Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
@scottalanmiller Because, and for the last time, you can't be compelled to say something. This is ingrained in the constitution.
You cannot be compelled to give up your password to your computer, period.
Everything you've been harping on is red herrings, none of that matters. The topic was posted about how a court ruled that free speech is still free speech and that a computer password falls under that, and you can't be compelled to give up your password.
Just like the same thing with a cell phone pin code, the police can't force you to tell them what it is. But if you use a finger print reader, they can force you to unlock the phone as that's publicly accessible information - your fingerprints.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
It's still speculation. They don't ACTUALLY know, because they've never been there...
That's the thing, his statement makes it not speculation. That's my entire point. The cops stating what was on there without him stating that is speculation. But he made it admission.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller Because, and for the last time, you can't be compelled to say something. This is ingrained in the constitution.
You cannot be compelled to give up your password to your computer, period.You are SO lost here.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
The topic was posted about how a court ruled that free speech is still free speech and that a computer password falls under that, and you can't be compelled to give up your password.
And I responded so simply and clearly that there was no need for free or muffled speech, any speech at all, when the culprit had already freely admitted to the crime.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Just like the same thing with a cell phone pin code, the police can't force you to tell them what it is. But if you use a finger print reader, they can force you to unlock the phone as that's publicly accessible information - your fingerprints.
And if you tell the cop "the evidence you seek is on there", they can charge you on your admission of guilt anyway, without ever getting your pin or access.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
It's still speculation. They don't ACTUALLY know, because they've never been there...
That's the thing, his statement makes it not speculation. That's my entire point. The cops stating what was on there without him stating that is speculation. But he made it admission.
No he made a statement, and the cops have made him a suspect of additional crimes.
A murder suspect doesn't have to give the cops the location of the body and murder weapon. They need to go and find it. If the suspect gives that information up, it just makes the cops job easier.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
That might be true, but it's also irrelevant. He said that what the "cops knew", was what was on there. I'm not saying that him admitting to the crime actually proves that he did it, I'm saying that admitting to it is all that matters from a court perspective.
It's still speculation. They don't ACTUALLY know, because they've never been there...
That's the thing, his statement makes it not speculation. That's my entire point. The cops stating what was on there without him stating that is speculation. But he made it admission.
No he made a statement, and the cops have made him a suspect of additional crimes.
A murder suspect doesn't have to give the cops the location of the body and murder weapon. They need to go and find it. If the suspect gives that information up, it just makes the cops job easier.
If you mention what they "have to do", you are having discussion with yourself. I'm not sure to whom you are speaking. You quote me, but aren't responding to anything I've talked about.
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm leaning toward Scott's side on this. Really it would be up to you on a jury to hear - the defendant said "We both know what’s on there. " What do you as a juror think he meant? Come on, put on your big boy pants and think about that... what do you really think he meant. it's a piece of evidence that the defendant provided - verbal evidence... so you as a juror can weight it however you want.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm leaning toward Scott's side on this. Really it would be up to you on a jury to hear - the defendant said "We both know what’s on there. " What do you as a juror think he meant? Come on, put on your big boy pants and think about that... what do you really think he meant. it's a piece of evidence that the defendant provided - verbal evidence... so you as a juror can weight it however you want.
Provided voluntarily, which is key. Unless he later argues that the cops pulled a knife and threatened to kill him if he didn't admit to it (which likely there is video showing a normal interrogation) then he's stuck with "he volunteered unnecessary admission."
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
No, the defense could claim he meant his Christmas list...
Defense can claim anything. It's what he actually said that matters, and what he said is that the cops know. So if the cops say, under oath, that it's child porn, then child porn it is.
Did he literally say that he had child pornography on there? I must have missed that part... They still have to prove that it's there.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm leaning toward Scott's side on this. Really it would be up to you on a jury to hear - the defendant said "We both know what’s on there. " What do you as a juror think he meant? Come on, put on your big boy pants and think about that... what do you really think he meant. it's a piece of evidence that the defendant provided - verbal evidence... so you as a juror can weight it however you want.
@Dashrender that doesn't matter.
Whether the defendant and cops know what's on the computer, doesn't mean that the defendant needs to provide access to the evidence of the crime. The police need to get the evidence, and they cannot force a defendant to provide the password to said evidence.
It needs to be provided willfully by the defendant and no coerced AKA compelled speech.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Based on what? Your personal belief that the admission of the defendant doesn't matter? You can't just make it up. I'm just using what was said, which was black and white.
