Thread by @OrinKerr

On April 18th, the Indiana Supreme Court will hear argument in a 5th Amendment compelled decryption case, Seo v. State. I thought I would post the briefs filed, as they're pretty interesting and not otherwise online.

(Thread w/links follows.)

Note that when the Indiana SCT grants cert, there is no new party briefing unless amicus briefs are filed. If amici file, the parties can respond to adverse briefs. There were 2 amicus briefs filed, 1 each side, so 4 new briefs: the two amici & the two parties replying to them.

The first amicus brief was from eight states, in support of the govt. I was pleased to see that it largely tracks the thinking of my forthcoming article on compelled decryption. Here it is: orinkerrblog2.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/seo-v.…

The defense, Seo, replied to the states' amicus brief with his own reply brief, posted here: orinkerrblog2.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/seo-v.…

(I know I shouldn't, but I can't help but post a picture of my favorite excerpt below.)

The @ACLU & @EFF amicus is next: It first argues that the foregone conclusion doctrine should be categorically inapplicable to compelled decryption. (No court has taken this view, & I think it's wrong, but that's for the Ind SCT to decide.) Here it is: orinkerrblog2.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/seo-v.…

Finally, the government replies to the @ACLU & @EFF amicus brief here: orinkerrblog2.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/seo-v.…

Oral argument before the Indiana Supreme Court is April 18th, and it will be televised here:
mycourts.in.gov/arguments/defa…