Florida Judge orders reality TV stars to hand over their phone passwords to police

[Master Disaster]

A pair of reality TV stars accused of extortion have been ordered by a judge to give the police their phone passwords and/or unlock the devices so officers can gather evidence from them, obviously the pair claim this move violates their constitutional rights.

Quote

A Florida judge has ruled that two defendants in a sextortion case must hand over the passwords to their mobile phones so officials can search them.

 

Reality TV star Hencha Voigt and former boyfriend, Wesley Victor, are accused of threatening to release explicit images of social media star Julieanna Goddard unless she paid a ransom.

 

The defendants said the ruling broke their constitutional rights.

The judge compared the ruling to 'handing over a key to a safety deposit box"

Quote

But Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Charles Johnson said he was following the law.

 

"For me, this is like turning over a key to a safety deposit box," he said on Wednesday.

The pair are accused of trying to extort $18,000 out of the victim by threatening to release sexual images of her to the public if she didn't pay.

Quote

Prosecutors allege that Ms Voigt and Mr Victor told Ms Goddard to pay them $18,000 (£14,000) within 24 hours, or they would release X-rated videos and photos of her.

 

Ms Goddard, a party promoter and socialite, is a big name on social media where she goes by the name "YesJulz".

 

Ms Voigt is a model and Instagram star who appeared in WAGS Miami, a reality TV show about the wives and girlfriends of sports figures.

The police want access to the phones to check for text messages alleged to have been sent by the couple to the victim.

Quote

Police arrested the defendants last July and seized their phones, having intercepted text messages allegedly sent to Ms Goddard.

 

But they have been unable to bypass the passwords for Ms Voigt's iPhone and Mr Victor's BlackBerry to search for more evidence.

 

As a result, prosecutors formally asked the court to order the defendants to reveal their passwords.

The judge has referred back to a previous case where a precedent has been set and has said " I have no choice but to follow precedent under Florida law". The couple have 2 weeks to comply of the face charges of contempt.

Quote

Lawyers for the defendants said this would violate the Fifth Amendment - the part of US law that means people can not be forced to incriminate themselves.

 

But prosecutors cited a December court decision that allowed Florida police to force a suspected voyeur to give up his iPhone password.

 

On Wednesday, Judge Johnson ruled that he had no choice but to follow precedent. "That's the law in Florida at this point," he said.

 

Ms Voigt and Mr Victor have two weeks to comply with the order, or they could be jailed for contempt of court.

They have both pleaded not guilty to charges of extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion and unlawful use of a communication device.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39804358

 

Well I'm torn on this one, I agree they should have to hand over the evidence to be reviewed but I don't agree they should he forced to unlock their phones to do so. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an alternative in this case.

 

Thoughts and opinions.

[NinJake]

Don't be stupid is the best alternative!

 

Destroy the phones before they got caught/confiscated.

 

Don't be stupid.

 

Unlock phone unless they have more they are hiding and deal with their consequences legitimately.

 

Don't be stupid?!

[Master Disaster]

Just now, NinJake said:

Don't be stupid is the best alternative!

 

Destroy the phones before they got caught/confiscated.

 

Don't be stupid.

 

Unlock phone unless they have more they are hiding and deal with their consequences legitimately.

 

Don't be stupid?!

Well they've admitted the offences and pleaded guilty so its seems very odd the police have had to get a judge to order this. It does make you wonder what else is on the phones.

[snoopunit]

do the police not realize they can access the SMS transcripts by going directly to the phone company?

[Mooshi]

Quote

But prosecutors cited a December court decision that allowed Florida police to force a suspected voyeur to give up his iPhone password.

This is why you don't budge, it gives these yoohoos something to use in the future to overstep citizen privacy. Can we kick Florida out of the union?

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, snoopunit said:

do the police not realize they can access the SMS transcripts by going directly to the phone company?

Unless they're encrypted. 

 

This has been a long time coming, and I don't like where it's heading. Until now it has been illegal to force someone to divulge their password as you're not allowed to incriminate yourself by the fifth amendment. 

[Orangeator]

If the phones contain information that incriminates them on charges other than this extortion case, then they could easily have a case saying that it is self incrimination.

[WMGroomAK]

11 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

This has been a long time coming, and I don't like where it's heading. Until now it has been illegal to force someone to divulge their password as you're not allowed to incriminate yourself by the fifth amendment. 

I can't remember the exact legal case, but isn't there one out there where someone is being held in contempt for not providing the password to access his hard drive to check for potentially incriminating evidence?  Seems like a similar case, as well as the one concerning Apple and the decryption of the San Bernardino shooter phone.  While I don't feel any sympathy for scum being found guilty of being scum, I do think that this should be addressed very carefully so as not to create a blanket 5th Amendment violation.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

I can't remember the exact legal case, but isn't there one out there where someone is being held in contempt for not providing the password to access his hard drive to check for potentially incriminating evidence?  

 

Seems like a similar case, as well as the one concerning Apple and the decryption of the San Bernardino shooter phone.  While I don't feel any sympathy for scum being found guilty of being scum, I do think that this should be addressed very carefully so as not to create a blanket 5th Amendment violation.

I'm not sure, but I know this isn't the first case. There have been several cases where people have been forced to unlock their device with TouchID, and there was a case in December (also a Florida court) that also forced someone to divulge their password:

 

The San Bernadino case isn't self-incrimination. 

