Phone-unlocking case law is "total mess," may be ripe for Supreme Court review.

Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules::Phone-unlocking case law is “total mess,” may be ripe for Supreme Court review.

  • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.worldEnglish
    252·
    1 year ago

    But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don’t use biometrics.

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      1 year ago

      Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.

      IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A

      • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.

      • APassenger@lemmy.worldEnglish
        18·
        1 year ago

        You’re right. I know your response may seem implausible, but prosecutors have fought against the release of known innocent people.

        It’s not even that they’ll try to get a win. It’s that they can refuse to simply honor justice in its most fundamental forms.

      • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        Cops have also been known to use “parallel construction” in order to launder evidence that would otherwise be considered inadmissible. It’s fucked.