You won't get fined for just a month.

Are you kidding?! As a cancer survivor, how much do you think you’d have to pay for insurance without this law? Do you think that you'd get any insurance company to cover you at all?

The Obamacare tax penalty no more compels you to buy insurance than the mortgage deduction compels you to buy a house.

Need a hyperloop tube have just one terminus? I mean, can’t one tube have multiple entry and exit points branching out at either end? Traffic would be computer controlled anyway.

It has that right if it has a warrant. Encryption doesn’t have some magical extralegal powers.

It’s a matter of degrees at this point (literally).

BLM =/= Nazi salute. Demanding to be treated equal by the state is not the same thing as demanding that others be treated poorly.

Once again you equate final disposition with the law created.

I work in securities litigation. We deal with the 5th occasionally (because fraud). I agree that they can’t compel testimony that could self-incriminate. Luckily we’re not talking about that here.

And yet a number of courts agree with me...which is why I’m calling this an open question. In fact, even if we both thought that this ruling was complete nonsense, the fact that there are conflicting rulings that all fall within Hubbell means that there is, in fact, an open question.

This isn’t a jury question, and the password is a different issue than his guilt or innocence. This is a court order; there is no conviction involved, and the incarceration is intended to compel, not punish. He could be out tomorrow.

Reread what you just quoted again. I’ll wait.

Yes, violating a constitutional court order will get you incarcerated, even if you haven’t been convicted of a crime. Withholding non-testimonial information would fall under this. Do you think that discovery doesn't exist in criminal law?

I didn’t “stupidly” cite the wiki article. I would still cite it as any idiot can see that the case sets the standard for “testimonial aspect,” a standard which the provision of passwords may not meet. It is, as these conflicting rulings show, an open question. If you think “Hey, but Hubbell won that case, so it must…

Sorry, I wasn’t clear on that point. If the government doesn’t know that you have control of the key (and thus, the lockbox), then they can’t compel you to produce it. I’m discussing cases where there isn’t a question as to control.

The proof could be that it was his computer. It’s not like they don’t know that the hard drive exists, or that it’s his. If he has actually forgotten it, then yes, he shouldn’t be held, but that would require convincing a judge of the memory loss.

Wow, you did a Google search! I guess I could have saved the money on law school then. Or bother with my licenses in Texas and New York. Or spend 10+ (and counting) years as a lawyer. I could have just Googled!

Are you kidding? Do you know how our court system works?

You’re right, they could not force you to tell them where the key was. But they could force you to hand over the key if they know that it is in your possession (say they saw you swallow it). This is similar. They know that the password is in the defendant’s possession, and the act of providing that password says…

This case isn’t in the 11th, and the ruling of that case was limited.