Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I hope they review People vs Sneed next

https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-fourth-appellate-district/2021/4-21-0180.html

(Unironically a case on point)

!codecels

@AlcoholicAttorney

Last week, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors violated a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination when they presented testimony about his refusal to give police the passcode to his cell phone. In State v. Valdez, the court found that verbally telling police a passcode is “testimonial” under the Fifth Amendment, and that the so-called foregone conclusion exception does not apply to “ordinary testimony” like this. This closely tracks arguments in the amicus brief EFF and the ACLU filed in the case.

So basically the prosecution commented on the defendant's silence in refusing to provide his passcode, and you cant do that

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Funny enough, we had a bar association talk on Valdez by one of the prosecutors prior to the decision. His smugness is now tears :marseylickinglips:


Also it's weird to see Utah in the news for non Mormon things, let alone doing the right call for civil rights.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

not like they have a choice, someone could easily lie and say they just recently had to change it but forgot what they changed it to & they're locked out of their email

phone bricked, can't do shit aside from hacking in

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyl#etsgo:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyshapiro:

Snapshots:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Time to fedpost again

:#marseyfedpostyes:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That there is a Mormon conspiracy.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.