 

While I don't care about criminals either, they do still have rights and saying it's okay because their criminals sets a dangerous precedent, and it draws a line and once that line is drawn it can easily be moved around. 

[babadoctor]

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm not sure, but I know this isn't the first case. There have been several cases where people have been forced to unlock their device with TouchID, and there was a case in December (also a Florida court) that also forced someone to divulge their password:

 

The San Bernadino case isn't self-incrimination. 

 

While I don't care about criminals either, they do still have rights and saying it's okay because their criminals sets a dangerous precedent, and it draws a line and once that line is drawn it can easily be moved around. 

How to avoid this happening to you: Don't get yourself into a situation where your information is needed by the court.

 

 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, babadoctor said:

How to avoid this happening to you: Don't get yourself into a situation where your information is needed by the court.

For now.....but as I said, lines can be moved. It starts with only criminals and then it moves on to innocent civilians. 

 

And regardless, even a criminal shouldn't be required to testify against himself. 

[Orangeator]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

While I don't care about criminals either, they do still have rights and saying it's okay because their criminals sets a dangerous precedent, and it draws a line and once that line is drawn it can easily be moved around. 

Agreed, this is a constitutional amendment (5th) that specifically states (in lament terms) you do not have to say a word that could incriminate yourself, saying the password to a safe or phone that contains incriminating evidence IS violating that amendment.

[babadoctor]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

For now.....but as I said, lines can be moved. It starts with only criminals and then it moves on to innocent civilians. 

I don't understand this logic; could you explain it?

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, babadoctor said:

I don't understand this logic; could you explain it?

Right now it only applies to criminals (who also shouldn't be required to testify against themselves). Tomorrow....maybe someone has the slightest suspicion that you did something illegal but no proof, but that's okay, they can now force you to unlock your phone so they can acquire proof. 

[Coaxialgamer]

Where's Florida man when you need him? 

[babadoctor]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Right now it only applies to criminals (who also shouldn't be required to testify against themselves). Tomorrow....maybe someone has the slightest suspicion that you did something illegal but no proof, but that's okay, they can now force you to unlock your phone so they can acquire proof. 

So, my neighbor has the suspicion that I did something illegal, and tells the court this, then the court unlocks my phone and gives it to the neighbor?

Then the neighbor reads through all of my private info?

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, babadoctor said:

So, my neighbor has the suspicion that I did something illegal, and tells the court this, then the court unlocks my phone and gives it to the neighbor?

Then the neighbor reads through all of my private info?

No, it comes down to abuse of the law by the law. Not to mention the bill of rights was put in place to protect the rights of every citizen, this violates the fifth amendment -- the right to not testify against yourself -- under no circumstance should a person be required to testify against themself. 

[ChineseChef]

My fear with this kind of ruling, besides the obvious invasion of privacy, is what happens if you don't know or can't remember the info?  What if they want access to a device or account that you used long enough ago that you forgot the password?  What if you never had the password?  How will they reconcile "I forgot" with "tell us or go to jail forever"?

 

For reference there is the PA cop that has been in jail for 18 months now because he won't decrypt his HDDs.  There is also another case of a woman (I think, would have to find the case again), that has been in jail for 16 years now because she won't say something. 

 

Like others have asked, what happens when the powers that be think you did it, but don't have any proof at all, so they demand full access to everything you have?  In an effort to make you prove you are innocent.  Scary times when the justice system starts officially switching from "gov't must prove/show guilt" to "suspect must prove innocence". 

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Unless they're encrypted. 

 

This has been a long time coming, and I don't like where it's heading. Until now it has been illegal to force someone to divulge their password as you're not allowed to incriminate yourself by the fifth amendment. 

I disagree with the Judge's "lockbox" metaphor. If a locked phone is like a lockbox, the police should be more than capable of breaking it open themselves, according to the Judge's logic. 

 

[Dabombinable]

And this is where I'd wipe the phone as a statement....

[ChineseChef]

28 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

And this is where I'd wipe the phone as a statement....

While this sounds great, when you are facing a potential few years in jail for your crimes, or some insane amount of years for obstruction of justice.  You may just give in, which is what they are hoping for.  And unfortunately, they have the guns so they make the rules.  And unless you are rich, those rules are only there to fuck you over.

[mr moose]

Somewhere so how you guys in the US are going to have to draw a line between protecting deserved constitutional rights and not allowing criminals to hide behind them. 

 

 

[babadoctor]

6 hours ago, ChineseChef said:

from "gov't must prove/show guilt" to "suspect must prove innocence". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

[Zodiark1593]

7 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

For now.....but as I said, lines can be moved. It starts with only criminals and then it moves on to innocent civilians. 

 

And regardless, even a criminal shouldn't be required to testify against himself. 

If it can be proven that the contents of the phone contain evidence that would be detrimental to the case, then a good prosecutor can impress that withholding the password can be seen as destruction of evidence. In this case, the prosecutor can then request an inference. With the Judge's approval, the jury may (or may not) assume that the evidence destroyed is detrimental to the defendant's case. 

 

The key would be to have proof or testimony that would validate the encrypted data as evidence. If this point can be successfully established to the required burden of proof, the fifth amendment would no longer apply. All without a stupid metaphor or trampling over privacy rights. 

[SoftPoison]

A judge extorting the defendants for phone passwords with the threat of jail time in an extortion case. Well isn't that ironic...