Although the venue of the crime was certainly different, the rules for admission of evidence in court for the cases emanating from the January 6th assault on the Capitol remain constant. Usually, evidence obtained from a defendant to be used against that same defendant falls within the category of significant, which is why the government routinely seeks such evidence and relentlessly fights for its admission. For instance, search warrants executed at a defendant’s house or the defendant’s financial institution’s accounts, or conversations with the defendant intercepted over lawful wiretaps or with undercover agents, or informants and cooperators, or from video surveillance usually involve probative and compelling evidence. On the other hand, this same evidence frequently requires the prosecution to elude, and the court to interpret, the parameters of constitutional roadblocks. Thus, the recent case involving one of the January 6th Capitol defendants, United States v. Guy Reffitt, 21-cr-00032 (Dist. Col. 2021), involved the government’s possession of, and the admissibility, of the defendant’s own helmet camera digital video evidence of the events, and will be discussed in detail in this article.

Motion To Compel Defendant To Unlock Device

In Reffitt, the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself was at issue. The prosecution sought to obtain evidence from defendant’s own helmet camera which he had downloaded to his laptop and which the government contended might contain incriminating videos and other information about his activities that day. Consequently, the prosecution moved to compel the defendant to unlock his computer by either facial positioning (facial recognition biometrics) or with a passcode. See Reffitt, supra, PACER, ECF Doc. No. 27, Motion by United States, filed June 18, 2021. The defense opposed the motion to compel the defendant to unlock his computer. ECF Doc. No. 28, filed June 28, 2021.