People v. Johnson, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 708

Defendant Ashlee Johnson was indicted for distribution of harmful material and grooming after two minors reported she showed them sexually explicit images on a cell phone recovered from her car.
The recovered phone matched the victims’ description and was passcode‑protected, preventing State access to its contents.
The State moved to compel defendant to either disclose the passcode or unlock the phone in open court; defendant argued disclosure would implicate the Fifth Amendment.
The trial court ordered defendant to unlock the phone; at the hearing she claimed she did not “have” the passcode and later said she could not remember it; the court disbelieved her and found her in direct civil contempt.
The court sentenced her to six months in jail (with a purge opportunity by unlocking the phone); on appeal she argued her inability to remember the passcode made compliance impossible and thus civil contempt improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contempt was proper when defendant claimed she could not remember the passcode	Defendant willfully refused to comply and was physically able to unlock the phone	She could not comply because she genuinely did not remember the passcode; contempt requires ability to purge	Court affirmed contempt: trial court credited disbelief of defendant and found she failed to show impossibility of compliance
Whether the purge provision was deficient because compliance was impossible	Purge by unlocking was appropriate coercive remedy	Purge was illusory if defendant truly could not remember passcode	Court held defendant did not meet burden to prove impossibility; purge provision was adequate
Whether defendant’s burden to show inability to comply was met	State argued defendant made no showing of inability during months before order	Defendant argued memory loss after detention made compliance impossible	Court held defendant bore burden of production and failed to present evidence beyond assertions; record supported contempt finding
Whether Fifth Amendment testimonial protections barred compulsion to produce passcode	State argued unlocking is a physical act and/or foregone conclusion exception applies	Defendant argued passcode is mental content and testimonial	Not resolved on appeal (parties did not challenge the trial court’s underlying legal ruling); court limited review to contempt finding

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) (foregone conclusion doctrine may permit compelled production without Fifth Amendment protection)
In re Marriage of Logston, 103 Ill. 2d 266 (1984) (contempt findings involve factual determinations entitled to deference unless against manifest weight)
In re Marriage of Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d 26 (1990) (civil contempt requires contemnor be capable of performing the compelled act and ability to purge)
United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752 (1983) (burden on party to show impossibility of compliance with compelled production)
In re Marriage of Smithson, 407 Ill. App. 3d 597 (2011) (trial court is in superior position to assess witness credibility)