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.