That's a problem for me. Charge and prosecute them or let them go. Indefinite detention without a fair and speedy trial is unquestionably unconstitutional.
The contempt power is in the Judiciary Act of 1789, so it's hard to say that the founding generation would have considered it unconstitutional.
Moreover, what exactly would she be tried for? Do we need a trial to establish that she has in fact continued to disobey the judge's order to unlock the phone?
Yes, we probably would need a trial in that instance.
The courts really don't get to hold someone indefinitely without charging them with something.
Contempt is generally used as a quick and dirty hack for someone disobeying the procedures of the court. Not providing a fingerprint to unlock evidence is WAY beyond that scope and probably should require a hearing and trial.
Now, she could be detained while that hearing is proceeding, but that's different that just being jailed for contempt.
She was arrested based on probable cause that she had committed identity theft. The search warrant is the process by which evidence needed to support formal charges.
If that order is lawful, then it probably has a chargeable crime behind it. If it doesn't, then there should be limit.
Compelling someone to open a phone with a fingerprint is far from settled law. It should be litigated properly as part of the trial rather than with a "contempt" charge.
In this instance, it is the court that is attempting to end run an unsettled area of the law using "contempt".
Well imagine a criminal is holding a piece of your property or even a person and not revealing where that is. Do you think it's reasonable to hold them for 30 days and then let them go and say "ah well I guess you can return that/them if you want cuz you did your time."
You can be charged with both. I hope you never have to deal with someone who flaunts the courts in your face. You'll be glad the system works the way it does, if anyone bothers to enforce the law.
So do you think it's reasonable that contempt of court can carry a life sentence without even being convicted by a jury of your peers? Is contempt of court a worse crime than assault or manslaughter?
You have the right to not divulge information from your mind that would incriminate yourself. In the US this is called the 5th amendment.
There's no jury because it's regarding acts that occurred in court, so it's simply not meaningful to have a jury decide the facts of the case when they happened right in front of the judge, who does not need anyone to figure out the veracity of what they just personally witnessed.
The alternative is that people have a right to stop the courts from functioning. Our interests in not having courts that can be easily thwarted probably does outweigh our interests in any single conviction.
It's only forever if you refuse to comply for that long. It is coercive. The justice system does not, because it cannot, ask you to comply. It forces you to comply and it does not take no for an answer or it would not function.
As GP said, that's not true in general. Immunity is offered when the prosecution believes your testimony will result in further arrests or in prevention of future crimes. That circumstance is exceedingly rare outside of episodes of "24".
They can't be charged with contempt over that. Compelling them to do so is forcing them to self-incriminate themselves.
Self incrimination protections are there for a good reason. If the person is on trial, then they haven't pleaded guilty - they say they haven't done what they are accused of. If they are in fact innocent, if the court decided to enforce them into provide this information and jailed them for contempt, it would literally be indefinite because they are innocent and cannot provide information on what they don't know!
I guess that's why a key or fingerprint is allowed - it is definitely something that can be used one way or the other. If they key doesn't work, it doesn't work. Same with a fingerprint.
But a passcode - it is not definitive. The defendant may say they don't know it as someone changed it on them. They then type in a wrong code: how are you going to disprove that?
