>Then he should be sentenced on the other evidence anyway

Yes, probably. I'm not really convinced that this isn't a violation of the fifth amendment, but I'm not a lawyer.

I suspect a jury would find him guilty anyway, and the fact that he refuses to decrypt his hard drive will likely not help his chances of convincing a jury that he's innocent.

For the punishment to be infinite, wouldn't the courts at every level up to SCOTUS would have to agree to its reasonableness?

(Subtextually, I'm saying: the punishment isn't infinite.)

Why?

He's in possession of data deemed contraband, but apparently not linked to distribution. The police need to demonstrate possession and can do so when their search is complete.

The police did an investigation, obtained a warrant to search for the contraband and seized the hard drive. The defendant was ordered by the judge to decrypt the drive per the warrant, and refused to follow the order. He's in contempt of court, and he can get out of jail very easily -- by complying with the order.

Should this work in the same way when other "data" is in the possession of the accused? Say, a murder suspect is considered by the judge as knowing the location of the victims body, and by refusing to tell the court, the suspect is detained as being in contempt of court.

The murder suspect has the right to refuse to testify against himself. The interesting part here is that this poor fella doesn't face any charges right now, so he has no such right. This is what makes it possible for the judge to jail him.

Unless, of course, he actually has forgotten the password after 7 months+ of not using it.

Because we have the 5th amendment.

   nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

As I understand it, Miranda established that the 5th amendment applies to all interactions with law enforcement, not just answering questions in court. So they can search the hard drive all they want, but the constitution protects us from being required to disclose what's in our heads which, in this case, should include the password.

> As I understand it, Miranda established that the 5th amendment applies to all interactions with law enforcement, not just answering questions in court. So they can search the hard drive all they want, but the constitution protects us from being required to disclose what's in our heads which, in this case, should include the password.

The privilege against self-incrimination applies to any interaction which they introduce into evidence against you in a criminal case, or from which they derive information on which they then gather other evidence that is used against you in a criminal case.

It doesn't actually protect you against the police doing anything, or forcing you to provide information (other Constitutional provisions may, however), it just protects you against certain information being used against you in criminal court.

There's no criminal case right now, so the fifth amendment doesn't apply.

Miranda vs Arizona established that 5th amendment protections apply outside of a criminal case. That's why police have to read the Miranda warning when arresting someone. He's been arrested and read his Miranda rights and is invoking them.

> Miranda vs Arizona established that 5th amendment protections apply outside of a criminal case.

No, Miranda vs. Arizona set standards for how 5th amendment protections apply in a criminal case, and established remedies for violation of those protections in such case.

To be sentenced he would have to be charged, which he still isn't after 7 months...

It's not a punishment. It's being held in contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order. He holds the keys to his own freedom; he has to provide the password.

Detention is punishment for the offense of contempt.