Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Obsolesce said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@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.
There are arguments exactly like that - I think there was on in the news recently. Because we KNOW what's there, he can be compelled to provide the key, etc, etc.
There is a name for it...Do you know if schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? No you can make a reasonable guess based on the evidence outside of the box.
Without actually looking in, you are simply speculating.
Until he says that the speculation is accurate, then it's not speculation anymore (legally speaking.) That's the key. First had admission changes everything, that can't be ignored. It might not be the be all, end all, but you can't gloss over it, it's the core factor to the discussion.
But again, none of this side bar conversation has anything to do with the original topic of "You cannot be compelled to give up your password".
That includes even if the police know you committed some crime.
I confirmed that at least in one state, if the statement is seen as not ambiguous that a court would never hear the case, he'd be straight to jail. The "what a court will hear" situation would not arise because the heresay rule and all that would be bypassed, they don't apply when the suspect admits to the crime.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
The question is simple.
Do you have to give up your password to your personal computing device, because you're suspected of committing a crime?
Answer: No
Other than you - no one, on oneeeee has been talking about his need to give up the password - please drop that from the conversation - start a new thread about that part only..
I've been talking about it this entire time. Scott changed the subject to hide that he's clearly wrong about the legal defense of not having to give up his password.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
But again, none of this side bar conversation has anything to do with the original topic of "You cannot be compelled to give up your password".
That's not the original topic, the entire thread is here. Notice the topic starts with discussing how he could be prosecute successfully based on his admission of guilt.
There was a news article being discussed, which is quoted in the OP, but there was no password or compelled discussion here or elsewhere.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
The question is simple.
Do you have to give up your password to your personal computing device, because you're suspected of committing a crime?
Answer: No
Other than you - no one, on oneeeee has been talking about his need to give up the password - please drop that from the conversation - start a new thread about that part only..
I've been talking about it this entire time. Scott changed the subject to hide that he's clearly wrong about the legal defense of not having to give up his password.
Since I started this conversation, that doesn't make sense. We know that you keep talking about it, but since the very first post we've been pointing out that that's not this conversation and no one else, literally no one, is talking about that at all.
If we were talking about it, I think we all agree, hence why no one is discussing it. It's not a point to discuss.
Even you didn't discuss it until later, after this discussion had started. The original post that this one came from, was only a posting of a news article, nothing more. No discussion.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
As the article states, the person is a suspect in a child-pornography case, and that he said "We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
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.
This is the original topic, of which you've cut or not included or deleted some posts about this. The entire thing started from a stance of you @scottalanmiller saying that someone who has been charged with a crime, must give up their password so the police can convict said person of additional crimes that were eluded to during interrogation of the first time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in [Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
We should work with this example, though a bit different.
Cop: We know you killed Jo
defendant: We both know I did it.this is basically what happened,
Cop: You are here because we believe there is CP on your computer
defendant: "we both know what's on there"that's an admission - because the cop told him first what they thought was on the computer. Of course, what we don't know is the actual conversation before the admission part - I'm assuming hasn't been released.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is the original topic, of which you've cut or not included or deleted some posts about this.
No, every post is here. Go back and look at the original thread, no posts were left behind (I double checked), and when you fork they all stay together and stay in order. There is no modification.
The only "cutting" of any sort is the two posts discussing when to fork the thread were moved into a fork discussion thread that has no content from this one.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
The entire thing started from a stance of you @scottalanmiller saying that someone who has been charged with a crime, must give up their password so the police can convict said person of additional crimes that were eluded to during interrogation of the first time.
Nope, I've never posted anything like that. Not in this discussion or elsewhere. I've pointed out over and over again that you keep responding to a discussion about his admission of guilt as if someone had discussed the compelling of the password, but that you were confused and that that had never happened and you were just arguing with yourself.
And you aren't confused about the person. No one else said that or implied it either. Absolutely no one has implied in any way that they believed or said what you seem to think we said.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didn’t violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
“It’s 64 characters and why would I give that to you,” Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. “We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in [Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
We should work with this example, though a bit different.
Cop: We know you killed Jo
defendant: We both know I did it.this is basically what happened,
Cop: You are here because we believe there is CP on your computer
defendant: "we both know what's on there"that's an admission - because the cop told him first what they thought was on the computer. Of course, what we don't know is the actual conversation before the admission part - I'm assuming hasn't been released.
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder, or something else, as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didn’t violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
“It’s 64 characters and why would I give that to you,” Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. “We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
Except that each instance of CP, is it's own charge. So the police and DoJ need to be able to tally the number of instances to charge the person with.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in [Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
We should work with this example, though a bit different.
Cop: We know you killed Jo
defendant: We both know I did it.this is basically what happened,
Cop: You are here because we believe there is CP on your computer
defendant: "we both know what's on there"that's an admission - because the cop told him first what they thought was on the computer. Of course, what we don't know is the actual conversation before the admission part - I'm assuming hasn't been released.
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.
You know that? You have the transcripts of the conversation from when they arrested him until his admission? They never mentioned CP once? Well - if that's the case, then you are right, he admitted to something, something the cops know, but that seems really weird to admit that "we both know what's there " if they didn't tell him what they thought was there... why would he think they though it was CP? maybe they thought it was dick punch pictures.. and what's wrong with that?
-
Without the defendant providing the password to their computer, can the DoJ and Police charge the defendant with additional counts of CP.
