Found this this morning on another website. Thought this might be of interest to some (...36 pages of reading).
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201112268.pdf
One important note I read though... the "foregone conclusion" doctrine... if the defendant admits to having incriminating evidence on the disk, then he may be compelled to decrypt it.
Quote from the PDF...
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201112268.pdf
One important note I read though... the "foregone conclusion" doctrine... if the defendant admits to having incriminating evidence on the disk, then he may be compelled to decrypt it.
Quote from the PDF...
We hold that the act of Doe's decryption and production of the contents of the hard drive would sufficiently implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege. We reach this holding by concluding that (1) Doe's decryption and production of the contents of the drives would be testimonial, not merely a physical act; and (2) the explicit and implicit factual communications associated with the decryption and production are not foregone conclusions.