Court: Locked phone is protected by 5th Amendment

"The court reversed the contempt order against Katelin Seo, finding that forcing Seo to unlock her iPhone for police would violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination."

 

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/carmel/2020/06/23/indiana-supreme-court-woman-did-not-have-unlock-phone-police/3242867001/

1 Like

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/00/006fd811b42bb561542996b7ffb15bb36f25449f5f063eacac886919da848ce6.jpg



Nice

Police shouldn't have ever had access without a search warrant or some exigent circumstance where someone's life is in immediate danger.

A win for America

What is she on trial for? 

As I've heard it, the police can't make you give them your pass code. But the can make you unlock your phone if it's locked with something like a fingerprint scanner. It's the difference between revealing something you know, which is protected under the 5th amendment, and something you are. Something you are isn't protected under the 5th amendment.

I don't know the accuracy of all that, but that's how it was explained to me 

sicko -

As I've heard it, the police can't make you give them your pass code. But the can make you unlock your phone if it's locked with something like a fingerprint scanner. It's the difference between revealing something you know, which is protected under the 5th amendment, and something you are. Something you are isn't protected under the 5th amendment.


I don't know the accuracy of all that, but that's how it was explained to me 

Pretty accurate, but it's not consistent across all jurisdictions and SCOTUS hasn't ruled specifically on passcode or biometric lock.

That's a good ruling.  

..

Question:  they can't access your phone, which is a piece of technology. Really it's just a computer, correct?  Following that logic, how can they access your laptop??  Is it because they aren't asking for passwords?

kungfugrip -

Question:  they can't access your phone, which is a piece of technology. Really it's just a computer, correct?  Following that logic, how can they access your laptop??  Is it because they aren't asking for passwords?

I would think this is about ability to force someone to commit an action that may self incriminate.


 


They would not be able to force you to enter your passwords to anything, and conversely they would be allowed through a warrant to break in or hack it.

What about the face recognition phones? Can they just hold it up to your face?

Submissable -

What about the face recognition phones? Can they just hold it up to your face?

That's a gray area that I haven't seen challenged in court yet. The using a fingerprint I believe was upheld because it's something you are, but passcode is protected because it's something you know. I think they can hold the phone up to your face to unlock it, but I don't know if they can force you to look at it to unlock it.


Interestingly, as questions like these have come up, both iOS and Android have come out with features to lock your device and require a pass code to unlock it (so a fingerprint or face scan won't unlock it) 

Submissable -

What about the face recognition phones? Can they just hold it up to your face?

They can hold it up to my face but they can’t make me look at it. Modern problems require silly solutions!

Or you can make a funny face that your phone won't recognize.

People often say they vote for Trump because of his SCOTUS picks. But the conservative judges are the ones who'll take privacy away from people. They dissented in the Carpenter vs. USA case, for example.

Careful what you wish for. Right leaning judges are more pro-police state than left leaning judges.

Flavorful -

People often say they vote for Trump because of his SCOTUS picks. But the conservative judges are the ones who'll take privacy away from people. They dissented in the Carpenter vs. USA case, for example.


Careful what you wish for. Right leaning judges are more pro-police state than left leaning judges.

This is mostly true, yes, we saw it with all the patriot act BS.  But it's the situation with both sides, you'll have some bad with the good on SCOTUS judges.  Pick your poison.  Personally I'd still rather have judges that follow the constitution (mostly) and don't have an agenda against 2A or 1A.