-1

If a technology that reads minds existed, would it be legal for authorities in the United States to use that technology to extract incriminating information from a defendant's mind against their will?

Although mind reading technology is currently limited, it is improving rapidly. See, for example, the following article in MIT technology review:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/17/1069897/tech-read-your-mind-probe-your-memories/

and the following wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-reading

I was inspired to ask this question after reading the related question: Why is knowledge inside one's head considered privileged information but knowledge written on a piece of paper is not?

——

Edit June 2024: Per the following news report, it appears that Colorado just passed a law against this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlyRvT92_zA

Nick Alger
  • 115
  • 5

2 Answers2

3

In the US at least, there is no mention of "mind reading" in the Constitution. But should such a technology be developed and actually used to read someone's mind and then that information was used against them in court, I can certainly see an appeal on at least 5th Amendment grounds.

It's also possible that should such a technology become viable, that state legislatures and even the US Congress passing prohibitions on using it under certain circumstances.

jwh20
  • 3,486
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
3

I assume that the mind-search is accompanied with a warrant, making it analogous to a search of your home for evidence. Such a search requires probable cause – let's assume we have probable cause. A search of your home for incriminating evidence does not require your cooperation, which then raises the question about the technology for mind-reading. If the technology "just reads" without require cooperation from the victim, then an appeal to the 5th Amendment is less likely to be successful. If the technology requires the victim to somewhat-voluntarily do something, then a 5th amendment objection is more likely to succeed. In Bram v. United States, SCOTUS provided a 5th Amendment basis for the doctrine that you cannot beat a confession out of a person,

commanding that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

A beating is a clear case of compulsion – force is used to compel you to testify against oneself. Seizing papers which are used as evidence against a person is not the same as forcing the person to testify against themselves. Non-forcefully copying the contents of a mind could be seen as analogous to seizing documents: or not. I don't see that the matter is cut and dried, although if this ever becomes a real issue in the courts, you can be sure that both sides will see this as already having a clear-cut answer.

user6726
  • 217,973
  • 11
  • 354
  • 589