(June 25, 2016 at 6:08 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:(June 25, 2016 at 4:57 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I agree with you in this line of thinking. The problem is that in our legal system, the presumption of innocence is a nice myth and the fifth amendment means nothing in the face if getting re-elected which they need lots of convictions for.
See my comment above; I think this is a misinterpretation of the fifth amendment. An officer can force you to let them in your house if they have a warrant. So too can the officer force you to let them into your computer if they have a warrant. This is like saying "having to hand an officer a key to your storage space is self-incrimination for fifth amendment purposes." (Edited to add: if it's not clear, such an argument is specious) The password (like the key) isn't what's incriminating; it's whatever physical stuff is in the computer (storage space).
The fifth amendment is wayyyyy less expansive than most people think. TV has something to do with that.
Let's say that the guy is telling the truth, if only for a hypothetical scenario; in this case, he does not know the password. How could he possibly give the cops something that he does not have access to?
