- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
9th Circuit rules Cops can force you to use fingerprint to unlock phone
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 4/19/24 at 2:57 pm
LINK
Big loss for right of privacy
quote:
The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.
Payne's Fifth Amendment claim "rests entirely on whether the use of his thumb implicitly related certain facts to officers such that he can avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination," the ruling said. Judges rejected his claim, holding "that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking."
Big loss for right of privacy
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:00 pm to AubieinNC2009
Little do they know my phone doesn’t use a fingerprint to open
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:03 pm to AubieinNC2009
Don’t set up the Auto Unlock function whether it’s thumb or facial recognition.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:03 pm to AubieinNC2009
Mine requires a sample of my semen to open. They’ll have to suck my d*ck
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:05 pm to AubieinNC2009
Not if you immolate your finger tips first...
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:08 pm to AubieinNC2009
Ninth Circus.
:Vinny Gambino:
:Vinny Gambino:
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:09 pm to AubieinNC2009
So I guess police will apply this logic to biometric safes?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:09 pm to AubieinNC2009
That is bad news for someone with a iPhone 5c.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:13 pm to AubieinNC2009
quote:The "Right to Privacy" that formed the basis for Roe and that is not actually found anywhere in the Constitution?
Big loss for right of privacy
This is a Fifth Amendment case. The question is whether compelling the use of your fingerprint constitutes self-incriminatory "testimony," and that is a VERY interesting question.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:13 pm to AubieinNC2009
Ridiculous. They should at least be required to obtain a warrant first.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:13 pm to AubieinNC2009
quote:
Big loss for right of privacy
The 9th circuit is the most overturned court.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:14 pm to AubieinNC2009
quote:
charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine.
Interesting if this changes anyone's opinion of the ruling.
quote:
"However, Payne was never compelled to acknowledge the existence of any incriminating information. He merely had to provide access to a source of potential information."
The appeals court cited two Supreme Court rulings in cases involving the US government. In Doe v. United States in 1988, the government compelled a person to sign forms consenting to disclosure of bank records relating to accounts that the government already knew about. The Supreme Court "held that this was not a testimonial production, reasoning that the signing of the forms related no information about existence, control, or authenticity of the records that the bank could ultimately be forced to produce," the 9th Circuit said.
On a theoretical level, I get it, but the 2 scenarios are not comparable in the method/manner and temporal aspects of the prosecution.
The state couldn't subpoena his phone contents if this initial search wasn't deemed fruitful, and the only reason it appears to have been seen as fruitful was the analysis of this phone. In the bank example, the defendant was at a later stage of the prosecution (possibly post-indictment).
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:17 pm to AubieinNC2009
It’s a police state! Sad!
Posted on 4/19/24 at 3:19 pm to AubieinNC2009
FFS, would you use some critical thinking/reasoning and stop posting reactionary bullshite? This ruling doesn't mean police can make you unlock your phone without a warrant, including using your thumbprint to do it.
Here's the context of the ruling.
The dude was on parole and a condition of his parole was that he produce any electronic device within his control and the pass key (in this case, his thumbprint...the "biometric identifier" was probably not a thing when that language was written). General/suspicionless search was part of his parole.
The only ambiguity is that when it was originally written up, pass key/codes were used to unlock phones, so that was the language used. He challenged it based on a technicality, that his thumbprint isn't a "pass code"...and the court said, "sure it is."
Here's the context of the ruling.
The dude was on parole and a condition of his parole was that he produce any electronic device within his control and the pass key (in this case, his thumbprint...the "biometric identifier" was probably not a thing when that language was written). General/suspicionless search was part of his parole.
The only ambiguity is that when it was originally written up, pass key/codes were used to unlock phones, so that was the language used. He challenged it based on a technicality, that his thumbprint isn't a "pass code"...and the court said, "sure it is."
quote:
The Fourth Amendment dispute involved a special search condition in Payne's parole "requiring him to surrender any electronic device and provide a pass key or code, but not requiring him to provide a biometric identifier to unlock the device," the ruling said.
Despite that parole condition, "the search was authorized under a general search condition, mandated by California law, allowing the suspicionless search of any property under Payne's control," the ruling said.
"Moreover, we hold that any ambiguity created by the inclusion of the special condition, when factored into the totality of the circumstances, did not increase Payne's expectation of privacy in his cell phone to render the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the panel wrote.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:00 pm to AubieinNC2009
Remember folks: If you think your iPhone is about to be taken out of your possession, quickly press the lock button five times. This will disable all unlock features and require the passcode to function.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:11 pm to AubieinNC2009
Jokes on them my background is my dick pic!
Posted on 4/19/24 at 4:21 pm to AubieinNC2009
If they have a valid search warrant, I'm sure they can. Good reason to use a strong password.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 7:02 pm to AubieinNC2009
This has more to do with Self-Incrimination vs Privacy. The privacy argument is inherently weaker than the other. However, this should be overturned by SCOTUS…maybe they’ll even extend privacy rights based on this blatant usurpation of the Constitution.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 7:49 pm to AubieinNC2009
I can understand if they have a warrant. That’s like unlocking your door or safe.
But this is supposed to be ok without a warrant?
But this is supposed to be ok without a warrant?
Posted on 4/20/24 at 12:11 am to AubieinNC2009
quote:
Big loss for right of privacy
No such thing
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News