Are authorities allowed to use technology to read your mind?
<p>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?</p>
<p>Although mind reading technology is currently limited, it is improving rapidly. See, for example, the following article in MIT technology review:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/17/1069897/tech-read-your-mind-probe-your-memories/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/17/1069897/tech-read-your-mind-probe-your-memories/</a></p>
<p>and the following wikipedia article:</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-reading" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-reading</a></p>
<hr />
<p>I was inspired to ask this question after reading the related question: <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/91415/why-is-knowledge-inside-ones-head-considered-privileged-information-but-knowled">Why is knowledge inside one&#39;s head considered privileged information but knowledge written on a piece of paper is not?</a></p>

<p>In the US at least, there is no mention of &quot;mind reading&quot; 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>

<p>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 &quot;just reads&quot; 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 <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/168/532/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bram v. United States</a>, SCOTUS provided a 5th Amendment basis for the doctrine that you cannot beat a confession out of a person,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>commanding that no person &quot;shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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 <em>testify</em> 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.</p>

united-states privacy fifth-amendment