re: 9th Circuit rules Cops can force you to use fingerprint to unlock phone

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).