If the defendant was compelled to provide the password to their computer, they would be providing evidence in their own conviction. Which a defendant cannot be forced to do.
If the defendant slipped up, and let the password out or computer unlocked, it's all fair game, but not just because the police are to dumb to figure it out themselves or to crack the encryption.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didn’t violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
“It’s 64 characters and why would I give that to you,” Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. “We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
Except that each instance of CP, is it's own charge. So the police and DoJ need to be able to tally the number of instances to charge the person with.
That is a red herring - of course it's true, and makes for a longer sentence, but he's admitted to at least one. Nothing else really matters. As scott said - in some places, that admission would be the end of - go directly to jail for one count of CP. if they are going for distribution or something, that could be entirely differnt, though, if they accoused him of that too.. his admission would cover that as well, and he can now get jail time for two counts - 1) CP and 2) distro of CP...
Sure they won't be able to get him on 100+ counts.. meh
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder, or something else, as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"
That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.I agree with the example. But disagree with the interpretation afterwards.
The bit in bold... that's why it doesn't mean "anything". It means that what the cops suspect is true, and therefore their claims are all that are needed (under oath, sure.) If he only said that something was in there that would hurt him, that would definitely be ambiguous. My point is that I believe by authorizing the cops' beliefs that he voluntarily removed the ambiguity (once the cops state what it is that they know to be there.)
It's ambiguous to us until the cops state what it is, but once they do, it's not ambiguous anymore.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in [Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
We should work with this example, though a bit different.
Cop: We know you killed Jo
defendant: We both know I did it.this is basically what happened,
Cop: You are here because we believe there is CP on your computer
defendant: "we both know what's on there"that's an admission - because the cop told him first what they thought was on the computer. Of course, what we don't know is the actual conversation before the admission part - I'm assuming hasn't been released.
This is nothing like what happened. They asked for his password and he said "we both know what's on there"
If you need to use a murder as an example, here you go:
Cop: "We want to search your house"
Defendant: "We both know what's in there, and it's going to hurt me"That is not an admission to anything... There could be a really mean dog in there that is literally going to hurt him.
You know that? You have the transcripts of the conversation from when they arrested him until his admission? They never mentioned CP once? Well - if that's the case, then you are right, he admitted to something, something the cops know, but that seems really weird to admit that "we both know what's there " if they didn't tell him what they thought was there... why would he think they though it was CP? maybe they thought it was dick punch pictures.. and what's wrong with that?
Do you know I'm wrong? Do you have the transcripts? The original topic was about him handing the passwords over. Sure it looks reaaaalllyyyy bad because of the context of the entire thing, but I still don't see an admission. I do not think the computer could be used as evidence here because nobody actually saw what was on it.
Sure none of that actually matters, because when it comes up and the jury hears it, it will stick with them. Regardless of if the defense can have the computer evidence dismissed.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Without the defendant providing the password to their computer, can the DoJ and Police charge the defendant with additional counts of CP.
If the defendant was compelled to provide the password to their computer, they would be providing evidence in their own conviction. Which a defendant cannot be forced to do.
If the defendant slipped up, and let the password out or computer unlocked, it's all fair game, but not just because the police are to dumb to figure it out themselves or to crack the encryption.
yeah, he didn't slip up and give the password, instead he slipped up and admitted guilt, while being interrogated.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didn’t violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
“It’s 64 characters and why would I give that to you,” Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. “We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
Except that each instance of CP, is it's own charge. So the police and DoJ need to be able to tally the number of instances to charge the person with.
Valid. Although maybe the cops know of lots of cases.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@Dashrender said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 they shouldn't need it, he told them that they knew what was on there. That should be all the evidence needed.
Edit After Fork: This is in response to the news article:
Suspect can’t be compelled to reveal “64-character” password, court rules
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution bars people from being forced to turn over personal passwords to police, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week.In a 4-3 ruling, justices from Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned a lower-court order that required the suspect in a child-pornography case to turn over a 64-character password to his computer. The lower-court ruling had held that the compelled disclosure didn’t violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he made to police during questioning.
“It’s 64 characters and why would I give that to you,” Joseph J. Davis of Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County told investigators in response to their request for his password. “We both know what’s on there. It’s only going to hurt me. No fucking way I’m going to give it to you.”
Scott's response here tells us that Scott believes the password bit is unneeded. That the admission through comment is all they need to convict the defendant...
so the conversation should be only about the admission, and nothing about the password thing.
Except that each instance of CP, is it's own charge. So the police and DoJ need to be able to tally the number of instances to charge the person with.
That is a red herring - of course it's true, and makes for a longer sentence, but he's admitted to at least one. Nothing else really matters. As scott said - in some places, that admission would be the end of - go directly to jail for one count of CP. if they are going for distribution or something, that could be entirely differnt, though, if they accoused him of that too.. his admission would cover that as well, and he can now get jail time for two counts - 1) CP and 2) distro of CP...
Sure they won't be able to get him on 100+ counts.. meh
But that's the argument being made here. The police want to potentially charge a person with additional crimes, and without the defendants willing participation can they not do that.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
I do not think the computer could be used as evidence here because nobody actually saw what was on it.
But someone did, he did. We aren't talking about what the cops saw, the cops are only in the position of telling us what he says he saw. The computer isn't the evidence, the criminal himself is, is what we are asserting.
