Constitutional Rights Do Not Depend Upon the Seriousness of the Crime (FBI v. Apple)

In the current battle between Apple and the FBI regarding gaining access to the cellphone used by the San Bernardino terrorists, the government has emphasized how great the need is to determine who else might have been involved and honor the obligation to the families of the victims to gather all relevant information. No one can quarrel with the goals and Apple certainly does not, but the motivation is irrelevant if there is a constitutional violation involved in demanding access.

Frequently when judges are criticized for rulings in favor of criminal defendants, the heinous nature of the crime or the brutality of the defendant in committing it are emphasized. But the Constitution does not have a sliding scale for enforcement. The rights afforded are not reduced proportionately as the crime worsens. Really bad crimes and criminals do not receive less rights than those less offensive. So why the government needs this information–no matter how important or understandable—cannot affect the decision as to whether or not it can be compelled. And, of course, in this case Apple is not accused of a crime, but rather as a reluctant witness.

The government also mocks Apple’s defense suggesting that it is based more upon economics than principle. Apple has made a commitment to its millions of customers that its phones are secure, and it has a right and duty to protect that representation. But the most significant aspect of the dispute is the apparent requirement that Apple develop software to gain access to the information the government seeks. If accurate, the government should not be able to compel any person or company to invent, create or manufacture something that will aid law enforcement no matter how pressing or noble the cause.

Among other arguments, Apple asserts its rights under the First Amendment. Although it might be a stretch— compulsion from the government to create software might violate the Thirteenth Amendment as well—the prohibition against involuntary servitude!

SOURCE


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One thought on “Constitutional Rights Do Not Depend Upon the Seriousness of the Crime (FBI v. Apple)

  • March 9, 2016

    Kudos all around to Apple for pushing back! I am sick and tired of civil and constitutional rights being trampled on. The things that disturbs me the most, however, is the way the public just rolls over and buys into the fear mongering rhetoric! My son is correct when he calls them sheeple ….

    Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *