In general, no.

The contents of your mind are protected because you must take an active part of disclose them. Of course, they can still order you to give them the password and stick you in jail for Contempt of Court charges if you don't.

Check out Habeas Data. It's a fascinating/horrifying book detailing much of this.

To err on the side of caution, it's best to make all your passcodes themselves an admission to a crime.

"Your honor, the state agrees to not prosecute on any information inferrable from the text of the password."

"Understood. The defendant's Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination is secured. As per the prior ruling, the defendant will remain in custody for contempt of court until such time as they divulge the necessary password to comply with the warrant."

I don't know why you're being downvoted. For a start, if it was a third party that had the passcode and refused to divulge it they can be held in jail until they release it, e.g. if your wife knows it. (There are many cases where people have been sentenced to years or decades in prison for not testifying)

If it is you not divulging your own passcode, then legally the judge can't give you contempt, but in reality they could give you contempt until you fought it through the appellate court. Contempt is a special type of thing - certainly here in Illinois you have no right to a jury trial on contempt charges. You're just fucked.

I believe judges can, in fact, hold a defendant for refusing to give up their own passwords, and that the contempt could be indefinite. This is a point of law that is not settled at the federal level yet, and at the state level it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In one case, the appellate court at the federal level simply refused to hear the case that had been decided at the sate supreme court level.

https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/us-supreme-court-nixe...

They don't actually need your passphrase to unlock your phone - they just need somebody with the passphrase to unlock in for them. And if there's any doubt about who that is, then having that passphrase counts as testimonial; but if there's not - it might not count as testimonial.

Although there are apparently a whole bunch of legal details that matter here; courts have in some cases held that defendants can be forced to decrypt a device when the mere act of being able to decrypt it is itself a foregone conclusion.

(If you want to google a few of these cases, the all writs act is a decent keyword to include in the search).

The defendant never needs to divulge the passphrase - they simply need to provide a decrypted laptop.

We really should up our game on encryption, perhaps some kind of time-based crypto rotation that inherently self-destructs rendering the data unusable if you don't authenticate with it every so often. If you are physically unable to unlock a device you can't be compelled to do so.

My passwords are so obscene it's a crime to write them down.

great, so they'll just be able to hit you with lewd charges on top of everything else they are filing.

I think a fingerprint is easier to get if you’re not willing to cooperate. However, I think if they really, I mean really want your password, they will probably find a way to get it out of you. I think it also depends if it’s the local sheriff asking for your password or someone from the FBI while you’re tied up in a bunker somewhere in Nevada.

Apple should allow for 2 PWs, one the real PW, the other triggers a "self-destruct" mode.

Knowing that is possible law enforcement would then hesitate to ask.

using such a self-destruct mode would be a certain way getting yourself charged with destroying evidence/contempt of court/... though.

This would be difficult to prove. They would have to know for certain the evidence was on there to begin with. I don't see the prosecutor easily meeting their burden of proof on this charge.

This is how the statute is worded here in Illinois:

"A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he or she knowingly commits any of the following acts: (1) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence."

Ugh. It's a vague law. I don't even know how they would prosecute that for virtual evidence held on a device that they didn't already have a view inside of.

i was under such duress that i was shaking so badly that i made typos in my 30 character password 10 times. the loss of evidence is not my fault as it is the people putting me under that duress. don't think it'll hold up though

No 5th Amendment protection? If you spoke the command / "password", would it matter?

FaceID can already prevent a device from unlocking if someone is sleeping. In theory devices could detect if they were being unlocked "under duress" by using biometrics to look at facial expressions, heartbeat, etc, and then wipe themselves. I don't know how practical in reality but perhaps it could be a feature you turn on in a sensitive environment.

How? They can physically overpower you and place the sensor against your finger, or in front of your eye and pry it open without your consent and gain access with 0 input from you. How do they similarly force you to type something that requires deliberate, repeated concrete actions on your part?

In my case they threatened to harm my wife if I didn't stop refusing. After my case is over I'll happily release the video tapes so you can see how this shit works.

Please do. Very few people realize just how bad things can get with law enforcement.

no. The 5th amendment has been read weirdly by the supreme court.