That's been my understanding until now as well... the latest on the case against Samuel Tunick has me worried and second guessing that blanket statement though...

https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/2026/08/03/giving-police-a...

> The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination.

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...

you have the guy sitting in jail waiting for the courts to decide if his grapheneOS wiping his computer after wrong unlock codes is him obstructing.

keep in mind that the "obstruction" charge can be and is abused as a catchall charge.

Can't they just hand it to you say "you enter your passphrase, but don't divulge it to us and then hand us the phone". In other words hinging the passphrase divulging to the 5th can backfire in that respect. It like saying we have a search warrant, you open the safe for us, it's fine if you keep the combination to yourself, we just need to get inside.

He said "jail", not "prison".

There's a difference.

The fifth amendment doesn't do jack shit if they haul you away. After a few years of trials and appeals you might regain your freedom.

Self-incrimination yes, but not for cases when the person compelled has evidence to incriminate another process in a case.

> Maybe in a country like the UK, but not in the US. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination.

SCOTUS: Hold my beer…

:)

I think that the issue is that the law enforcement personnel could make you pass a bad time even if it's covered by the Fifth Amendment. The enforcement could be later than the arbitrary decision.