Which you're clearly wrong because a state supreme court has said, no the defendant doesn't need to give up his password.
FFS
the password being given up has NOTHING to do with the fact that the defendant granted that the cops KNOW what's on there. one has nothing to do with the other...
They could go into court with just that statement - show video of them talking about child porn before that.. and then say - ok Jury - what did we know? we knew porn was on there.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Saying "we both know what is on there" is word for word what he said, and that's all I'm using. The rest is just red herrings.
"We both know there is an operating system, a file system, random data of go pound sand I'm not going to willfully give you evidence to charge me with more possible crimes based on what's may be on my computer."
But those things don't hurt him...
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Based on what? Your personal belief that the admission of the defendant doesn't matter? You can't just make it up. I'm just using what was said, which was black and white.
Which you're clearly wrong because a state supreme court has said, no the defendant doesn't need to give up his password.
FFS
the password being given up has NOTHING to do with the fact that the defendant granted that the cops KNOW what's on there. one has nothing to do with the other...
They could go into court with just that statement - show video of them talking about child porn before that.. and then say - ok Jury - what did we know? we knew porn was on there.
How is this difficult?
You are suspected of committing a crime, the police cannot provide any evidence of it other than some statement which could very easily just be free speech.
The defendant here has been charged with at least 1 crime of which the police have evidence.
They want to charge the defendant with more crimes of a similar nature, but cannot provide any evidence of it, other than the statement that the defendant said during interrogation that he wasn't going to give up his password as it would be bad for him.
To bad, to sad, the cops can pound sand of figure out how to break the encryption. Shit they know the password is 64 characters long. Breaking the password at that point is just a matter of brute forcing 64-character passwords into the login screen.
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Saying "we both know what is on there" is word for word what he said, and that's all I'm using. The rest is just red herrings.
"We both know there is an operating system, a file system, random data of go pound sand I'm not going to willfully give you evidence to charge me with more possible crimes based on what's may be on my computer."
But those things don't hurt him...
How do you know?
-
@bnrstnr said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
they suspect based on the statement of someone they've already charged with a similar crime and are attempting to charge with additional, similar crimes.
Nope, That's not the case. If you think this, you've missed the point of the discussion.
They don't think, they know in a legal sense because the person in question has admitted to it. That's it. Over and done, the whole thing. Passwords, eye witness, all pointless background noise.
He told the cops that what they thought was on there was, in fact, there. What more is needed to prosecute?
"Sir, we need to go in your house to see if there is evidence of a murder."
"You don't need to come in, we both know that I murdered the guy."
You don't need to see the body or find the weapon, he admitted to the crime.
This is completely different because this person explicitly admitted to murder. If the police knocked on his door and said "we need to come in and search your house", "We both know what's in there" certainly isn't an admission of any wrongdoing. Maybe when he said it would hurt him, he had pics of himself in cosplay and he was super embarrassed?
Anything the police claimed they knew but didn't actually witness first hand would certainly, 100%, be hearsay.
But so did this guy - by saying they both KNEW what was on there. context of the conversation matters in the this case, and as a Juror I would accept that he just admitted that child porn was on there.
now onto the other point that they need/want the evidence so they can tack on more charges, or find more people involved - to that I say, pound sand.. good luck hacking, because he doesn't have to give you the password, but still.. as a juror on that jury, he's admitted to being guilty and is going to jail.
-
Hold your typing so that we can fork.... unless you are posting a new news article.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Nothing in that statement is evidence, and if it was it would be self incriminating, so the person isn't compelled to give up that information.
Except he told them that THEY knew what was there. In theory, that statement in a court would mean that the cops could testify as to what evidence was there because he granted as evidence that they knew what the evidence was. Therefore, they are witnesses by his admission. That he gave it up and self incriminated isn't a problem, because he did so voluntarily.
I feel that because he admitted to what was on it, he should be forced to give the password.
-
lol I guess we'll see how it plays out in court. I'm not a lawyer, so yeah, I really don't know :man_shrugging:
-
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay
In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy."Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity," This part right here is what makes me think that an officers testimony, as Scott describes, would be dismissed as hearsay.
Unless in the interrogation they specifically asked if there was child pornography and he said "we both know there is", which is NOT what happened, then his statement sounds awfully ambiguous.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay
In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy."Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity," This part right here is what makes me think that an officers testimony, as Scott describes, would be dismissed as hearsay.
Unless in the interrogation they specifically asked if there was child pornography and he said "we both know there is", which is NOT what happened, then his statement sounds awfully ambiguous.
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.
