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

Little do they know my phone doesn’t use a fingerprint to open

Mine requires a sample of my semen to open. They’ll have to suck my d*ck

Ninth Circus.

:Vinny Gambino:

That is bad news for someone with a iPhone 5c.

quote:

---

Big loss for right of privacy

---

The "Right to Privacy" that formed the basis for Roe and that is not actually found anywhere in the Constitution?

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.

Ridiculous. They should at least be required to obtain a warrant first.

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).

It’s a police state! Sad!

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."

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.

---

Jokes on them my background is my dick pic!