> If I were innocent and accused of kidnapping someone I'd check with my lawyer and then hand over my phone because it would exonerate me.

I think it's very unlikely that there would be any exculpatory evidence on the phone of someone wrongly accused of kidnapping. It's way more likely that there would be something innocent that can be used as an indication of guilt by the prosecution. I can't imagine any lawyer advising their client to voluntarily give the prosecution that kind of evidence, especially as the client almost certainly doesn't remember everything that's on their phone. Lawyers don't like asking witnesses questions they don't already know the answer to. This is like asking a million such questions with next to no probability of any favorable answer.

> I'm inclined with the ruling, but let's be pragmatic here for a moment and recognize whether or not we're seeking actual just outcomes.

It sounds like you are assuming that the defendant is guilty. Do you have anything beyond a flawed and (at least for now) overturned trial to support that assumption?

> I'd imagine they should make getting a court order for such a serious crime very quickly kind of a priority.

It should never be legal to force someone to give up passwords or otherwise aid in their own prosecution.

"A jury convicted Alfonso Margo Valdez of kidnapping, robbery, and aggravated assault, after his ex-girlfriend (Ex-Girlfriend) testified that he forced her into his car with a gun, threatened her, hit her with the gun, cut her face with a knife, and stole her purse and phone."

...

"I think it's very unlikely that there would be any exculpatory evidence on the phone of someone wrongly accused of kidnapping. It's way more likely that there would be something innocent that can be used as an indication of guilt by the prosecution. "

First, this is kind of besides the point.

Second, it's likely false.

GPS location information is collected by many apps, that right there is quite a lot of good evidence.

Also, communications. That I was writing a long business email to my colleagues indicating the list of 30 or so outstanding bugs in our new delivery software, while I was supposed to be 'kidnapping' someone, isn't going to help their case.

"It sounds like you are assuming that the defendant is guilty. "

I'm assuming that someone charged with kidnapping where the person kidnapped is still alive to identify them - is probably guilty, yes. Because that's reality. Obviously, he may not be, but I'm not judging here, this is all besides the point when we're using it as an anecdote.

Someone charged with kidnapping has a very reasonable likelihood of actually being guilty, which is why we allow police to look at records.

"It should never be legal to force someone to give up passwords or otherwise aid in their own prosecution. "

Ideological rubbish.

It's shameful the magical, academic thinking, detached from the reality of crime and victimization, especially among the hacker crowd.

If there is reasonable grounds that evidence exists somewhere, then the authorities should be able to examine that evidence with oversight and due process.

In this case, it looks pretty much like this guy is guilty, and getting off on a technicality i.e. 'the jury was influenced because of his unwillingness to provide evidence' is total rubbish.

Everyone here is effectively arguing to let someone who literally kidnapped someone at the point of a gun, and cut her face, off on a technicality. It's shameful.

....

FYI this is the guy:

"Valdez and Ex-Girlfriend dated and cohabited for a timein 2017 and, as Ex-Girlfriend recounted it, their relationship was a volatile one. She described Valdez as accusatory and violent, sometimes hitting and choking her, other times confining her in a locked room and once beating her so severely that her injuries required hospitalization. After their relationship ended, Ex-Girlfriend moved out of Valdez’s apartment, but Valdez continued to contact her via phone and text message.Ex-Girlfriend maintained that, after they parted ways, she largely tried to keep her distance from Valdez but acknowledged that she had willingly seen him “a couple times” after their breakup, but before the incident at issue here occurred. ¶3About two months after their relationship ended, Valdez sent Ex-Girlfriend a text message telling her he had some mail to give her and asking her to meet him.Although Ex-Girlfriend had concerns about meeting Valdez, she thought it was “nice of him” to reach out for the purpose of passing along her mail, and she “had hope” that their meeting “would be decent.” Ex-Girlfriend told Valdez to meet her early one morning near her workplaceafter she finished her night shift. When Valdez pulled up in an SUV, Ex-Girlfriend approached the passenger side of the vehicle. She later testified that when she leaned into the open passenger-side window to speak to Valdez, he pulled out a revolver and told her to get in the car. Frightened, she complied, and Valdez began driving. ¶4After Ex-Girlfriend got in the vehicle, Valdez told her “how stupid [she] was” for agreeing to meet him before saying, “I hope you have talked to your kids today, because you are not going to get away from me this time.” Valdez also pulled out a twelve-inch knife, which he wedged, blade pointed upward, between Ex-Girlfriend and the vehicle’s center console. Ex-Girlfriend testified that, as Valdez drove, he held the gun in his left hand, hit her in the head with it, and struck her “several times in the head and face” with his other hand. He also demanded that she give him her phone and purse, which she did, and that she take off her clothes, a demand she perceived asan attempt to prevent her from escaping. Other than beginning to unlace her shoes, she did not remove her clothing. ¶5At one point, while the vehicle was stopped, Valdez dislodged the knife and ran it down Ex-Girlfriend’s face, cutting her lip. Ex-Girlfriend testified that, soon thereafter, she went into “survival mode,” and began attempting to get out of the vehicle, an endeavor Valdez impeded by putting his hand around her throat and holding on to her hair. Eventually, Ex-Girlfriend was able to spin out of Valdez’s grip, open the car door, and exit the vehicle. She then ran toward nearby houses, first knocking on a door and receiving no answer, and then attempting to flag down a passing vehicle. Finally, Ex-Girlfriend noticed a woman (Witness) standing on a nearby front porch and made her way toward that house. ¶6Ex-Girlfriend explained to Witness that she was trying to escape from Valdez, and that Valdez had a knife and a gun and was trying to kill her. Ex-Girlfriend did not mention any injuries, and Witness did not see any blood on Ex-Girlfriend. Witness called the police, and a detective (First Detective) soon arrived and took statements from both Witness and Ex-Girlfriend. "

>"It should never be legal to force someone to give up passwords or otherwise aid in their own prosecution. "

>Ideological rubbish.

The same ideological rubbish keeps many of us from advocating that people with ridiculous opinions like yours be shot on the street. I think that without this ideological rubbish we'd live in a rather more grim world.

> I'd imagine they should make getting a court order for such a serious crime very quickly kind of a priority.

That's the whole point. This was done without a court order, and they used his refusal . There should have been a court order.

Also, the rule is not about unlocking phones. It's about what happens if a defendant refuses to unlock a phone: that fact can't be used against the defendant in court.

The purpose of this rule is not to protect kidnappers, but to protect other people who might be browbeaten or manipulated into incriminating themselves for crimes they didn't commit.