Here's a dilemma for you:

What is a constitutionalist to do? I would not have wanted to be in the judge's shoes. Here's a question- What if they had enough evidence without violating the guy's rights? Shouldn't the protection of privacy have come first?
I'm really confused about this.

__________________

I read the head-line (from a different link) and my first thought was "No brainer. He needs to plug in the password."
But then in reading the article, it drug me to the "Oh wait. They've got a point."

For an analogy...
If somebody had a locked door behind which is thought to be incriminating evidence, could they force a suspect to reveal where the key is?
The very knowledge of the key and its location could be incriminating, not to mention the fact that you can't force the suspect to testify.
The court tries to work around some issues along the lines of "custody / possession is already determined"/"revealing the key will not incriminate", but at the same time another court questioned whether the incriminating aspect of revealing that you have the key was too much to ignore.

For the locked door, the court could conceivably just knock it down. They can pick the lock.
With today's encryption (and today's technology), depending upon the software used, it may be impossible to "pick the lock" without the password.
Does that incapability to pick the lock without the person's help mean the police/judge can mandate the help?

At this point, my constitutional thought process is leading me to "5th amendment protected", although there are a LOT of aspects of this case that lawyers and judges would be much more knowledgeable on precedence.

============================================

As a side-note, if I remember the case correctly, the initial review of the computer at border patrol had the investigating officer SEE the actual porn images.
Some security measure started actuating, and this caused the investigating officers to decide to reboot, which actually cemented the security protection.
But, from what I read, the investigating officer DID SEE kiddy porn on the laptop.
I am curious if they could maintain a successful prosecution based on testimony.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

They argument the prosecutor SHOULD use is that there is a compelling suspicion that the evidence on the hard drive is detrimental to the community (The children is the suspected photos/videos)...That would order a warrant that is mandatorally compliable...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Valid points. Both of you. The scenario this brings to my mind is one presented at a nursing seminar many years ago. A patient was thought to have possession of marijuana in his bedside table or on his person. The hospital could have been sued. And a crime might be being committed. So what should the head nurse do in this situation? The answer given was to hand him a large envelope and ask that he consider placing "items" in it to be put in the hospital safe. When he is discharged, he can retrieve his envelope and its contents are no longer the hospitals responsibility.
So civil rights is an issue here. Just how far we go to protect the public is the question.

__________________

The Customs Officers had already seen the porn. Why can't they charge him on what they saw.?

They could, but that would just be witness testimony a jury may or may not believe...

Hard evidence (in this case, hard-drive evidence ) would be a heckuva lot more compelling to their case...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

But what did the Customs Officer see? Nowhere did I read what he saw. Did he just see a naked child or was it porn. If it was porn then yes I see a need to open the files. However, if it was just a naked child it could be construed to be a form of art. Without knowing what was seen by the Officer I would submit that Judge Sessions was wrong in my opinion.

As a Libertarian I see our rights being taken away on a daily basis by judges who bend over backwards to find a reason why the Constitution should not be adhered to so I always side with the Constitution.

Someone once said something to the effect, "that it is better to let one criminal go free than to lock up ten innocent men," and that is what I fear from our government the most.

__________________
Courtesy of Swissman

A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it.

ANONYMOUS

The article above doesn't specify.
I read another source first and that is where I saw that info.

The case began Dec. 17, 2006, when Boucher, a Canadian citizen with legal residency in the United States, was driving from Canada into Vermont when he was stopped at the border by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspector. The inspector searched Boucher's car and found a laptop in the back seat, according to an affidavit filed with the court by Mark Curtis, a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement who was called in by the inspector.

Boucher said the laptop was his, according to the affidavit. When the inspector saw files with titles such as "Two-year-old being raped during diaper change," he asked Boucher if the laptop contained child pornography. Boucher said he did not know because he was not able to check his temporary Internet files, according to the affidavit.

Curtis asked Boucher "to use the computer" to show him the files he downloads. Curtis reviewed the video files, observing one that appeared to be a preteen undressing and performing a sexual act, among other graphic images, the affidavit says.

Boucher was arrested and charged with transportation of child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison for a first offense.

In Child Porn Case, a Digital Dilemma - washingtonpost.com

You'll note the "check temporary internet files" comment, which to me reeks of him already trying to create an excuse for what he knew would be found.


Actually, the phrase is a little different: ""It is better to let nine (ten, whatever) guilty men free than to convict one innocent man,""

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein