Can you be legally compelled to disclose your password in a criminal investigation? Let's say you use encryption on your computer, and you've been arrested. The police believe there is evidence on your computer, and have seized the computer via a warrant. The police cannot extract any information because your hard drive is encrypted. The police were unable to find the password via other means (such as written notes). You are aware that there is incriminating evidence on your hard drive, so you do not give up the password willingly. Can the police get a court order or otherwise legally compel you to provide the password to decrypt your hard drive? (I imagine this would implicate your right to refuse to answer questions that could incriminate yourself.)
This is a super complex question and no one really knows the answer yet. Orin Kerr is probably the leading scholar on this question, and he generally argues that forced decryption of one's own device is not a Fifth Amendment violation. As I understand it (and oversimplifying by a lot), one key piece of his position is that requiring you to put in your password is a statement about your knowledge of the password itself, not about the contents of the machine into which you are entering it. And because your knowledge of the password for your own devices is presumed, an exception for "foregone conclusions" would leave this compulsion unprotected by the Fifth Amendment. You can read one of his explanations here. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with that approach, but a California judge recently reached a conclusion similar to Kerr's. This will probably by a question for SCOTUS before too long.
First, no, given the wording of the question: &quot;by demanding identity first&quot;. US courts have never held that citizens must immediately comply with non-emergency orders free of back-talk. Let's assume that the refusal is conditional: &quot;I won't comply until you show me your ID&quot;. In most (?) jurisdictions, there is no obligation imposed on police to show ID, though I am excluding home searches. There is a policy requirement in Seattle (§7) that Employees may use a Department-issued business card that contains their name and serial number to satisfy the request for the information. Employees will also show their department identification card and badge (sworn) when specifically requested to do so. Exception: Employees are not required to immediately identify themselves if: An investigation is jeopardized A police function is hindered There is a safety consideration Massachusetts has a law saying that &quot;Such identification card shall be carried on the officer's person and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification&quot;. In the domain of search and seizure law, the court reasoned in Doornbos v. Chicago, regarding a seizure by plainclothes police that Absent reasonable grounds to think that identification would present an unusual danger, it is generally not a reasonable tactic for plainclothes officers to fail to identify themselves when conducting a stop. The tactic provokes panic and hostility from confused civilians who have no way of knowing that the stranger who seeks to detain them is an officer... it is usually unreasonable for a plainclothes officer to fail to identify himself when conducting a stop or frisk As you can see, this identification requirement is tied to constitutional search and seizure limits for which there is voluminous case law regarding what is &quot;reasonable&quot;. The scenario that you propose is fairly far from the kind of case identified in Doornbos: is the order from a uniformed officer in a police vehicle? That seems to be what you're describing. Now we must inquire as to the legality of the order. Picking on Washington state law, RCW 46.61.015 requires that No person shall willfully fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any duly authorized flagger or any police officer or firefighter invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic. RCW 46.61.021 requires a person driving to stop for a LEO, and to identify himself: failure to comply is a misdemeanor. There is no statutory provision that a person can refuse to obey these (or similar sections in the motor vehicle title) until the officer provides ID. A police officer (in Washington: and I suspect any other state) does not have unrestricted authority to give people orders, there are specific statutory circumstances giving police the power to order people to do things. Obstructing a police officer is a crime, but obstructing an officer is where one &quot;willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties&quot;, and not &quot;doesn't cooperate&quot;. There is a provision, RCW 9a.76.030 where A person is guilty of refusing to summon aid for a peace officer if, upon request by a person he or she knows to be a peace officer, he or she unreasonably refuses or fails to summon aid for such peace officer and the &quot;knows to be a peace officer&quot; clause implies either that the officer is uniformed, or has provided identification. Finally, we have &quot;failure to disperse&quot; when a person congregates with a group of three or more other persons and there are acts of conduct within that group which create a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property; and (b) He or she refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant engaged in enforcing or executing the law. These laws are attuned to emergency needs, thus outside the penumbra of your scenario. In short, the primary question must be, when can police lawfully give you an order that you must obey, which narrows the matter down to traffic-related matters. The seizure must be reasonable: it is reasonable to require a person to stop for a uniformed officer. Reasonability does not entail that all officers must produce ID when effecting a seizure, but this may be the case with plain-clothes officers. Even when in Seattle with a departmental policy requiring officers to identify themselves, an officer's failure to identify does not render the seizure illegal.
From the article: The FBI is investigating alleged computer intrusion and theft against an unidentified “victim corporation” involving “confidential or proprietary information,” including tests, test forms and internal emails, according to a search warrant issued in the case. The reference to "computer intrusion" is not precise, but may mean that they suspect a violation of some provision of 18 USC 1030, which makes it a federal crime to access a computer without authorization, or to exceed authorized access, under certain circumstances and for certain purposes. So it's not necessarily just a civil matter. Specifically, 18 USC 1030(a)(2) provides: Whoever [...] intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains [...] information from any protected computer [...] shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Subsection (c) provides for fines and imprisonment for various terms, making a violation of (a)(2) a felony or misdemeanor, depending on circumstances. Subsection (e) defines "protected computer" as any computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication". It seems very likely that the computer in question was used in interstate communication, and that the SAT does affect interstate commerce. The fact that they got a search warrant means that they were able to satisfy a judge that there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the search would yield relevant evidence. We'd have to read the warrant, or the corresponding application, to know more.
Edit: I didn't notice a that this question was tagged for Canada; this answer is based on U.S. law. "Must you stop walking" and "can the police detain you for leaving" are different questions. Must you stop? I'd expect a lot of variation from state to state, but there are definitely situations in which you must stop. In Ohio, for instance, an officer who "reasonably suspects" that that you have committed, are committing, will commit, or have witnessed the commission of violent felony, is permitted to stop you and ask for your name, address and date of birth, and it is a crime to refuse to provide that information. R.C. 2921.29. But at the moment the officer asks you to stop, you're in a tricky position. If you haven't done anything wrong, you'd be inclined to think that the officer has no basis to stop you and that you're justified in walking away. But if someone just called the police and said someone fitting your description just robbed a store two blocks away, the officer has reasonable suspicion that you committed a violent felony, but you have no way of knowing that. This sort of thing happens pretty much all the time. In the absence of that reasonable suspicion, though, Ohio courts have repeatedly held that it is not obstruction for you to just walk away (or even run!) from the officer. Can the police detain you for walking away? Obviously, if you're in a situation where it is a crime to not answer questions, the police can detain you because they just watched you break the law. But what about when you're within your rights not to answer? The police can still detain you with a Terry stop when they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that you are committing a crime, or that you just did, or that you're about to. And they can continue that Terry stop until that suspicion is confirmed or dispelled, or until they can't reasonably expect to get anymore information by detaining you. Based on the facts you described, it seems unlikely that they could legally detain you based on your termination of the conversation. Still, I imagine that there could be circumstances where they might stop someone, ask questions, and then reasonably suspect that the person was engaged in a crime based on his decision to walk away, especially if the person hasn't explicitly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence.
This is a deescalation tactic. By giving some ridiculous far out reason, the officer hopes to distract you from any combative or aggressive feelings you have about being stopped. You can do this too, if someone you think is getting progressively angrier might try and hurt you, bringing up something random forces their mind off their anger, even just for a moment. And sometimes, that's enough to avoid a conflict. As for the legality of telling you the reason, no they are not required to tell you the reason, as has been mentioned several times on stack exchange. If an officer says to himself, "I think this guy has crack on him because of X," and it's captured on his body cam, then he's covered. He can prove to the court that he did have reasonable suspicion to detain you, even if he later tells you, "I have a report of zombies in the area and I need to see your ID to determine if you have a death certificate."
Let us assume that you were high on meth at the time, that you were acting normally (that is, were not smashing windows or other such criminal things), but you had mouth sores and high blood pressure. Let's also assume that you are docile, but don't consent: so you stick around. Even with all of these assumptions working against you, the sheriff cannot force you to take a drug test without a warrant. When he goes to the judge, the judge will not issue a warrant to force you to take a test. Drug tests are forms of searches, which are protected by the 4th Amendment, and they basically require "probable cause" to the effect that you had committed a crime. Given your description of the circumstances, there is no such probable cause (i.e. "most likely that it is true"). The threat to call the sheriff was empty, though perhaps sincerely believed (many people sincerely believe lots of wrong things about the law). You can consent (sounds like you did): as far as I know, if you give in to a suggestion from a nurse that the sheriff will make you take the test (an untruth), that would not invalidate evidence derived from a voluntary search. Every citizen is expected (unreasonably) to know and follow the law, and it is expected that you will know that you have the right to refuse, so you cannot say "But I didn't know I could refuse". You always have the right to refuse any medical treatment or testing. This is true even if your insurance requires you to take a certain test. There could be contractual consequences to violating the contract with your insurance company, but again you cannot be compelled to take a test or undergo a procedure because an insurance company "requires" you to. If, for example, your insurance company requires you to take a meth-abuse screening test, then if such a contract condition is legal in California, refusing to take the test could lead to some insurance problems, like they would cancel your policy. As for financial liability for the test that you didn't really want but agreed to, there is a chance that you could argue in court that you were coerced into the test and thus your apparent consent was not real. You have the right to refuse the test; if the other party, "whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state", then they crossed a legal line and you can sue them, plus any "agreement" that is coerced is null in the courts, and the putative debt arising from the test is also null. You simply have to establish that you were coerced, and not convinced.
The most apparent potential offences would be under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, but these require the mens rea of &quot;knowingly&quot; or &quot;intentionally&quot; doing things without authorization, or doing so &quot;with intent to defraud&quot;, etc. See also the Department of Justice's manual entry on this family of offences. Particularly relevant is this quote: As part of proving that the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally, the attorney for the government must be prepared to prove that the defendant was aware of the facts that made the defendant’s access unauthorized at the time of the defendant’s conduct. Given your stipulation that the person has unintentionally viewed or downloaded the material without authorization, this would not be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
No. The police cannot determine if you have a lawful reason to know the details. Not their job. You can file your civil case using fictitious defendant name and then just apply for a court order to disclose who the guy actually is as part of the disclosure process. Provided that the court is satisfied you have a case, it will grant such order and the police will have to obey it.