27Jul

A Federal Judge States Forcing Alleged Capitol Rioter To Unlock Laptop ‘With His Face’ Is Not A Violation Of 5th Amendment

Michael Cantrell

A federal judge has ordered a man who is has been accused of participating in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol to unlock his laptop “with his face” after prosecutors in the case stated that the computer probably contains video footage from a helmet-worn camera that would incriminate him.

The defendant, Guy Reffitt, was arrested back in January and has been charged with five federal crimes, including bringing a handgun to the Capitol grounds during the riot and also obstructing justice by allegedly threatening his family, saying he would kill them if they turned him in.

Reffitt has plead not guilty to these charges.

via TheBlaze:

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to America's Sheriff updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

FBI investigators seized his Microsoft Surface Pro laptop and other technological devices after obtaining a search warrant earlier this year, CNN reported. The laptop was password-protected, but the investigators said it could be unlocked with facial recognition technology. Prosecutors believed the laptop contained more than six gigabytes of footage from Reffitt’s helmet-worn camera, which would show that he had participated in the riot and trespassed on the U.S. Capitol grounds.

Attorneys for the defense had argued in court filings that Reffitt couldn’t remember his password and that the search warrant for the laptop had expired.

Prosecutors had asked the judge to compel Reffitt to sit in front of the computer’s camera and unlock it with his face. Judge Dabney Friedrich sided with their arguments, agreeing that forcing the defendant to unlock the laptop did not violate his Fifth Amendment right to be protected from self-incrimination.

This is why it pays to know your constitutional rights, folks. We should be very familiar with the Constitution and the rights it protects from the government, because in our current corrupt system, people will use every trick in the book to circumvent those rights.

The Fifth Amendment grants any person in the United States the right to remain silent if they are being charged with a crime. It also provides protection for an innocent person “who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.”

“Courts have previously ruled that a defendant cannot be compelled to turn over computer passwords. Passwords are considered “testimonial” evidence, which a defendant can refuse to provide to law enforcement because doing so would mean answering a question based on the contents of their thoughts,” TheBlaze reports.

“However, the prosecution successfully argued that those protections do not extend to a person’s physical features, like their face or fingerprints, which can be used in place of password protection and are considered physical pieces of evidence. According to TechCrunch, the FBI also argued in its indictment that ordering Reffitt to sit in front of his computer and unlock it with his face ‘would not run afoul of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,'” the report went on to say.

Like stated above, these people will look for any loophole possible to work around the Constitution and violate a person’s rights. Unfortunately, there are several other court rulings that also support this particular decision.

” In 2014, a Virginia judge said police could compel a defendant to provide his fingerprint to unlock a cellphone that may have contained incriminating evidence because a fingerprint, like giving DNA or a handwriting sample, is physical evidence. Similar cases were decided in 2016 and again in 2017,” TheBlaze notes.

“The self-incrimination analysis for biometric and face scanning would be the same as for Touch ID,” Jeffrey Welty, a UNC-Chapel Hill law professor, stated during a 2017 conversation with The Verge.

“Standing there while a law enforcement officer holds a phone up to your face or your eye is not a ‘testimonial’ act, because it doesn’t require the suspect to provide any information that is inside his or her mind,” he continued.

 

Join the discussion.