Which covers divulging encryption keys because it is treated the same as compelling you to give up the combination to a wall safe which is testimonial and protected.
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/2026/08/03/giving-police-a...
We'll have to see how that case goes but ultimately the reason he's getting in trouble is only tangentially related to his phone being encrypted. It's more correct to think of it like he smashed the phone to pieces (and imagine this definitively destroys the data for the sake of the metaphor) instead of it being about the encryption itself.
Though I would expect courts to consider that he knew LE planned to enter the provided PIN, and that the duress PIN would then result in the phone being wiped, and therefore accuse him of doing the wiping anyway.
But I don't think it's this guy's fault at all. LE is the one who asked him under duress, he easily could've feared for his life, and he did no direct harm. It was self-defense at worst.
It's been a weakness in destructive duress codes since their inception.
Setting a booby trap to destroy evidence that then gets destroyed when that trap is triggered is the same as destroying evidence. This is common sense, but also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_(criminal_law)
You can still be held in custody for obstruction of justice:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/third-circuit/man-held-in...
It took four years before he could secure his release:
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/blog/suspect-who-refused-to-dec...
keep in mind that the "obstruction" charge can be and is abused as a catchall charge.
He didn't provide an incorrect code, or no code at all, he provided a duress code intended to destroy the device. There's a huge legal difference.
But that's all beyond the point, anyways. If they did hand you your phone and said, "enter your passphrase," you can just say, "I don't remember it." They can throw a fit and put more heat on you in various ways, but until they resort to torturing you or they develop mind-reading technology, there's not much they can do at that point until the case reaches a judge.
That's not to say "I don't remember" is a sound, blanket defense. But it's sufficient for demonstrating that these dynamics all depend on willing participants which is partially why these laws are designed the way they are.
> But it's sufficient for demonstrating that these dynamics all depend on willing participants which is partially why these laws are designed the way they are.
What happens if during serving a search warrant the door is impossible to open or they find a super reinforced safe. Owner can even say "I don't remember the combination"?
There's a difference.
SCOTUS: Hold my beer…
:)