cops can force your finger onto a iPhone to see if it unlocks

[Canpinter]

lets say you have a locked safe that the cops have a warrant to search, should the cops be allowed to make you use the key in your hand, or at least give it to them?
if yes how is it fundamentally different if the key is your finger?

[Themius]

Police forcing people to unlock their phone through biometrics is murky. The story OP provided was from April 24th. I saw some stories from January of this year stating a judge denied police from using biometrics to unlock a device. I think at some point this will end up in front of the Supreme Court.

What I think is funny is the police cannot force you to reveal your password to unlock your phone. That is protected by the self incrimination clause of the 5th amendment. I would assume newer models are like mine and require you to input your password before you can use your thumbprint whenever you restart your phone. So if you ever think it will be an issue turn off your phone and force it to require the password. Problem solved.

Link to the story from January saying the police can’t force biometric sign in.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/police...ace-or-finger/

- - - Updated - - -



The 5th amendment only protects you from self incrimination through personal testimony. Prosecutors are arguing that much like how fingerprints or DNA collected at a crime scene are not a violation of the 5th, the use of your image or fingerprint is not protected because it is not gained through testimony.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore ruled that law enforcement could not force suspects to use biometric features to unlock digital devices because using such a feature would be testimonial for purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. In addition, Judge Westmore ruled that the “foregone conclusion” exception did not apply. She thus denied the warrant application.

There is an argument for it.

[Dwarfhamster]

I can see the Supreme Court tossing this out.

[talwynn]

lets say you have a locked safe that the cops have a warrant to search, should the cops be allowed to make you use the key in your hand, or at least give it to them?
if yes how is it fundamentally different if the key is your finger?

Yes they can. Failure to give them the key would probably be seen as obstruction of justice which you would be tried for. Now if you have a combination safe, they cannot force you to give up the combination as that would be self incriminating.

- - - Updated - - -

There is an argument for it.

There is an argument for it. Like I said though, it's incredibly murky. I am against them being able to force you to unlock it through biometrics. The problem becomes what about other forms of evidence. What's the difference between a fingerprint obtained to unlock a phone vs. a fingerprint found on a murder weapon? Does DNA evidence become subject to 5th amendment protections?

- - - Updated - - -

I can see the Supreme Court tossing this out.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. Right now I think the Supreme Court would throw it out. But if Ginsberg dies or retires, and Trump can fill a 3rd seat. That changes ALOT of things.

[FuxieDK]

you mean like the government of a certain western country, that condones removing children from their families, because children were sad in school after their parrents told them, that their grandma died (which according to said government's agency is supposed to not be told to the child, as it could cause them emotional distress)?

That have NOTHING to do with corruption, and you know it.

That's following laws, your lawfully government have passed. If you don't disagree with the laws passed, ELECT A NEW GOVERNMENT WITH DIFFERENT VALUES!!!

We do have free elections in the western world, you know. You can even run yourself, if all the others are not worth your vote.

[Shadowferal]

What's the difference between this, and forced to type in your email password?

[Dethxx]

If they want my dick pics that bad all they have to do is ask

[Shadowferal]

Yeah I have to agree that the 5th Amendment I think would be the argument here.

[Veknazel]

I wonder how many of the people trying to stretch the 5th amendment as wide as possible are also advocates of shrinking the 2nd as tiny as possible.

[Shadowferal]

I wonder how many of the people trying to stretch the 5th amendment as wide as possible are also advocates of shrinking the 2nd as tiny as possible.

Not sure what you imagine you're seeing here.
Seeing as how I'm very pro-2nd Amendment, (and staunchly pro-Castle Doctrine).

[nyc81991]

As long as it's treated the same as searching anything else, it makes sense.

[talwynn]

Fifth Amendment is an answer. I feel you can’t be compelled to give any evidence that would incriminate yourself. As per the constitutional amendment labeled number five. I hope that was clear enough for you.

The 5th amendment doesn’t say that. It just says you do not have to be a witness against yourself. Providing evidence is not the same as providing testimony. If the police find dna evidence at the crime scene, and they believe you to be a suspect, they can and will get a warrant for you to provide a sample for comparison. Failure to do so would result in you being charged with obstruction.

[announced]

fingerprint unlock has always been a joke, same with face ID. Neither of those are even remotely secure and most people should know that.

While I'm concerned that they can force your finger to unlock your phone, most smart people would just use a pass code instead or just don't put anything incriminating on your phone.

[Narzok]

the difference is that

a: they do the work themself, which they are allowed to. they are NOT allowed to force YOU to do that. it's about who does it, not what is done.

b: the evidence is not the physical object, the phone, but rather the data stored on the phone. to access that they, need a form of passcode, be it a password or your fingerprint. if they happen to find your password because you wrote it down and they found it, luck for them, but they are, again, not allowed to force you to take an action that incriminates yourself.

[Narzok]

??? They have the evidence (in this case, the phone) and they forcibly collect other evidences as well like...your finger prints, saliva, hair, semen, urine, items at home via warrant, etc.

This is nothing new.

the difference is that THEY search your stuff and take the evidence.
this would be like them coming into your house with a warrant, point a gun at you and say: "show us exactly where you hide the stuff that is going to be used against you".
in most cases, the end result will be similar, but the process is different. one process is legal, the other violates the 5th Amendment.

[talwynn]

the difference is that THEY search your stuff and take the evidence.
this would be like them coming into your house with a warrant, point a gun at you and say: "show us exactly where you hide the stuff that is going to be used against you".
in most cases, the end result will be similar, but the process is different. one process is legal, the other violates the 5th Amendment.

At this point, it is no worse than them getting a warrant for you to provide dna evidence in a case, which is not protected by the 5th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on how you define witness against yourself.

It’s pretty well defined by numerous court cases. Here is the wiki page so you can see exactly how it is defined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fift...n_a_civil_case

[Kasierith]

Fifth Amendment is an answer. I feel you can’t be compelled to give any evidence that would incriminate yourself. As per the constitutional amendment labeled number five. I hope that was clear enough for you.

You cannot be forced to give direct testimony. You can be compelled to give all sorts of evidence.

[Merie]

This is why you lock your shady phone with a spoken password. Can't force you to speak it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Based on your own link the SCOTUS has indicated you can’t be forced to turn over a password. Your fingerprint amounts to as much on a phone.

It's actually more like a key than it is a passcode...and keys can be compelled.

[Kasierith]

Based on your own link the SCOTUS has indicated you can’t be forced to turn over a password. Your fingerprint amounts to as much on a phone.

- - - Updated - - -




They can seize evidence, there’s a difference.

Never heard of a subpoena? Different from a search warrant, because you have to know exactly what you're looking for and its use and requirements are different. And if you, say, refuse to let a LEO get fingerprints or obtain a blood draw, youll be physically forced at best and charged with obstruction at worst.

Just as an example. Let's say you witness an accident. But you hate the guy who got hurt and don't want to testify. You can be subpoenad as a witness to provide testimony, and because you weren't the party at fault you do not have 5th amendment protections.