Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the better-treatment-than-if-he's-guilty dept.

On Monday, a US federal appeals court sided against a former Philadelphia police officer who has been in jail 17 months because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. He had refused to comply with a court order commanding him to unlock two hard drives the authorities say contain child porn.

The 3-0 decision (PDF) by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals means that the suspect, Francis Rawls, likely will remain jailed indefinitely or until the order (PDF) finding him in contempt of court is lifted or overturned. However, he still can comply with the order and unlock two FileVault encrypted drives connected to his Apple Mac Pro. Using a warrant, authorities seized those drives from his residence in 2015. While Rawls could get out from under the contempt order by unlocking those drives, doing so might expose him to other legal troubles.

In deciding against Rawls, the court of appeals found that the constitutional rights against being compelled to testify against oneself were not being breached. That's because the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional rights aren't compromised.

[...] The suspect's attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, was disappointed by the ruling.

"The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," Donoghue said in a telephone interview. "Our client has now been in custody for almost 18 months based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination."

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:12AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:12AM (#482646)

    Just like piracy, if he's not depriving the owner of the original, then it's hard to claim he's generating demand. However, if he paid any money for this, that line of argument goes out the window.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:55AM (#482665)

    The funny thing is that they are using opposite reasoning in these cases:

    Movies: Piracy drives down sales, which causes fewer movies to be produced.
    CP: Piracy increases the incentive to produce more.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:26PM (#482716)

    You mean other than the fact that these sorts often trade in them and use their supply as payment for new ones?

    Possession shouldn't be criminal, the trading and creation of child porn is what should be illegal. Having possession be illegal just makes it too easy to frame somebody or to prosecute somebody who might not even know that there's child porn on the device.

  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:25PM

    by Wootery (2341) on Thursday March 23 2017, @12:25PM (#483184)

    Never thought I'd wonder this, but what about ad-funding? Is that something criminals can get away with?