You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
28

[–] JerkSock 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

Wouldn't this be a violation of the 5th Amendment?

1
21

[–] lanre 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

Yes, but the constitution doesn't matter anymore. They're trying to spin it as the same as refusing to unlock a safe.

0
21

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Refusing to unlock a safe should also not be illegal under the constitution.

1
4

[–] Tallest_Skil 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAA LOOK AT THIS GUY WHO THINKS THE CONSTITUTION STILL EXISTS HAHAHAHAHAHA

5
-1

[–] 9-11 5 points -1 points (+4|-5) ago 

The argument is that it is physical evidence, and no different than having a locked safe with physical evidence inside, which you'd have no right to keep from investigators with a proper warrant.

0
19

[–] JerkSock 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Physical evidence (which is only POTENTIAL atm) that can only be accessed by the defendant voluntarily giving up information that is in his head. It all comes back to the 5th; they are asking him to testify against himself. Their argument is spurious.

0
3

[–] JerkSock 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Also, if I am not mistaken, to acquire a search warrant, they must know exactly what they are looking for, and where.