited conditions including after a warrant.
Arguing that the whole thing is crazy is pointless because you have no constitutional protection once a judge certifies the circumstances necessitate it.
The prosecutors are the ones pushing to get rid of the warrant requirement for blood draws.
You have the option of refusing the breathalyzers, but most legislatures have the automatic clause that you instantly get treated as failing the breathalyzer test.
Oh. I thought folks were saying without a warrant. just at a stop. I get once the court is involved we pretty much lose our rights. Judges can put you in jail pretty much as they please once your in a court room and of course people are jailed and lose many rights. Not happy about that either granted but I get it.
Or “things you possess,” either. I remember being told (maybe in a college class, but I don’t remember exactly) that you can be compelled to give up the key to a lock, but not the combination to a lock.
Best description of this I have seen is: the 5th Amendment protects compelled production what you know. It does not protect what you are (fingerprints, hair, etc).
So force your phone to require a passcode by holding volume up and off button
Yep. Passcode unlocks are legally protected, unlike fingerprint unlocks. If you have any desire to keep the police out of your phone, you should not have fingerprint unlock enabled.
Also breathalyzers. You can be compelled to give blood/breath/etc in the course of a criminal investigation and there are no constitutional protections covering you.
which is crazy. how is puncturing someones sking and drawing blood against their will not a type of battery
If blood draw is done properly it should be pretty uneventful.
Permanent damage could get a lawsuit to compel a less risky procedure by the cops.
still crazy. the person is being held down to have their skin pierced by metal to make it bleed. why the heck is this just casually allowed?! Heck even breathalyzers should have to function without touching you to be legit to me.
It’s not casually allowed. The courts have determined there can be minor intrusions into your body under strictly limited conditions including after a warrant. Arguing that the whole thing is crazy is pointless because you have no constitutional protection once a judge certifies the circumstances necessitate it.
The prosecutors are the ones pushing to get rid of the warrant requirement for blood draws.
You have the option of refusing the breathalyzers, but most legislatures have the automatic clause that you instantly get treated as failing the breathalyzer test.
Oh. I thought folks were saying without a warrant. just at a stop. I get once the court is involved we pretty much lose our rights. Judges can put you in jail pretty much as they please once your in a court room and of course people are jailed and lose many rights. Not happy about that either granted but I get it.
Or “things you possess,” either. I remember being told (maybe in a college class, but I don’t remember exactly) that you can be compelled to give up the key to a lock, but not the combination to a lock.